Trekkie, and What That Entails

I addressed many of my concerns about the new Star Trek movie a while ago.

Then I came across this:

And it's controversial to even mention Star Wars and Star Trek in the same sentence, but Alex said, "We have to bring more Star Wars into Star Trek." Original Star Wars. I want to feel the space, I want to feel speed and I want to feel all the things that can become a little bit lost when Star Trek becomes very stately -- which I love about it , but....

(All quotes from this article.)

So tell me, what is Star Wars? The good ones, I mean. What are those movies and what about them do the writers of the new Trek movie want in Star Trek?

Is it the action? There's no denying that there tends to be more action in Star Wars and it's hard to deny that it was the action in Star Trek: First Contact that led it to be the highest grossing TNG cast movie because it's not the most non-fan friendly story.

Is it the look and worn/used feel of the Star Wars universe? (Although I'd argue that none of the Imperial ships nor the big rebel ships look "worn." If you want a used future watch Alien; that's future tech that's getting worn out.) Star Trek isn't about being worn out, at least Starfleet isn't. For more worn and lived in future in the Trek universe there are the Klingons. Star Trek tends to be about looking to the future more than hanging on to things of the past, especially when it comes to technology.

Is it the fantasy elements and the lack of "technobabble"? One thing that's always been certain to me is the Star Trek is a harder form of science fiction than Star Wars. Trek likes to take the time to explain the science (and "science") behind everything, Wars just shows that it works and doesn't care why. (And then when it does *cough*midichlorians*cough* the explanation makes little or no sense.) Star Wars is more of a fantasy with its swords and the magical ability to crush throats from across the room and duels and such.

Is it the focus on a small main cast rather than an ensemble? The original Star Wars movies really only had three main character: Luke, Han, and Leia. In a 90- or 120-minute film a small group of main characters makes for a tighter film. One of the reasons I had a hard time watching the TNG movies was because they tried to shift the focus of a seven character ensemble TV show onto only two characters while giving the other five characters a "moment" in the films.

This choice seems the most logical to me because TOS focused on three main characters pretty exclusively.

Still, I want to know, what is Star Wars and what about it needs to be infused into Star Trek?

It's about how the original crew came together, which was never covered in its entirety by either the show or any of the movies. No one has ever told the story of how the Enterprise set sail.

Of course if it's a twenty-something Kirk newly an officer, then how is he building a crew for the ship he captains approximately ten years later?

I think that sometimes some stories never need to be told. When they told the origin story of Wolverine in the comics it only made me sad because I had built up my own ideas about his past based on many of the things he'd done and the memories that had surface. Star Wars's most recent trilogy was a huge disappointment to me, partly because they were just bad movies, but also because, again, I'd developed my own back story for Vadar that I liked better.

Now comes this movie. Is it so bad for me to picture that James T. Kirk inherited the Enterprise from Christopher Pike. The ship already had a crew, including Spock, and a few new people came aboard with Kirk and over the five year mission they became a team and friends.

Sure, my origin isn't as exciting as a time traveling Spock and Klingons and Romulans, but it's an origin that smacks of realism and for a show so full of the fantastic the few moments of realism make the fantastical elements more acceptable.

There's going to be a debate when this movie comes out whether or not it's consistent with canon. We argue that it is.

And that's sort of the end of it, really. If it's a good movie, most fans will agree that it is. If it sucks and tanks Paramount will do what Warner Bros is doing to Superman Returns, pretend it never existed and most fans will go along with that.

Me? Even if it sucks I'll accept it as cannon, but I'll always remember my simple origin and continue to think it was a better storytelling choice.

Still, I hope it's good. I hope I see the ship on screen and am in awe. I hope that Uhura is more than just eye-candy and that the guy who plays Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy is a worthy successor of the subtle brilliance that DeForest Kelly brought to the roll for nearly thirty years.

God, I so very much hope.