I recently saw the new Star Trek movie, which has garnered mostly positive reviews from critics and science fiction fans (e.g. here, here, and here). My own view is less favorable. I think that the movie was generally well-acted and fun to watch. But I also thought that the plot was weak, for much the same reasons as those discussed by this reviewer. In addition, the movie lacked any meaningful moral, philosophical, or political point; nor did it have much in the way of memorable and interesting characters. Science fiction can be enjoyable without these elements. But it can't be great.
Finally, the movie didn't address a key question I hoped it would take up: how and why the Federation turned socialist. Early in the story, we do see a Nokia cell phone clearly labeled as such. This suggests that there are still large private firms at the time the movie starts (roughly in the mid-23rd century). However, it's also possible that Nokia had already been nationalized, with the Federation government retaining the brand name for its own use. The fact that the Nokia phone in the movie (set 250 years in the future) seems only slightly more advanced than the Nokia phones of today suggests that the firm had been stagnant for a long time - as government-owned enterprises often tend to be. There are historic precedents for nationalizations that retain famous brand names. For example, the communist government of Czechoslovakia nationalized the famous Skoda Works, but continued to use the name. In any event, it looks like we will have to wait to get more insight into the political and economic history of the Federation. Perhaps the next movie in the series will boldly go deeper into this issue than any Star Trek film has gone before.
UPDATE: I suppose I should say, for the benefit of commenters who take things a bit too literally, that I don't actually think producers were trying to make a deep statement about socialism in the Federation with the Nokia scene. To the contrary, the movie seems to ignore the whole question of socialism entirely - just as it mostly ignores the other moral and political issues on which the original Star Trek sought to make a statement (even if sometimes ineptly). I was just trying to have a little fun with that scene. I do think that the failure to grapple with any important issues is a defect of the new Star Trek movie, not a virtue.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Review of the New Star Trek Movie:
- When and Why did the Federation Turn Socialist? - A Question I Hope Will be Answered in the New Star Trek Movie:
The point of Nokia technology in the film is to show where the tricorder technology came from. Obviously, the concept from the 60s show influenced cell phone tech and design of today, so it only appears that Nokia would be stagnant in the future because the present caught up with futorology.
Yes, but it caught up with it by around 2000 or so. So it seems strange that the makers of the movie (who of course are aware of the current state of cell phone technology) seem to expect few additional advances in this field over the next 250 years.
Yes, that of course is why I noted in previous posts that I think Star Trek is far too optimistic about the supposed benefits of socialism and far too blase about the harm it causes. In fairness, however, it's not clear whether all these achievements occurred before or after the Federation turned socialist. Most of them seem to have already occurred by the time of Star Trek: Enterprise, when we know the Federation wasn't socialist yet (and indeed hadn't yet been founded).
Nokia is present in the movie, of course, because they paid for placement. Even though the movie takes place hundreds of years in the future, Nokia probably isn't interested in paying for something that resembles nothing they currently sell.
What would you have them do? They would need something that is both immediately recognizable as a phone and yet immediately grasped as far advanced. It can't require explanation in the plot--it has to be visually grasped to be good product placement. Would you have someone touch a Nokia tattoo by their ear and start talking to themselves? What do you think could simultaneously meet the needs of a) being recognizable as a Nokia phone, b) being several hundred years advanced over now, and c) being instantly grasped visually so as to not detract from the plot?
If we could transport Thomas Jefferson into our day to get his advice on how to deal with Leviathan government, we'd first have to wait a few months while he got acclimated to cars, computers, planes, cell phones, sky-scrapers, commerce, hugh populations, air conditioning, etc.
Similarly, if a script writer put in enough changes to convince you that we gained the benefits of 300 years of capitalism, there'd be no time left to develop any plot. I've no doubt the Roddenberry made the future socialist because he grew up at a time and likely in a family where that seemed ordained, and because he knew so little economics that he didn't realize that socialism and advanced economies are not compatible. He also didn't appreciate that there would be dramatic changes in society in 300 years, not just "we live just like we did 300 years ago, but with phasers, star ships, and replicators." It doesn't make any economic sense. Neither does it make much sense to try and make a beloved fictional world fit into what we know to be true about social advancement.
Really? I would never have guessed!
Roddenberry made the future socialist because he grew up at a time and likely in a family where that seemed ordained, and because he knew so little economics that he didn't realize that socialism and advanced economies are not compatible. He also didn't appreciate that there would be dramatic changes in society in 300 years, not just "we live just like we did 300 years ago, but with phasers, star ships, and replicators." It doesn't make any economic sense. Neither does it make much sense to try and make a beloved fictional world fit into what we know to be true about social advancement.
The economics of ST indeed don't make sense. But it is surely worthwhile to consider the political message of a fictional world that takes itself very seriously and was deliberately created in part to push a normative political agenda. Many more people will learn all they think they know about future economics from Star Trek than will read any kind of serious scholarship about it.
Give me a break, it's just entertainment. We get our morals from our parents, debate our metaphysics with our friends and pastors, and spend quite enough time, thank you very much, in our regular lives pondering life's quixotic mixture of bitter and sweet. We watched Captain Kirk goof off with tribbles and Gorns just to have fun, to forget how tricky life and other people can be. We only asked for a light sprinkling of thoughtfulness on top of the froth to keep the cerebral circuits from going into spasm from lack of input.
In addition, the movie lacked any meaningful moral, philosophical, or political point;
Thank God for that. The day I feel a bunch of coke-snorting amoral crass narcissist antisocial Hollywood sleazoids can offer me worthwhile moral, philosophical, or political instruction I might as well just cut my throat.
Finally, the movie didn't address a key question I hoped it would take up: how and why the Federation turned socialist.
Spock probably read a 60-page manifesto on the subject in the middle third of the movie, but when as he was turning over page 33 even the computer threatened to suicide if he continued through just one more semicolon it was deemed advisable to cut the scene.
Early in the story, we do see a Nokia cell phone clearly labeled as such
That's just an inside joke. Noki'a is an Old Vulcan word meaning flexible tool or impotence, depending on the context.
Perhaps it won't. This movie represents a reboot of future history. The Federation was socialist by the time of Picard ... but Picard might not even be born in this timeline, and the whole socialism schtick might never catch on.
Well, that just ruined it for me.
Actually, LOTR has a lot to say about political systems. We see several of them at work (Gondor, Rohan, etc.). And the central theme of the story is about the dangers of unconstrained power.
Now you're just pulling our legs. Anyone who knows Tolkien knows LOTR is pure Manichaeism. There's nothing wrong with Rings of Power in the hands of Good, exempli gratia Galadriel, Cirdan and Gandalf. You only acquire difficulties when you let them fall into the hands of Nazgûl.
If there's a cautionary thread about the dangers of power per se, it's the offscreen First Age Faustian fable of Númenorean kings not quite knowing their place. Maybe Pippin's peek into the Palantír is a faint echo, because the Seeing Stones were pretty much lawful good by nature -- it was only Pip's soggy little twig of a will that let Sauron overwhelm him -- but the Ruling Ring was evil by design. Like a computer virus, not like a gun.
Yes, Tolkein at heart believed in a traditional absolute Monarchy who hated the modern world and industrialism. I'm sure Ilya loved it. It reminded him of Mother Russia before the Commies screwed it up.
That's why it's called science "fiction", or perhaps more appropriate in this case "fantasy".
It's not precisely what was forecast as the future under socialism in "1984", which was much more prescient.
"Get a life! It's a TV show! It's ENTERTAINMENT! I'm an actor, it was a job! There is no Starship Enterprise, there are no klingons!"
I like Star Trek as much as the next nerd, but this whole "Federation socialism" thing is trying to read way too much into what is first and foremost entertainment.
I guess we must assume that the White Wizard Sauriman(sp?) had a soggy little twig of a will, too.
Joseph Slater/MarkField - WHACK!!!
This will all be settled at Obamamania IV where I will end your careers!!
(Call now for for Pay per View. 1-800-867-5309)
I was more amused by the "Budweiser Classics" that Uhura orders.
I've no doubt the Roddenberry made the future socialist because he grew up at a time and likely in a family where that seemed ordained, and because he knew so little economics that he didn't realize that socialism and advanced economies are not compatible."
Well, he knew "so little economics" that he created a successful television series, with multiple spinoffs, and probably earned a good deal of money doing so, employing many people, and so on. Thought sounds like practical economic knowledge to me. I think your point is that his knowledge was practical, based in reality, as contrasted with theory, where, of course, "socialism and advanced economies" cannot coexist.
Seriously, discussing the political-economic lessons of pro wrestling would make about as sense as worrying about Star Trek not having big virtuous private enterprise as a main theme.
Note that Ilya referred to "the dangers of unconstrained power" rather than "the dangers of anyone having any power at all," and that none of those you mention trusted themselves with the One Ring. It had to be destroyed.
Ilya's seriousness is very much in line with the Aristotelian distinction between history, which describes what is, and fiction, which describes what could or should be, and thus is the higher and more serious endeavor, as it functions as societal imagination and conscience.
Where I think he needs to look a bit closer at the film is the Kirk/Spock conflict and the resolution suggested (letting Kirk sit in the fancy chair and pretend to be in charge, while Spock gets the girl, the ultimate status marker), and then to consider how our own Kirk/Spock pissing contests are preventing us from returning to space.
I think Splunge has been sucked into the singularity (red matter induced, no doubt) of literary cluelessness that threatens to envelop this thread. I'm waiting for the first person to suggest that the red matter is Ilya's long sought commentary on socialism, which is why its red.
The plot was absurdly thin. The treatment of time travel was downright thoughtless. The acting was pathetic. The characters were one-dimensional.
There was some laughable PC obeissance to inter-species sex that reminded me of the more puerile aspects of the first Star Drek television series. Kirk's green-skinned bimbo interlude was laughable. The female "ET" looked like a slightly overweight girl in a 1960s era bikini, who'd been slathered with green Noxema. I actually snickered at the "love scene" between Spock and Uhura. I kept expecting her to tongue his cute Vulcan ears.
If this movie did not have the Star Trek brand I suspect it would have sunk into oblivion within two weeks of release based solely on word-of-mouth reviews.
That's probably correct, since most of the fun of the movie comes from watching Kirk, Spock et al. "become" themselves.
The female "ET" looked like a slightly overweight girl
Good heavens. I pity your female acquaintances.
Pay attention. That's because it was evil by design, as I said. It was not a dangerous but neutral tool, like a weapon -- a spear or gun. It was more like a haunted sword, or Glirendree, or an Acme shotgun in the hands of Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius. It could not be used without wreaking evil on its wielder. Heck, you couldn't even carry it around without it eating holes in your conscience, panache and Fruit of the Looms.
The other rings didn't have this problem, and could be safely used, if you'd read Celebrimbor's FAQ carefully and didn't exceed the local speed of light. Unfortunately using them left your thoughts open to the wielder of the One Ring. It's complicated.
I guess we must assume that the White Wizard Sauriman(sp?) had a soggy little twig of a will, too.
Of course not. In the first place, Saruman was a bad guy, so his will was not pointing steady due North already. He bred orcs and sent them to cut down trees in Fangorn, after all. In the second, he wasn't corrupted by Sauron directly so much as Sauron directed his vision carefully, so as to maximize his despair. Probably did a lot of Wormtongue whispering about detente and the harmlessness of talking with your enemies, the necessity for Realpolitik compromise, the maturity of eschewing such inflammatory and simplistic labels as "good" and "evil."
I think Splunge has been sucked into the singularity...that threatens to envelop this thread
Good God, Dr. Frankenmetaphor, step away from the thesaurus. Think of the children, or at least the verbs.
"Good God, Dr. Frankenmetaphor, step away from the thesaurus. Think of the children, or at least the verbs."
I like this thing, but amazingly enough I'm this pedantic with no assistance from a thesaurus. Sad but true.
A love of language too promiscuous.
"That's probably correct, since most of the fun of the movie comes from watching Kirk, Spock et al. "become" themselves."
You're on to something there.
Furthermore, tidal forces being what they are, a black hole would not envelop you as it sucks you in; quite the converse: you would envelop it, as your constituent particles smeared out across the inner surface of the accretion disk, radiating joyfully across the X and gamma-ray bands.
Wikipedia quotes (and you can bet that thisWikipedia article isn't one of the obscure ones which keeps errors forever because nobody's watching it):
Also:
The socialism is intentional, and completely worthy of being criticized. We're not imagining it.
I disagree that any novel, including any science fiction novel, needs to have a moral or political point to be great. If someone is interested in scoring points, they should write essays or philosophy instead. Novels are for something better than simply making points.
I think the reason why this is not make clear is simply that "Star Trek" is written by screen writers rather than hard SF writers where screen writers simply think less coherently about these kinds of details.
The best presentation and story about a post-scarcity "adhocracy" society I have read is James P. Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear". Even though it was written in 1982, it is still my all-time favorite novel.
Now, I'm not saying that the follow-on series weren't seriously socialist biased in Next Gen and Deep Space Nine. They always presented the ferengi (sp) and any desire for money as a negative. All, in all, I don't believe those involved in the series writing understood a market economy well enough to use it for color and that is why the whole group of series is very sterile, although not without entertainment value.
Farms around the Sea of Nurnen are explicitly mentioned. It's one reason the murk from Orodruin is kept blowing north and west all the time, in addition to the psy-ops value.
Does Somin realize that, with the possible exception of that regrettable evening at Bree, no one buys or sells anything throughout the entirety of the Lord of the Rings saga? The hobbots bring with them no Eriador Express Travelers' Checks, nor stop to change drachma to forints in Dimrill Dale, nor is there any evidence they barter for their daily lembas.
Uh oh.
Sauron held sway over areas other than Mordor. much of the land east of the river and especially south of Mordor proper were under his dominion. Presumably these folks were not 100% military.
There are still issues however, consider the numbers for a standing army put forward in the Federalist Papers, those lands either had huge populations or wer incredibly productive. Although I also suspect orcs are just able to get by on less.
Frodo sells Bag End. And buys Crickhollow as a replacement. Old Lotho sells pipe weed to Sauruman. Presumably he gets something in return for it. The Shire is perhaps the most mercantile region presented in the entire work. Outside of the Shire and especially as the final battle approaches economics gives way to necessity. Presumably the farmers of Gondor do their work in exchange for the protection of the city rather than personal enrichment.
What doesn't make much sense in Star Trek is that other societies with the same technology are not post-scarcity, except maybe the authoritarian Dominion (which is kind of a dark mirror of the Federation), and of course the Borg (Star Trek is still an individualist utopia; the Borg clearly represent a threat because of their unrestrained collectivism and loss of individual identity).
But then, the universe of Star Trek doesn't make much sense. There's no clear reason for competition between the various races, as terraforming is relatively easy and there doesn't seem to be a population problem. The only resource that doesn't seem to be widely available is dilithium, which powers their warp drives, but most of their conflicts aren't that rational, based more in ideology, xenophobia or religion (at least in DS9). The Culture series uses all three to set up a conflict between the utopian, hedonistic and playful Culture and the Idirans.
Anyway, I think the economy of the Kirk era was more "mixed" (as though much thought was given to these things), because there were more references to "credits" and replicator technology didn't exist (or wasn't as efficient or widely available) until the TNG series. In the series, it is also implied that the energy requirements for replication are substantial, which is why in Voyager they use a cook and ration use of the replicators.
"Novels are for something better than simply making points."
True, which is why it is all the more remarkable that they serve that purpose too, and more effectively than the alternatives, with the restriction that one cannot go into the writing of them with that purpose foremost in mind, or one will fail in it.
Swift failed at making his points even though he set out with that exactly in mind?
I think I remember a reference to the farmers' bringing in goods for market in better times.
If Tolkien had any aversion to capitalism, I'm sure it was in favor of feudalism, not socialism.
"The other rings didn't have this problem, and could be safely used, if you'd read Celebrimbor's FAQ carefully and didn't exceed the local speed of light."
Which is why once the One was destroyed Cirdan, Galadriel, and Gandalf fired them up and took their rightful places as Car Czar, Drug Czar, and Decider of Middle Earth and everyone lived happily ever after, free of free market fundamentalism. Right? Hmmm...
Look, I want to get back to space as much as the next guy, and we're not going to get there waiting for a particularly strong ent to toss us, but there is more going on in Middle Earth than your analysis admits.
You're also right about the science of singularities (as far as I am aware), though to call such science at this point empirical is, um, (hold on, flipping through the thesaurus...) premature, unless I'm mistaken. Then again, the red hole of the movie doesn't correspond very well to coherent science, empirical or otherwise, so I'm not sure what such science has to do with the metaphor I suggested.
"Swift failed at making his points even though he set out with that exactly in mind?"
Swift was a leading Tory who witnessed the beginning of a century of Whig dominance. Who knows what he might have accomplished had his ample gifts been devoted more to his art and less to his ideas? I'm aware of the immodesty of such a proposal, but there it is.
Compare the relative influence of Lewis and Tolkien, Narnia and Middle-Earth.
Their power was vaguely bound up with the One Ring, by Sauron's design (hence the tricking of Celebrimbor), so after the One was destroyed, they became shiny memorabilia.
Re: singularities, a weak point in the film was that, once it became clear a black hole was eating the Romulan ship, someone on the bridge of the Enterprise should have been suggesting that they put the engines in reverse gear, or at least, running the numbers.
Splunge, I did read the books several times, and Saruman was most definitely NOT a bad guy in the first place, before he gave Sauron a back door to his mind by foolishly using the Palantir. The evil acts you relate occurred after he'd been corrupted by Sauron.
The worst you could say about Saruman prior to that corruption was that he was arrogant enough to think he could resist Sauron's influence.
It's hard to say when Saruman was turned,, it's mentioned that even as early as the events in The Hobbit he had left the path. (This from hints that he delayed the effort to deal with the Necromancer/Sauron. )
Certainly at that time Sauron should not have been powerful enough to direct what Saruman was seeing with the palantir.
Yes, but at the end of the day, the fact the Trek movies keep getting made is a tribute to capitalism.
"Re: singularities, a weak point in the film was that, once it became clear a black hole was eating the Romulan ship, someone on the bridge of the Enterprise should have been suggesting that they put the engines in reverse gear, or at least, running the numbers."
Agreed. Just what I was thinking. But that would have required passing up another opportunity to make Kirk look like a tool as he orders the Enterprise to fire on Nero's ship now that the presumably cataclysmic red hole had taken down its shields. Given the movie's physics, I'd think that shields were the least of its problems.
Isn't there a note on the wizards in The Silmarillion about the wizards' arrival in Middle Earth, suggesting that Saruman was a bit dubious even upon arrival?
Whether he was a "bad guy" that early, depends on your definition of "bad." But I think Tolkien believes that character is fate.
This curious example omits just who was running Skoda for the previous 6 years before 1945. Prof. Somin's link however explains:
The Reichswerke Hermann Goering acquired a significant hold on the Czech economy, acquiring coal and steel mills, as well as two of the top three iron works and three large Czech armaments concerns, including the Skoda Works. Reich Works Hermann Goering acquired large possession of shares in the Skoda Works, in order to use the latter as a finishing industry for the products of their own rolling mills and steel works, just as they used other industries in Germany.
Saying that the Communists "nationalized" Skoda is an odd way of putting it.
"Saying that the Communists "nationalized" Skoda is an odd way of putting it."
True, it was the National Socialists who nationalized it, and for the benefit of another nation, no less. Unless, that is, you'd like to argue that Goering's name made it private. Note that it was still a Reichswerke, and the Reich preceded his name in the title.
I can't wait for the Supreme Court to make some new rulings next week, so this website can get back to normal.
Whether he was a "bad guy" that early, depends on your definition of "bad." But I think Tolkien believes that character is fate."
Perhaps, but not on a clear, unidimensional good/bad continuum, the lack thereof perhaps best embodied by Aule (who in a Promethean move created the dwarves). Curumo (Saruman) was his emissary among the Istari.
If you have Unfinished Tales, check the Istari appendix.
The ring actually belongs to Sauron. Told from the other side, Sauron is simply trying to secure his rights to some valuable property that was taken from him. How is it that he is wrong?
Kind of like when Kirk steals the cloaking device(!) from the Romulan ship in "The Enterprise Incident."
/geek
:)
The dwarves at least have legitimate claim to the treasure, or perhaps you think Smaug has gained clear title by adverse possession?
As for the Ring, hasn't it been traditional for victorious armies to loot the defeated foe? The king simply gets the best booty. After that Bilbo's claim is reasonable. Smeagol/Gollum's is the weakest of the entire chain.
And come to think of it, Finland is one of the Scandinavian countries, and they tend to be a bit more socialist than others... Of course, they also tend to be a whole lot more metal, which is what I care about.
Kirk gets distracted by an elf maiden and forgets he's in a fight.
Kirk would be too busy banging Arwen. Though I suppose that might count as Aragorn losing.
I wonder if Kirk is kinky enough to get involved with a hobbit threesome. I'm discounting dwarven women since they seem to be homebodies.
Desiderius, all kinds of First Age stuff lost its influence at the end of the Third Age, for poorly-explained Circle of Life kind of reasons. We don't even know precisely why the bearers of the Three all decided to leave at that time. There was just lots of mystic muttering about the Age of Men having begun, and the (remaining) Elves needing to shuffle off to Valhalla and start sopping up the mead. I don't recall whether the loss of the One Ring itself was involved; it seems a bit unlikely just because the Three predated the One, and unlike the Seven or Nine, their bearers never fell under the Shadow.
I think Saruman was bad from the start. Tolkien indeed tended to believe character was destiny, but even where he didn't, he tended to reserve the privilege of growing up to Men. Wizards and Elves tended to have fixed character, like minor deities should. Don't ask me about Dwarves. I don't understand Dwarves.
The worst you could say about Saruman prior to that corruption was that he was arrogant
Don't underestimate the importance of that flaw, Brett. As a certified Victorian relic -- or perhaps just as a Catholic schooled in the sad tales of Lucifer and Eden -- Tolkien felt knowing your place was an important virtue. Much evil in Middle Earth stems from people forgetting their feudal station.
Des, I think you can reasonably define the basic science of singularities, or at least event horizons, as empirical. No one has seen one with his own eyes, to be sure, ha ha, but there's some pretty solid indirect observational evidence. Google "Sagittarius A*" for example. Furthermore, general relativity itself, which inevitably predicts their existence, has a plethora of empirical evidence confirming it.
I have no idea what a "red hole" is, not having seen the flick. Is it some kind of Ice Nine mcguffin, "catalyzes" the formation of black holes out of innocent planets?
Heavens, no. Kirk specializes in deflowering headstrong princesses or renewing the youth of ruling queens saddled with husbands who need vacuum pumps or Viagra. Eowyn and Galadriel are his natural targets.
And wait, I'm pretty sure there were complaints by the hobbit kids that no coins were given out at Bilbo's birthday party. I can't look to make sure since I am now blind and don't have electronic copies of any of my Tolkein materials.
I seem to recall that the destruction of the One Ring would cause the Three to lose their power, and that this was in some way connected with their decision to leave Middle Earth.
When you're in a war you get to take the other side's stuff. So whether it's right for Frodo and friends to have the ring and destroy it boils down to whether they're on the right side of the war. Since Sauron was on a mission of conquest, I would say yes.
My biggest problems were with believability of the Kirk character. He was just way too much of the punk ass kid to be taken seriously as a hero and leader who commanded respect.
Also, the Spock character wasn't "spock enough" for me. Having a girlfriend and making out is just one example of something I didn't believe in the Spock character.
These problems with the two lead characters and especially the problems with the Kirk character (which were pervasive and overwhelming) were just too much of a distraction for me from the storyline to make the movie enjoyable.
I think the Kirk problems were certainly with the direction of the character and possibly with the casting of the actor. It would have been far more Kirk like if the Kirk character had become not such a punk ass irresponsible brat as a result of losing his father, but instead had become a moody, somewhat dark, and introspective personality who emerges from this dark place in his mind to become a commanding leader by the desire to avenge his father's death. I just think they got the Kirk character totally wrong, and it was played like Kirk was a smart ass 14 year old in a 22 year old body.
A character that looked just a few years older and entered the academy a few years later in life than his peer age group would have also helped quite a bit.
Special effects can't alone make a great movie. Certainly we all learned that from Star Trek The Motion Picture back in 1979.
This for me was far from a great movie. It was an OK movie, but not great. Having such a poor beginning with the Kirk character does not bode well for developing that character into someone I would care to watch lead the Enterprise again.
I don't see how any trek fan liked this movie much more than Star Trek The Motion Picture. I don't see how any non-trek fan with any knowledge of leadership and respect for leaders could take the punk ass Kirk seriously as a leader of men and savior of galaxies.
The only people I see who could like the punk ass Kirk would be the minority of teenagers that are punk ass brats who haven't learned any control over their more infantile urges.
Its just impossible to suspend disbelief enough to buy this punk ass Kirk as a leader of men commanding the respect of others and the savior of galaxies.
It is to laugh.
Bottom line for me is I wish the Star Trek reboot had a reboot itself.
Ah, that's what I was trying to think of. (It's been a while.) Thanks!
... Sauron as libertarian. Makes sense.
The problem I have with theory is that technology becomes obsolete on a rapid timescale. Do the original brick cell phones still work on modern cell networks? Or when was the last time you saw a rotary telephone? To expect communications tech to settle down to where a wireless device will still function within later infrastructure just isn't very believable.
Be careful. The pencil and QWERTY keyboard are still with us, as is the steering wheel and mailbox, in forms largely unchanged since 1880.
It's certainly possible personal communication devices a hundred years from now will look like cell phones, even if they have different insides.
But if the claim is that the device itself is an antique that is different from the basic form not changing. As for QWERTY, I've seen plenty of keyboard alternative devices, and do figure that someday one of them will catch on. Perhaps the neurologists with figure out how to directly translate thoughts into computer interaction.
STTMP was a remake of the episode "Nomad". I and other people realized this in the theater. The latest movie is actually a new story. The older I get, the less patience I have with a lack of originality.
"Thus, in the end, what makes Sauron a bad guy is that he lost." If Sauron had won it would have been like Hitler winning. Look at how Saruman almost destroyed the Shire at the very end.
The Changeling
Certainly the history books would have said so, assuming any were written.
As if. Get with the new program: Spock is the alpha. Abrams knows his audience.
"I just think they got the Kirk character totally wrong, and it was played like Kirk was a smart ass 14 year old in a 22 year old body."
There's a lot of that going around these days, if the interwebs are any indication.
And Kirk does get a couple opportunities to show his exceptional intellectual chops, just few to act on them.
"Don't ask me about Dwarves. I don't understand Dwarves."
If you think LotR is purely Manichean, it's no wonder. As their creator was Aule, whose craft was used to create the original rings, and whose emissary to Middle Earth was Saruman, perhaps this could be a fertile field of reflection for you, especially if you're a scientist yourself.
As for the fading power of the three, your original theory was that Tolkien was only concerned with unconstrained power in the wrong hands, and you held up the three as a prime example. Yet once good stood (temporarily) unopposed, the power of the three faded, which fits uneasily with your theory.
"Certainly the history books would have said so, assuming any were written."
Guess you don't read many of our current crop of history books, unless you're speaking of the uncanny softness on actual dictators in the rush to self-flagellation.
Linguicide should be at least a tort.
I was thinking of LotR and related materials somewhat as a history of the War of the Ring. It would be a much different work if Sauron had been the victor, especially since history is written by the winner.
Just think of how much different the WW2 histories would be if the Axis had won or even just stalemated.
I understood what you were saying, but the lasting cynicism engendered by that latter clause is hardly worth the world-weary frisson of knowingness it offers those considering it for the first time.
Anne Frank won nothing worth having, and yet she wrote. And she is read, and would be read even if doing so had required dodging the authorities.
It's not who they are, but what they (white, pretty, male), that defines these 'heroes'. Meanwhile, ethnic boys (whether Indians playing Arabs or Jews in quasi-yellowface), must channel their aspirations in the service of such men.
Anyway, I liked the movie. It had many messages, but perhaps they're so familiar that no one notices: e.g. (1) an old guy can still do a great job; (2) sometimes you never know who's messing around with whom; (3) the good guys often win; (4) physics is interesting; (5) sometimes it's okay to ignore the rules; (6) et cetera.
You make a good point about Anne Frank. But who is there to tell Sauron's tale. Assuming that Tolkein is on the side of the ultimate winners, how do we know that he's actually telling the good guy's tale. If Sauron had won, his historians would have painted him as the good guy as well.
And I know this sounds absurd, but the good guys in this book are racist. They have no room at all in their world for orcs, trolls, werewolves and other races. On the other hand, Sauron's forces include members of all races (except maybe elves, i'm not sure on that one.)
Sauron is trying for domination. But the good guys are aiming for the utter extermination of what they don't like. Given that, which side looks more like Hitler?
BTW, I also think Caliban may have gotten a raw deal in The Tempest. I'd love to see someone produce that play in a version where it's pretty clear that Ariel and Prospero are the bad guys.
She won immortality, whether that's worth having you'll have to judge for yourself.
Actually that is something I question. If the account Tolkein tells is even remotely accurate, who would be the audience for Sauron's histories? If there is no audience there would likely be no works.
I bet there would be a lot of accounting ledgers though, Sauron seems to have had an advanced logistical system going.
For me, the problem with Trek has been that the Roddenberry rules from TNG on have made the show ponderous, preachy, smug, slow, and, most damningly, uninteresting.
This came about because R. disallowed any inter-federation disagreements, and because he decided that humans had changed and now had no base urges and were almost perfect.
In fact, they are kind of like round-eared, uninteresting Vulcans. This removes any kind of interesting character development from the humans...since they are already perfect, there's not a lot of developing they can do.
And so they're boring people. Which makes the plots have carry all the weight of the show, which they are able to do on some occasions...but on most occasions they are just resolving trivial misunderstandings preparing to eject the warp core or reversing the polarity.
And maybe Abrams did overdo the conflict a bit in the new movie...but it was so *refreshing.* *Exciting*, even. Like when the red shirt from the bar fight is called to escort Kirk from the bridge and calls him "cupcake"...that's a great scene. Realistic human conflict. It's nice to see.
Kirk as a punk - yeah, a little over the top...but it's so easy to see this kid in Kirk's past.
Spock was great - I thought that the conflict over the captaincy was great, too. Since on paper, even in TOS, Spock always seemed better than Kirk. Smarter, stronger, more rational. But somehow, for reasons not necessarily obvious, Kirk was always the right man. But it's interesting how Spock came to accept this.
J.R.R. Tolkien. Deal with it. There is a reason authority so resembles author.
"She won immortality, whether that's worth having you'll have to judge for yourself."
Which refutes your own theory. History is written by those who write it well enough to be read. Might makes right is for suckers.
"And I know this sounds absurd, but the good guys in this book are racist. They have no room at all in their world for orcs, trolls, werewolves and other races. On the other hand, Sauron's forces include members of all races (except maybe elves, i'm not sure on that one.)"
Bullshit. Orcs and trolls are not races, but already existing races (elves and - my lore fails me - ents?) twisted by resentment and lust for power.
"If the account Tolkein tells is even remotely accurate, who would be the audience for Sauron's histories? If there is no audience there would likely be no works."
Beautiful point.
And of course Fodo "bought" a house in Crickhollow, and "sold" Bag End. And his cousin Lotho bought land with money from trading pipe-weed (and maybe other things) with Saruman.
For specific currency, Bilbo gave some pennies to children when Gandalf arrived in the first chapter, and the pony in Bree was purchased with "12 silver pennies". It has been many years since I read LotR, so there could easily be more.
There are at least four versions of the origins of Orcs that can be supported from various places in Tolkeins writing. And what he wrote isn't always consistent. For example, in the Hobbit, there seems to be a distinction between goblins and orcs. Gandalf even talks about goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs. But in LoTR, there are orcs only.
Can you see Spock giving Patton's speech to the Third Army? Can you see Kirk?
Nor did I. It was the maker of the orcs and trolls who was twisted by resentment and lust for power, not actual elves and ents. For those seeking to admirably, but, what, naively? (hate that word) grant the orcs and trolls personhood, this is one place where LotR as allegory breaks down, as I believe Tolkien understood, which is why he always resisted such interpretations.
you were not saying that Orcs were corrupted elves, and that Trolls were corrupted Ents?
Now its my turn to call bullshit.
Not the punk ass Kirk in this movie. No. Absolutely not. I'd rather hear what almost anyone else had to say than the infantile punk Kirk in this movie.
And on a similar vein in response to another poster. No I absolutely do not see such a punk juvenille idiot as this Kirk any where in the captain Kirk we previously knew from the original series.
Says the "Dog"
you were not saying that Orcs were corrupted elves, and that Trolls were corrupted Ents?
Now its my turn to call bullshit."
There existed races, elves and ents, created one way (don't look too close at that way if you're allergic to Yahwist conceptions of creation), the race (or genus, for a less loaded term) of dwarves were created a different way, but just as truly created. The race of orcs and trolls was not created, because the weakness of that which Melkor/Morgoth/Sauron represents is it's inability to truly create, but represent an imitation twisted by (Melkor/Morgoth/Sauron's) resentment and lust for power.
For comparison, consider these guys. They're not people either.
The distinction I drew in the previous post is between the general race/genus and the individual members thereof. Individual elves and ents weren't corrupted, as far as we know, orcs/trolls represent the corruption of identity itself, from beings created to be free to beings created to be slaves.
"Orcs were not self-twisted however, they were captured and bred by Morgoth. Can you really blame an entire people for being warped by such a force?"
That's a question for Machiavelli, not Tolkien.
It's also not my understanding that they were captured, but as with you, my recollection is murky on these matters.
"No I absolutely do not see such a punk juvenille idiot as this Kirk any where in the captain Kirk we previously knew from the original series."
Check this. Talk about a punk.
Actually, the reason is incredibly obvious, since it was stated outright by Capt. Pike and subsequently pounded into the audience at every opportunity. Kirk is the 'right man' because he's heroic, which in the J.J. Abrams dictionary means 'brash', 'cocky', 'impetuous', 'unthinking'. So, exactly what makes Spock more capable by any reasonable standard, that is his perspicacity, is what makes him the 'wrong man'.
Hardly.
"Some beauties yet, no precepts can declare,
For there's a happiness as well as care.
Music resembles poetry, in each
Are nameless graces which no methods teach,
And which a master-hand alone can reach.
If, where the rules not far enough extend,
(Since rules were made but to promote their end)
Some lucky LICENCE answers to the full
Th' intent propos'd, that licence is a rule.
Thus Pegasus, a nearer way to take,
May boldly deviate from the common track.
Great wits sometimes may gloriously offend,
And rise to faults true critics dare not mend;
From vulgar bounds with brave disorder part,
And snatch a grace beyond the reach of art,
Which, without passing through the judgment, gains
The heart, and all its end at once attains."
Pope, Essay on Criticism
Methinks you underestimate the influence of "entertainment" on people's ideas. Socrates directed the brunt (not to be confused with the Ferengi Brunt) of his attack at the poets for good reason (the Pomos recognize its power too). An obvious legal example of entertainment affecting people's notions is Miranda, which, as the late Chief Justice Rhenquist recognized, became part of the national culture (and it is because of popular entertainment that I must correct common misunderstandings among my students about precisely when a Miranda warning is required).
Racists always think that the objects of their contempt are not people. I wouldn't expect anything else from the elitist "Fellowship".
I am certain that the Men, Elves, Dwarves, and so forth of Middle Earth would happily accept Orcs as people if they'd just quit attacking every year and actually hold to some of those peace agreements they sign. But they don't. It's not the humans who are starting the war, it's Sauron and his orcs.
"Racists always think that the objects of their contempt are not people. I wouldn't expect anything else from the elitist "Fellowship"."
The orcs are not people because they have no independent will, and for that you can blame the one who made them that way, not Tolkien. It is not contempt in which the orcs are held by the free races of Middle-Earth, but pity, combined with a grim determination not to allow their maker to make any more slaves, either from scratch of from the formerly free.
As a man who fought in the trenches of the Great War and wrote LotR in the shadow of its continuation, Tolkien can perhaps be excused for dehumanizing those who threatened to plunge his own world into a darkness (and of course, he himself denied any allegorical interpretation of LotR) that violated all that he (and we!) hold sacred, including an understanding of man that transcends race, but to accuse him of doing so out of racism is obscene.
The race of the Nazis was his own, twisted, like the orcs, by resentment and lust for power.
And suppose they did not. Sauron must be a real dumb shit to have different aspects of his own will fighting with each other and sometimes killing each other off.
Frodo shows pity on Gollum (and it seems that Gandalf approves, though others, notably Sam, do not). But I have trouble recalling anything in the books that shows that there is pity for orcs or trolls. Could you point me to something?
And if there is this kind of pity, then I suppose that once Sauron is destroyed, the good guys then started going to great lengths to rehabilitate the poor trolls who had until recently been under Sauron's thumb. Exactly what is the place of orcs and trolls in the age of men?
They become stories to scare naughty children with.
You have to read the auxiliary materials. :)
Iain Bank's culture novels has a society with no money because there is no scarcity. Fun space opera that is quite thoughtfull in general.
Kim Stanley Robinson has proposed a kind of controlled capitalism where companies must be co ops and have size restrictions in a few novels. His Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars &Blue Mars) goes over that in detail , especially in the third book.
Also he has an Orange coast trilogy which has three versions of Califiornia in the future. The third of these ,'Pacific Edge' has a similar set up but in a more realistic, near future scenario.
I'm sure any libertarian would find plenty to argue with in these books but they are ,especially the Robinson books, Novels of ideas as opposed to a Mainstream action /plot based tv/movie series.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.