Orson Scott Card has never made any secret of his obsessive loathing for Star Trek. After Enterprise was canceled he wrote a sneering article saying that Star Trek was strictly for backward and stupid people, some of whom are probably gay or like to dress up as Klingons. But luckily for the human race, Card finally discovered a Star Trek he can love, a Star Trek that is truly brilliant and brimming with moral and intellectual depth. Star Trek as reimagined by the writers of Transformers 2.
“Because even though the movie continues to use Roddenberry’s asinine science, this movie has everything else I could have wished for: good writing, good acting, a powerful story, and the kind of ethical-dilemma philosophy that Roddenberry faked.”
Uh yeah. Good acting by actors who were imitating the original actors, whom Card hates. A powerful story that makes absolutely no sense. And the kind of ethical dilemma philosophy that could only be imagined by the producers of Hercules and Xena.
Only it’s presented subtly, intrinsically, so that “intellectuals” who have been trained by English literature classes to recognize only what is obvious miss it entirely.
“Subtly”. See if you’re one of those stupid edumacated intellectuals, you won’t understand the deep meaningful message of Transformers 2. It’s a message that only the completely uneducated can grasp.
It’s funny how Card goes from elitist Star Trek bashing, to anti-elitist Star Trek bashing. It’s almost like he’s a complete opportunist.
“And, best of all, this movie starts over. That is, it reinvents the Star Trek storyline with a new beginning, so that we can conceivably have intelligent, believable, well-acted, well-written Star Trek movies for years to come.”
Oh yes. Believable movies that present 20 something kids being put in command of the newest and best Starship in the fleet. What could be more believable and intelligent than that?
“Which brings us to the deep ethical and philosophical issues that this movie handles so well (and subtly). In the midst of all the action and adventure, the movie demonstrates to us — with delightful panache — that character is destiny. Even though the universe is very, very different, nevertheless every major figure from the original Star Trek series ends up on the maiden voyage of the Enterprise, and through a series of internally logical events, Spock and Kirk (the young versions) end up as captain and first officer of the ship! ”
They end up on the maiden voyage through no logical reason whatsoever, but because the writers have arranged it that way. It would be completely improbable for Spock, Kirk, Sulu, Uhura and Chekov, who are of different ages and were at different stages of their careers originally, to somehow end up all serving on the same ship together. It’s as improbable as the current crew of a Navy destroyer ending up together at the same time in a different timeline.
There’s nothing internally logical about it. And there’s nothing logical about a cadet 3 years out of the academy being given command of a Starship on a permanent basis. Clearly Card is using a form of logic that’s limited to Hollywood.
And the idea that character is destiny is not a deep philosophical and ethical issue. It’s one of the oldest cliches out there.
“There are also ethical dilemmas concerning revenge and justice. Eric Bana’s tormented Nero is punishing people in this timestream for things that happened in the other one.”
It’s not an ethical dilemma. Nero is just crazy. Khan had more of a case than Nero did. Nero decided to wipe out the Federation because Spock was late to his appointment.
But that’s the summary of it. Card predictably enough likes a watered down version of Star Trek with a virtually senseless plot and claims it’s the best Star Trek ever, and so much better than the original product it’s imitating. That would be like a Science Fiction reader putting down Heinlein and proclaiming that David Gerrold is so much better.