Everyone knows I am a Trekkie. I may not even be a good one, given the fact that I haven't even seen Voyager and Deep Space 9 all the way through. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, that will begin to show you just how deep and abiding the Star Trek canon now is, as it is being added to as we speak.
Star Trek would not have endured, if not for the success of Star Trek: The Next Generation. "TNG," as it is lovingly abbreviated, allowed the Trek family to finish the feature films involving the original Star Trek cast with some coherence, and a tie to the present, which was being made by TNG. I digress.
One of the more inspired casting choices back then had to be Sir Patrick Stewart as Capt. Jean-Luc Picard. Stewart is and was a Shakespearean actor, but not unknown to science fiction fans as Gurney Halleck in the film adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel, "Dune". I myself have also enjoyed in recent months his cameo turn as the Russian spy chief Karla, in the miniseries film adaptations of the John Le Carre books, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and "Smiley's People," both venerably fronted by Sir Alec Guinness in the protagonist role of George Smiley.
Anyway, as it turned out, Stewart added a certain gravitas that was needed, before TNG earned the loyalty of Star Trek fans. In the process, he helped create an amazing character, a 24th century Renaissance man, who, even within the strictures of Gene Roddenberry's atheistic humanism, is admirable, and worthy of emulation. I think even the weakest of the TNG feature films at the conclusion of the series is a worthy addition to the Star Trek canon, and I know the fans are pleased that such a beloved character still endures. It will be interesting to see what happens, if and when the character is "rebooted," to see who is chosen to fill such large shoes.
"Star Trek: Picard" is set in terms of our calendar in 2399, some 28 years after the end of TNG, and 14 years after Adm. Picard has resigned in protest, for reasons we do not know when the series begins. There is always a tension between what film and TV critics call, "fan service" and good storytelling. Bad storytelling mistakes fan service for good storytelling, and often ends up with neither. Star Trek: Picard suffers no such flaws. I think that you will find if you love TNG that it treats your love with great reverence, even as the writers and other creators have a story to tell. It's sentimental, but not cheap; it's familiar, but not worn. Stewart still inhabits this character. My deepest wish right now is to introduce the non-familiar to the character of Jean-Luc Picard.
I know that I have been pretty rough in recent posts on the philosophy of existentialism. It is indeed some sort of false binary to be forced to choose between existentialism, and nihilism. Revealed truth in Christ is so liberating, because Christ is the meaning of all things; I have no need to make a meaning out of my life. Even as suffering remains the great mystery in this life, that even the experience of revealed truth on this side does not decipher or make plain, there is a coherence and a purpose that becomes clear.
There are no spoilers in this piece, or at least very small ones, because if you have an opportunity to watch the show, nobody likes a show or movie to be ruined by someone else. At the same time, Star Trek in all its incarnations including this one still serves as something of a medium for my self-expression, and one of the ways that I lean into the world. Science fiction in particular--as I have mentioned before--serves as a kind of parable in the present day to talk about what matters in a subtle, hopefully inoffensive way. This is especially important when we often find that speaking directly about things that are contentious often doesn't go very well. Our Lord used parables to great effect, wanting to teach his audience, while favorably disposing them to receive what he had to say.
To say that I have enjoyed the show so far is almost perverse. I don't judge Star Trek on the simple terms of whether it was momentarily diverting. It's a medium, a story to tell another important story. Most immediately, it helps me tell my story, and with mercy, how my story intersects and joins the great story of God's love for humanity.
The show is far from philosophically perfect, but it is philosophically relevant, and that is nearly all you can ask, when faced with life's most important questions. I recommend the entire first season of this show, especially if you can find 11 hours to spare.
Star Trek would not have endured, if not for the success of Star Trek: The Next Generation. "TNG," as it is lovingly abbreviated, allowed the Trek family to finish the feature films involving the original Star Trek cast with some coherence, and a tie to the present, which was being made by TNG. I digress.
One of the more inspired casting choices back then had to be Sir Patrick Stewart as Capt. Jean-Luc Picard. Stewart is and was a Shakespearean actor, but not unknown to science fiction fans as Gurney Halleck in the film adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel, "Dune". I myself have also enjoyed in recent months his cameo turn as the Russian spy chief Karla, in the miniseries film adaptations of the John Le Carre books, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and "Smiley's People," both venerably fronted by Sir Alec Guinness in the protagonist role of George Smiley.
Anyway, as it turned out, Stewart added a certain gravitas that was needed, before TNG earned the loyalty of Star Trek fans. In the process, he helped create an amazing character, a 24th century Renaissance man, who, even within the strictures of Gene Roddenberry's atheistic humanism, is admirable, and worthy of emulation. I think even the weakest of the TNG feature films at the conclusion of the series is a worthy addition to the Star Trek canon, and I know the fans are pleased that such a beloved character still endures. It will be interesting to see what happens, if and when the character is "rebooted," to see who is chosen to fill such large shoes.
"Star Trek: Picard" is set in terms of our calendar in 2399, some 28 years after the end of TNG, and 14 years after Adm. Picard has resigned in protest, for reasons we do not know when the series begins. There is always a tension between what film and TV critics call, "fan service" and good storytelling. Bad storytelling mistakes fan service for good storytelling, and often ends up with neither. Star Trek: Picard suffers no such flaws. I think that you will find if you love TNG that it treats your love with great reverence, even as the writers and other creators have a story to tell. It's sentimental, but not cheap; it's familiar, but not worn. Stewart still inhabits this character. My deepest wish right now is to introduce the non-familiar to the character of Jean-Luc Picard.
I know that I have been pretty rough in recent posts on the philosophy of existentialism. It is indeed some sort of false binary to be forced to choose between existentialism, and nihilism. Revealed truth in Christ is so liberating, because Christ is the meaning of all things; I have no need to make a meaning out of my life. Even as suffering remains the great mystery in this life, that even the experience of revealed truth on this side does not decipher or make plain, there is a coherence and a purpose that becomes clear.
There are no spoilers in this piece, or at least very small ones, because if you have an opportunity to watch the show, nobody likes a show or movie to be ruined by someone else. At the same time, Star Trek in all its incarnations including this one still serves as something of a medium for my self-expression, and one of the ways that I lean into the world. Science fiction in particular--as I have mentioned before--serves as a kind of parable in the present day to talk about what matters in a subtle, hopefully inoffensive way. This is especially important when we often find that speaking directly about things that are contentious often doesn't go very well. Our Lord used parables to great effect, wanting to teach his audience, while favorably disposing them to receive what he had to say.
To say that I have enjoyed the show so far is almost perverse. I don't judge Star Trek on the simple terms of whether it was momentarily diverting. It's a medium, a story to tell another important story. Most immediately, it helps me tell my story, and with mercy, how my story intersects and joins the great story of God's love for humanity.
The show is far from philosophically perfect, but it is philosophically relevant, and that is nearly all you can ask, when faced with life's most important questions. I recommend the entire first season of this show, especially if you can find 11 hours to spare.
Comments