WHERE’S THE DAMN SHIP?!!

Seems like we’ve celebrated the one year mark before though somehow?!

I still remember the day I logged on to Trekmovie.com to see that the Star Trek had been moved back by four months. Hopefully this is the last time we celebrate the on year mark.

That’s good, but why don’t we borrow from the past? Star Trek III, if my memory isn’t too swiss-cheesed at this point:

“The human adventure is just beginning…”

:-)

In the ’60s Trek’s underlying message was “not only will we survive the Cold War and the nuclear threat, but thrive.” In the ’00s it could just as easily be “we will survive the threats posed by climate change, overpopulation and greed — and that nuclear threat that’s still around — and thrive.” I know it’s a lot to ask of the movie, but I hope it somehow works that spirit in. It won’t feel like Star Trek entirely to me without it.

For all those knee-jerk arguments that dystopian, dark SF is more realistic that what Star Trek depicts, since when is SF about striving for realism? Yes, it needs to be grounded to keep it from being total fantasy, but that doesn’t automatically mean it should be grim. And there’s almost no way to forecast humanity 300 years from now that could be more realistic than another forecast. If you lived in 1708, could you forecast life today “realistically?”

And besides, the true “dystopian future” is today, and the near future — to see what might become of the world in the wake of the Bush presidency.