Slashdot Log In
"Trekkies" the Movie: The Other Force
from the stuff-to-read dept.
If youre struggling to survive in the mushroom cloud of adoration and marketing, the intergalactic miasma of fried chicken and Jar Jar Blink action figures surrounding the Mother Movie, heres good news: "Trekkies," a new documentary thats quirky, fun, as pure and unheralded as the other one is deafening and over-hyped .
"Star Trek" and "Star Wars," vastly different in many ways, have for nearly a generation been the twin cultural pillars of the ascendant techno nation. Both precede the glory years of the Net and the Web, though millions of fans have since coalesced and communicated worshipped, in fact online.
Both were discovered at the dawn of the Age of Hype, although both were almost instantly absorbed by it. Personally, Ive always leaned towards the "Star Wars" movies to me, better, more imaginative works with much more powerful stories, technology, animation and mythology.
"Star Trek" always seemed a little loopy to me, sort of a futuristic Rainbow Coalition celebrating a loveably diverse cast who couldnt act but compensated with pluck, good heart, and some phasers and transporters.
My own notion is that there are significant class differences between the two cults. "Star Wars" has always attracted a different audience brainier, more techno-centered, perhaps because it has a high-minded sounding High Priest in George Lucas, whereas the Trekkies have to get their inspiration from William Shatner.
This possible difference is borne out by this great documentary (directed and edited by Roger Nygard and released the same week as "Phantom Menace"), which makes clear Trekkies are more idiosyncratic, unassuming, dotty and working class.
"Trekkies" is really the antidote to the "Star Wars" circus, a campaign thats threatening to turn a good series of movies into a new kind of faith and that has driven crass commercialism to grotesque new levels of greed and tastelessness. If you want to wait out the din, "Trekkies" will hold you.
This movie is a love letter to the people who have supported the TV show and movies and who flock to the countless Star Trek conventions every single weekend in America and much of the rest of the world.
These are the folks who study the Klingon language (a Klingon version of "Hamlet" and the Bible are in the works, and theres a hilarious scene in the movie where students try to learn the word "kill" in Klingon). In the film, fans argue about the definition of "Trekker" versus "Trekkie", and worship the aging but game Stars from the shows various mostly tacky incarnations: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, James Doohan and DeForest Kelley to Brent Spiner, Grace Lee Whitney, LeVar Burton, Jonathan Frakes and Kate Mulgrew.
These fans-as-in-fanatics trade action figures and photos and bid furiously for wigs, rubber masks and Federation pistols auctioned off by collectors. From the looks of things, a whole convention doesnt gross one good Pizza Hut tie-in, but "Trekkies" seem to all covet a piece of the action, however small.
By and large, the trekkies in "Trekkies" are good hearted and appealing, even the dentist in Florida who wears a Starship uniform and decorated his office to look like a Federation warship, and whose sometimes rattled patients look up to see the Enterprise hovering about the dental chair.
Some, like the Arkansas woman who wears her uniform everywhere and insists that her co-workers call her "Commander," raise the question of what a life is and who does or doesnt have one. Others, like the astonishingly articulate teenager from Bakersfield, California, who drives to conventions every weekend with his Dad in a "Roddenberry" cruiser (named for Gene, of course, the shows late creator), or the rotund woman who hosts "Talk Trek and Beyond" beamed from Sunland, Calif, to 2.5 million listeners make it clear that they do have lives, but "Star Trek" is mostly it.
This is the right movie at the perfect time. It reminds us just how odd and unpredictableAmerican culture is, especially when it intersects with technology, sci-fi and the screen. In this genre, you dont really even need hype.
When Capt. James T. Kirk and the Starship Enterprise made their debut in l966, the show wasnt much of a hit, and critics accurately panned it a clunky stinker awful acting, bad writing, cheesy sets, pretentious space jargon.
But after years of reruns and re-births, the "Star Trek" fan base grew wildly, even as the spin-offs and movies got more sophisticated. The series went from a TV show to a social phenomenon, a beloved hobby for nerds everywhere, a magnet for the odd and the non-normal.
In "Trekkies", Roddenberrys widow and others try to make a case that the real appeal of "Star Trek" is that it presents a hopeful, diverse view of the world. That doesnt really fly. I think the more accurate explanation is that "Star Trek" has always been so earnest and clunky that its completely accessible, relaxing, even camp.
Good for it, and for this loving documentary about it. You wont see Colonel Sanders out shilling for "Trekkies," or that noxious little rat who works for Taco Bell, either.
If youre like me, and needed a bit of distance between the publicity blitz and experience of seeing The Movie, catch "Trekkies."
Its a sweetly unassuming film with a production budget of roughly $19.98, no marketing tie-in of any sort, nor a single special effect that can still warm your heart.
And speaking of Phantom MenaceS[Fear not. Nothing is Given Away Here}
Its tough to grasp what George Lucas had in mind when he sabotaged this gorgeous, epic and sometimes quite powerful movie with Jar Jar Binks and his bug-eyed nation of witless, jabbering, amphibians.
Its a testament to "Phantom Menance" that its one of the best movies youll see in the next few years despite some space-size flaws that would sink a lesser film or producer. "Phantom Menace" remains true to its core mythology will machines serve us, or will we serve them?, and the quest of the young man to save his world and choose between good and evil. The special effects are truly stunning, even breathtaking. Theres a great new bad guy, and the Jedi stuff still holds up. Yodas swamp has been traded in for a staggering Jedi Council room with the best view in the galaxy.
Lucas should have learned from the nightmare Ewoks, but he didnt. Once again, theres an alien nation inserted into a great story for no other reason than that theyre cute (or perhaps make Kentucky Fried Chicken and Toys "R" Us happy).
The Hans Solo character is sorely missed. Lucas and his movies tend towards self-importance, and Solo jeered at just the right times ("you take the Force, kid, Ill take the money.") Jar Jar doesnt begin to fill Solos ironic and deflating shoes: they simply turn the film into a Disney cartoon at moments when it really wants -- and very much deserves -- to be something else.
Sometimes, the writing is unforgiveably clunky, as when Anakin Skywalker, the young Darth-to-be yells "yippee" when he learns he might be leaving his Mom and heading off with a Jedi Knight. ("Yippee")? Or when Liam Neesons Qui-Gon Jinn portentiously intones "the focus IS the reality!"
But "Phantom Menace" is well worth seeing. Youll get more than your moneys worth, and the stage is sure set for a blockbuster sequel, post-prequel, or whatever. Maybe Lucas will come down off of his perch and chill the Hype. Maybe hell even grasp the notion that theres something wrong when people get sick of a movie before it even comes out.
A few more points about Trekkies (Score:3)
they think the fanatics are crazy, but at the
same time they hear some really inspirational
stories from fans.
Also, I'm surprised Katz didn't mention this
(it ties in nicely with his Hellmouth series)
but one of the main points of the fans was
that sports fans can wear the uniform of their
interest (sports jersey) but if you wear a
star trek uniform then you are treated like
a freak.
Yo, Katz. (Score:3)
I believe the opposite is true. (Score:5)
OTOH, star wars people will usually go into deeeeeeep detail about the history of star wars, and practically have the scripts for all 4 movies memorized. Star trek fans don't do that.
Just my $0.02. Now, let the moderation begin!
--
Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:5)
My favorite science fiction author (and one of my favorite writers in *any* genre), Samuel Delany, said that the true "star" of a science fiction narrative is the episteme - the implicit stance towards the possibilities of human existence upon which the narrative is built. By this measure, Star Trek as an arch-narrative is science fiction (although not necessarily the most sophisticated science fiction, and any given story/show can fail of that charter) and Star Wars is not. Star Wars is simply an epic in tech-fantastic drag. There really is no speculative vision (and don't tell me about The Force, or even Joseph Campbell) that drives Star Wars.
Which is actually fine - when I feel like leaving my mind in a jar at home and getting stupid-kicks, I love that sort of stuff. Unfortunately, the film industry has run with the expectation that science-fiction films be the sort of epic-blockbuster that Star Wars was - it's made it much more difficult to create the good, cerebral, speculative science fiction that used to be made (2001, Stalker, Solaris, THX1138, La Jette, Invasion of the Body Snatchers even Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green.) The only two really great recent science fiction films I can think of are Pi (which is borderline in terms of the genre) and Gattaca - my candidate for best SF film in memory.
But Star Trek qualifies as real science fiction - not because of the technobabble, but because its stories are built on a vision of the possible.
Bad analogy (Score:3)
> different audience brainier, more
> techno-centered, perhaps because it has a
> high-minded sounding High Priest in George
> Lucas, whereas the Trekkies have to get their
> inspiration from William Shatner.
Actually, I think comparing George Lucas to Gene Roddenberry would be a better analogy. And I think that Roddenberry compares quite favorably. The two styles are different. Star Wars are laden with Campbell's 'Power of Myth' epic nature. Good, evil, heroes, princesses etc...the stuff that legends are made of. Roddenberry's works (don't forget to include his legacy Earth:Final Conflict) are more post-modern. Characters are portrayed as good or evil in different lights, their motivations are more complex, and they are altogether more like real people, not archetypes. Personally, I enjoy both types of stories.
Of course, I could adjust the analogy the other way, and pit Shattner against Mark Hamill. That's a whole other can of worms. I think Shattner wins though.
More on braininess (Score:5)
First, let's look at typical plots from the movies, with regards to technology. Let's face it, Technology is how we determine the 'braininess' of these movies, since technologists are people we consider brainy in the "Real World".
Star Trek's typical plot involves a man vs man or man vs nature conflict where the solution is found using reason, knowledge or science. Examples abound of this: A wierd virus which McCoy must syntesize a vaccine/cure for, Kirk putting together the parts of a "gun", which required thought and knowldege (and was contrasted against the more bestial knife of his opponent: Kirk won not because he was stonger, but because he was *smarter*). I'm useing Original Series examples, in part because the methods used in the earlier episodes were less wild than the later ones, where the technological solution was pulled out of someone's hat.
Contrast this with StarWars where the central theme was almost anti-technology. Part of the reason Darth Vader was bad was that he was mostly machine. The straying of Luke to the "Dark side" was symbolized by his mechanical hand. Even in TPM, the enemies were droids and machines, and the good guys were fighting with almost medieval tools. The best exmpale of this is from the first movie, when everyone using the computers failed to "hit the spot" but Luke could do it by cutting off the computers and using the Force--which was something only living beings had access to.
Star Trek's message is very similar to the one of classic science fiction, especially that kind called "hard sci-fi." While Trek probably doesn't qualify as hard sci-fi, the message that our problems can be solved by applying science, reason and technology is there, whereas Star Wars seems to have an almost Luddite message in comparison.
From this it's easy to see why Trekkies are more interested in technical details and the technology of Star Trek, and why Star Wars afficionados care more about plot and the humanistic parts of it. Personally, I think the Trekkies have missed part of the point, but that's just my humble opinion:).
This is also why I don't think the appeal of Trek has anything to do with campy acting and so forth. Perhaps that's why *you* like it, but the people I know who like Trek like it for it's vision of a rational hopeful universe, where there are still things to do, things to explore, but those problems are soluble through science, reason and knowledge.
Before anyone starts an argument... (Score:4)
(deep breath)
If you like Star Wars, watch Star Wars. If you like Star Trek, watch Star Trek. If you like both, watch both. That's all there is to it. I think.
Another Sci-Fi Show (Score:3)
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html
On behalf of Jar-Jar (contains spoilers) (Score:5)
I think I must be the only person in America who, though I won't say I liked Jar-Jar, felt the character worked in the Phantom Menace, and enhanced the movie rather than detracted from it.
One of Lucas' favorite themes is to contrast the primitive, the overlooked, and the dismissed, with the efficient, the mechanical, the soulless. This was supposed to be how the Ewoks worked in ROTJ, only the Ewoks turned out way too cute and cuddly. He didn't make that mistake this time.
This is the same theme as Aesop's fable about the lion and the mouse. A lion catches a mouse and is about to have a rather small snack, when the mouse proposes, "If you let me go I'll do you a favor sometime". The lion finds the idea that the mouse could help him highly amusing, but figures the laugh is worth the loss of an admittedly small morsel so figures, "what the hell", and lets the mouse go. Some time later, the lion becomes caught in a hunter's trap, consisting of some heavy netting. Who should come along but the mouse, who repays the favor by gnawing through the netting, saving the lion from certain death at the
hand of the hunter.
So then, Jar-Jar's "job" in The Phantom Menace is to seem useless and annoying for most of the movie and to provide help at a critical time, which is exactly what he does, twice in fact. He helps Qui-Gon and Obiwan get to the Capital City despite the invasion, by introducing them to his hidden city and boss man (whose voice was provided by one of my favorite character actors Brian "Forward my Hawkmen!" Blessed).
And then he takes the party to the Gungan temple where he knows they'll be, so Amidala can bargain with them. And then the entire Gungan army takes on the "tanks" and "missles" of the Trade Federation, evoking the Zulu warriors who took on, and often bested the best and brightest of the British Empire. I can't think of a better metaphor for how I felt about IBM in the '70s or M/S in the 90s than the scene where the racks of robots come out of the carriers and slowly unfold all in perfect, mindless, horrible synchrony. (I hasten to add that I know some people who work, or have worked for Microsoft and I generally like them. So I mean no offense to them.) Lined up against them is a motley crew of Gungans with their spears and shields (well they're enhanced, to be sure, but we're not supposed to think that they can stand up to the Trade Federation.)
In effect, the Gungans in general, and Jar-Jar in particular, are geeks.
Most of us here at
I remember that when I was young, the way I was taught that black people are "just the same as us under the skin". But that's a bit misleading, since there are other differences between people, and between subcultures, and those differences are often substantial. If people weren't different in some way, there would be no prejudice.
My personal prejudice is against Frenchmen. I would never have felt this way if I hadn't shared a house with a Parisian for a year. He had a snooty attitude, and he left smelly anchovies and cheese around the house and just generally annoyed me. It was the difference in manners and habits that I found annoying.
Of course, he wasn't really such a bad guy. My other housemate, who had spent some time in Tunisia, which has strong ties to the French, got along with him well. It didn't help that in those days, I had a certain amount of closed-mindedness about me.
Anyway, the key to defeating prejudice is in seeing differences as valuable, and in seeing people who are different as valuable, whether that's because of the differences or in spite of them. And I can't think of a better demonstration of that in popular culture than Jar-Jar and the Gungans.
A Voice from the "Other" Side of the Force (Score:4)
*Crowd responds "Hi Carlos!"*
I'm not here to disagree. Jon you make some great points, and you are completely right.
But this is the way that I see it:
There ARE two different sides to Star Wars and Star Trek. (This is very well illustrated in the lifestyles of my roommate and I since I prefer Trek over Wars and he prefers Wars over Trek. We both appreciate the other genre, know the characters, and experience the same magic when we watch each genre, but our favorites differ.)
My Roommate is an Engineer, I am a Scientist. (That could be the difference here, but let me explain further.)
I explained above that I was a closet Trekkie, which is also true, I do not attend conventions, I know SOME Klingon (but only so I can curse in a really mean sounding language and scare lots of unsuspecting people.), and I like to learn and understand the technology and inne workings of the StarTrek Universe. (I have read the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Technical Guide to the Enterprise D.)
My Engineer Roommate likes to argue, "who would win? The Starship Enterprise vs a Star Destroyer?"
I ammusingly respond, "The Enterprise, The Star Destroyer cannot break lightspeed, and only has blasters for weapons."
My Engineer roommate is a classic Wars fan (even though he was born after 1976 and only saw Jedi in the theater, while I saw all the movies in the theater and remember them.) I think the "magic" of Star Wars is the rudimentary conflict that engulfs the entire saga. The battle of rebels versus a tyranical empire, that parrallels the even more fundamental conflict of the light and dark side of the force, and the meanacing character of Darth Vader at the center of it all.
To me, the draw of Star Trek was hope. Trek was something closer to home, a dream of mankind reaching and mastering the stars. (And since I am an Astronomer, this was an appealing dream to me), while Star Wars was a story about a time long ago, and a galaxy far away. Trek was humans, doing human things, with human abilities and human technology. Star Wars was humanoids doing extrodinary inhuman things (ie. the Force) and using virtually non-human technology. (Yeah, an argument could be mdae that a lightsaber and a Warp Engine are pretty far out there. And I agree, but hey, it's all Sci-Fi/Fantasy isn't it?)
So in this fan's eyes, Star Trek is/was for the intellectual fan who enjoied the aspects of future technology and science,while Star Wars is/was for the Fantasy and Dramatic Sci-Fi fan, who enjoies seeing a powerful story unfold before their eyes.
Whatever genre you like, go out and enjoy the magic for yourself. Don't let BaronCarlos tell you what to do.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:3)
I think it's the media's fault for not being able to differentiate between the two that somehow bored into people's heads that somehow Star Wars and Star Trek can be compared. Or that they have completely different sets of fans. I love them both. I watch Star Trek because it portrays a planet Earth I'd be proud of. It gives me a future where mankind has broken free of religious and cultural differences and embraced the pursuit of science. A future where our primary goal is to constantly learn and better ourselves. I like Star Wars because it takes me away to a completely different universe. It gives me an epic storyline of good vs. evil, of a valiant quest to save the universe.
I could no more compare Star Trek with Star Wars than I could compare either with Red Dwarf or even Hitchhiker's Guide.
(And just for the record, I base my opinion of Trek on the later seasons of the TNG, DS9, and the occasionally good Voyager episode. Perhaps I prefer Berman-era Trek. I revel in the techno-babble.)
It's all in the details... (Score:5)
Star Wars, on the other hand, is a looser form of story telling...there is little or no explanation of the physical surroundings of the characters, and the galaxy that they travel is essentially one big backdrop for the actual story. Logical explanations are very rarely made...unlike Star Trek, the way the spacecraft function is never explained, a whole bunch of anomalies are attributed to "the force" and left at that, and a plethora of alien species are introduced with absolutely no explanation as to where they came from, what possible evolutionary advantage can be found in their appearance, or their planetary cultures and philosophies. Star Wars asks one to go with the flow, suspend disbelief ("Why are the bad guys such bad shots? How could whatever species Jabba is evolve in the first place?! How did the droids become sentient?!?!"), and just follow the story...which is absolutely fine by me.
Personally, I find that Star Trek is superior as pertains to the incredible amount of detail to absorb and the greater scope allowed by the episodes, and Star Wars to be superior as pertains to grandiose story telling and sheer fun. And as for the Star Wars/Star Trek fan issue, in my experience, Star Trek appeals more to a more limited, intelligent, technically/logically oriented audience, while Star Wars appeals to a broader range of people, as the story telling entrances even those who normally abhor science fiction. One thing I have noticed is that Star Trek fans are almost always fans of other sci fi as well, while Star Wars fans often don't like sci fi at all in general. Hrm....