|
-
News
- Features
- Events
Calendar
- Editorials
- Monthly
Zine
- Offworld
Report
- Our Daily
RSS Feed
- Movie/TV
Reviews
> Recent movies
> Movies by year
> Movies by title
- Book
Reviews
> Recent books
> Books by year
> Books by title
- Home
- Worlds
- Biography
- Bibliography
- Appearances
- Reviews
- Blog
- Community
- Press
- Links
Become
an Advertiser
- Web
Site Directory
- Search
the Net
- StephenHunt.net
- WoodenRocket.com
- Check
your E-mail
- Non Sci-Fi
News
|
The Tech of Trek
01/03/2008 . Source: Pat Molloy 
Blogger Pat Molloy considers the weighty matter of why the technology of Star Trek must be updated. Hmmm. Warp factor 1960s, anyone? Buy Star Trek in the USA - or Buy Star Trek in the UK  As a life long Star Trek fan I, along with millions of other Trekkies, waited salivating in anticipation through the trailers that preceded JJ Abrams POV monster flick Cloverfield for those 30 sweet seconds of glory. The ultimate nerd money shot: The teaser trailer for Star Trek XI.
The spot, which features burly construction workers welding in the dark, pans out to reveal that it is in fact the USS Enterprise that is under construction. Leonard Nemoy's voice speaks the words "Space... the final frontier" and then it's all over.
The movie is to be a revisit of the original Star Trek series that debuted in 1966. Much like Batman Begins, it is a reboot of sorts, focusing on the genesis of Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Bones, and the rest of the original crew of the USS Enterprise.
The eternal bickering that exists within the community of Star Trek fans has been lampooned countless times, but it doesn't make it any less true. More than any other major science fiction franchise, Star Trek is mired in its own technical minutiae down to the absolute smallest detail. This adherence to its own rules of technology and the real world laws of physics is what makes the study of "Trek science" so much fun for fans of Star Trek, and a nightmare for its writers.
Trekkies are also uncompromising when it comes to the continuity of story lines, or canon. To date, there have been five separate Star Trek series that, if my math is right, equals out to 28 seasons of Star Trek over the past 40 years! On top of that there are ten full-length Star Trek films. That's a lot of make-believe for us Trek geeks to pore over and debate.
So it comes as no surprise that this brief peek at the yet unfinished hull of one of the most revered icons of science fiction has sparked heated controversy throughout the Star Trek fan community.
And when I say heated, I mean things can get downright nasty.
First, a brief digression on the actual trailer itself. If you haven't yet seen it, it's readily available online. As I mentioned, it features multiple, highly stylized shots of brawny construction workers welding something yet unseen. Flying sparks are reflected in the goggles of the welders, as they dramatically wipe sweat from their heavily soiled brows. The shot widens, and eventually we see the familiar saucer section of a Constitution class starship covered with scaffolding and crawling with construction workers. The classic identification numbers NCC-1701 as well as USS Enterprise, emblazoned on the hull makes it clear what we are looking at.
Now let's make no mistake before we proceed. This is a teaser and as the name implies, its purpose is to do just that. It is a brief advertisement meant to generate buzz about an unfinished production. Sort of how we see shots of an unfinished Enterprise. It is not an actual scene from the movie. I can guarantee you there will be zero slow-motion shots of glistening, thickset welders wiping sweat away from their rugged faces.
However there is that final glimpse of the Enterprise herself, and the fervent controversy generated by it has erupted all over every Star Trek forum I have visited (which, sadly, is more than a few). Why is the Enterprise being built on Earth, when it was supposed to be constructed in space? Hasn't 23rd century technology has long since rendered construction techniques like welding completely obsolete? The warp nacelles are too big! What is that propeller-like apparatus where the Bussard collectors should be? The original Enterprise didn't have the "aztec" panel hull design!
If you're a hardcore Trek fan, you know what I'm talking about. If not, don't worry. These questions and complaints touch on a much larger issue. How to reconcile the technical vision that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry had over 40 years ago, with movie audiences of the 21st century.
As I said before, Trekkies are vehement when it comes to canon. In the world of Star Trek, Captain Kirk stood aboard the bridge of a starship that was controlled with dials, switches, levers, and hundreds of blinking lights. Mr. Spock carried a tricorder (a portable computer of sorts) that was so large it had to be carried around using a shoulder strap, and was controlled with three knobs, three blinking lights, and had a tube style TV screen smaller than your iPod's display.
The technology wielded by our heroes in the original Star Trek series is laughably inferior to the technology wielded by a 13-year-old girl with a cell phone today. Even the design of the Enterprise displays glaring anachronisms (a giant, golden radar dish?) as well as unavoidable flaws due to budget limitations.
Still, 40 years of technological advancement in the real world means nothing to hardcore Star Trek purists who demand that JJ Abrams comply wholly with the outdated technology that exists in Star Trek canon. However, though the movie is not due out until December 25th of this year, I am certain that the look and technology will be updated - as it should be.
Why? Simply put, it would be really dumb. Unlike other science fiction franchises (like Star Wars for instance) Star Trek exists in our world. Earth history is part of Trek history, and thus the technology of Star Trek is suppose to represent the logical conclusion of our relentless goal of further advancing our society through science and innovation. Using oversized switches and knobs to access "computer tapes" would not only look silly, but would likely confuse anyone who is not a major fan of the original series.
Also, let's not forget the purpose and appeal of good science fiction. A fantastic and yet to be realized world is a boundless setting for an artist to explore the human condition and the consequences of our society. In a neutral way, we can take a new perspective on current issues that is unencumbered by the nuances of our real and everyday lives.
The original Star Trek was not only entertaining fantasy, but also a way to address issues of sex, racism, imperialism, war, the environment, and on and on, in a way that was thinly veiled enough so as not to attract outrage from the status quo. The mechanics of how a phased tacheon pulse emitted through the navigational deflector array could, in theory, repair a sub-spacial rift in the space/time continuum, came secondary.
As someone who owns a small library of non-novel Star Trek books (including the Star Fleet Technical Manual, the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, The Star Trek Encyclopedia etc.) I am as big a fan of the tiniest technological Trek details as anyone else. I'm also a stickler for canon, and was rather disappointed in the short-lived Star Trek: Enterprise series and the atrocious design of the USS Enterprise NX-01 (don't even get me started on the theme song).
All of that said, the new Star Trek movie is a much-needed retelling of the Star Trek mythos. Just like other modern mythologies that have recently received an updated makeover from Hollywood, Star Trek XI will give Star Trek an exciting new beginning with a larger scope than we have seen in a long time.
And in the words of William Shatner, remember, "it's just a TV show".
Pat Molloy
(c) Pat Molloy 2008
|
|
