Is J.J. Abrams Straying Too Far from the Original Star Trekethyl Philosophy?
As a lifelong Trekkie, I have always held dear the essence of Star Trek—dedication to ethical, sociological, and philosophical quests, and the unwavering commitment to scientific plausibility within its ever-evolving universe. While J.J. Abrams has made significant contributions to the Star Trek franchise, including his work on Super 8 and the reboot films, some Trekkies believe that these latest ventures deviate too far from the original ethos.
Original Tenets of Star Trek
The visionary Roddenberry established several fundamental principles for the Star Trek franchise:
Every story, whether an episode or a movie, should revolves around an ethical, sociological, or philosophical question. The technical elements, such as science and technology, are strictly scrutinized for plausibility by experts before being incorporated into the narrative. Problems are resolved through the combined effort of intelligence, expertise, and cooperation. The The Next Generation series, in particular, showcased this with its detailed Tech Bible, explaining every technology from phaser to cloaking device. Characters are portrayed as highly educated and possessing specialized expertise that contributes to the plot's resolution.James Cameron's Impact on Star Wars
Interestingly, the James Cameron era at Walt Disney Studios reshaped Star Wars in a way that many Trekkies perceive as a return to the original spirit of the franchise. While the spiritual successor of Star Trek, the Star Trek: The Next Generation, continued to adhere closely to these guiding principles, the later series seemed to deviate from them, especially with the controversial Voyager.
Trekkies' Concerns about J.J. Abrams' Projects
The Abrams Star Trek movies fail to meet these fundamental tests:
Loss of Ethical and Philosophical Depth: Abrams' stories lack the robust ethical and philosophical underpinnings that were once a hallmark of the franchise. Phrases such as “the solution all along…was friendship!” hardly stretch the intellectual boundaries of the character arcs. Flawed Scientific Logic: The Third Star Trek Film in particular, follows a path of scientific absurdity—emphasizing a solution through pop culture references and ad-hoc justifications at best. For instance, the portrayal of interstellar teleportation achieving the same results as faster-than-light travel challenges the very fabric of the established universe, negating the need for starships altogether. Similarly, the eradication of nearly all human diseases, including death from radiation poisoning, through a single injection seems more sci-fi fantasy than a logical continuation of the franchise's scientific verisimilitude. Poor Continuity and World-Breaking Plot Punches: The progressive revelations and deconstructions that form the backbone of Star Trek suffer when they are brushed aside in favor of plot contrivances that betray the very world-building values that made the franchise beloved in the first place.Conclusion: A Call for Reversion to Authenticity
As a Trekkie, I believe that the Star Trek franchise thrives when it stays true to its core values. While the changes brought about by J.J. Abrams indeed brought a new direction to the franchise, they do so at the expense of the fundamental principles that set Star Trek: The Next Generation apart. It is a stark contrast to the Star Wars reboots, which, while contentious, have provided a fresh perspective within a broader narrative framework that retains the franchise's original essence. Fans, including die-hard Trekkies, are left to ponder whether this departure from the original philosophy is truly for the better or a step backward.
What do you think? Has J.J. Abrams strayed too far from the original Star Trek ethos, or are we witnessing a new evolution in the franchise? Share your thoughts in the comments!