MOVIES

Enterprise Ethics

The original 'Star Trek' series dealt with important issues of the day, while the new film is all explosions and action.

By Marc Bain | Newsweek Web Exclusive
May 6, 2009 | Updated: 6:53  p.m. ET May 6, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: rednews72 @ 05/09/2009 9:14:48 PM

    I respectfully disagree with this analysis that they left out the spirit of ethics. I'm a long time trek fanwho has probably seen every episode of every series except Enterprise. What I think this article is missing entirely was the "no-win scenario" test in this movie. Many people face tests that are unfair in schools and in life, and often may not get further in life if they don't circumvent or bend the rules to their advantage. True to the original series, Kirk cheats on this test to gain entrance into Starfleet. In fact, in the original series Kirk cites that he got "A commendation for original thinking" for reprogramming the test.

    This is clearly an ethical issue and drives to the heart of the question of when is it OK to cheat, and in some cases, could it be that its not cheating at all when you question the system of authority that is imposing the test? Kirk has something original to bring to the system as he fundamentally doesn't believe in the "no-win scenario", which gets rehashed in the plotline of the rest of the movie when he wins against seemingly impossible odds.

    The lesson here was that cheating to make his point that there are always options in life was something that the system needed to shake up its core beliefs. I believe we're experiencing the same thing in our country. People telling us that there's nothing man can do with Global Warming. There's nothing we can do about green power (it's too expensive). Enough with the regular way of thinking! Thinking outside of the box is what makes Americans (and humans) excel. Our country is finally moving forward again, and Star Trek just depicted the value of it.

    • Posted By: SimonHawkin @ 05/10/2009 1:49:13 PM

      "Our country is finally moving forward again" -- oh please, go away.

      • Posted By: rednews72 @ 05/17/2009 6:41:58 PM

        No you go away...along with the dwindling minority of people that call themselves Republicans. You're an embarressment to the country with your constant negative "do nothing, everyone else but me is wrong" attitude.

        • Posted By: notnice @ 05/22/2009 3:13:54 PM

          First, let me correct your erroneous fanboy misconceptions. Kirk didn't cheat on any test to gain entrance into the Academy. How you arrived at that conclusion if you're "a longtime Trek fan" is a mystery. Kirk cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test, as depicted in the film, after having taken the test twice before and failing both times. Kirk didn't fail because he was inept or because he screwed up in any way...he failed because the test was designed to BREAK EVERYONE WHO TAKES IT. No one wins the test. The character of the person taking the test is being evaluated. Academy instructors want to see how officer candidates handle challenging, life-and-death situations with the Kobayashi Maru test.

          Kirk cheated because he was sticking his thumb in everyone's eye. He saw through the test after failing it twice. That's why in the new film, Kirk was depicted as being so cocky and glib while he cheated his heart out. His belief that there are no "no-win" scenarios very much demonstrated his character, as did his cheating so openly and publicly.

          Since Kirk isn't depicted as cheating in any other Academy endeavor (you know, like tests where applicable knowledge could eventually be a true matter of life or death) and since the character as a whole doesn't cheat anything but death time after time, it is silly to say cheating is the BIG, WEIGHTY ETHICAL DILEMMA of the movie. I think the BIG, WEIGHTY ETHICAL DILEMMAS of this particular movie were A) To see how much smoke the filmmakers could blow up the butts of all Trekkies everywhere in the world, and B) How much cash they could make in how short a period of time.

          In short, Kirk cheated on one test to say "Screw you" to not only the people who came up with the test, but to the whole concept of the "no-win??? scenario, not because he was a poor or lazy student who couldn't cope with his peers.

          Oh, and author Marc Bain is 100% correct to question the loud, flashy, and obnoxious nature of the movie versus the thoughtful character driven work that preceded it. This was an incredibly over hyped film that was a mediocre Hollywood style entry in the series as a whole. Why it's being praised as heavily as it is remains one of the great mysteries of the moment.

          PS: Way to tip your hand there with the Republican bashing. You brought politics up, not the other guy. Raw nerve much?

  • Posted By: Ben-Pen @ 05/12/2009 2:15:51 PM

    A few ethical points I read into it: the cost of waiting too long to combat genocide vs. a more risky unilateral mission, standing up to authority (when Kirk races into the cockpit and yells his discovery, despite his horrible pain, Spock when he put his life in jeopardy to save his culture from a dying planet (could that be a reference to climate change, even?), young people discovering the value of teamwork for the first time vs.inconsiderate individualism,, the beginning when Kirk´s dad sacrifices himself to save the others, the value of words and diplomacy before blind arrogant attacks (more than once, but especially when the Captain gives control to Spock, saying that he knew he wouldn't come back), as well as choosing to serve your country vs. wasting your life in a bar drinking.

    Does everyone make the right ethical decisions when their time comes to act? No, but they are more realistic and true to how young people would act with little experience. Many of the ethical questions from the original show are absolete, but the ones in the movie are closely relatable to Darfur, the value of emotion vs. reason in leadership, and the importance of serving your country at the cost of your life (hundreds of thousands are still abroad doing this same thing, even younger than Spock and Kirk in the movie). To fit this much into a picaresque movie that is entertaining as well, and we have a winner.

  • Posted By: Genghis-Sean @ 05/11/2009 1:15:26 PM

    It's unfair to compare the new release of the series where every minute on screen is precious to a television series. Each episode is a blank slate and the writers have carte blanche to construct it however they wish. This new film had to be written under staggering expectations. First and foremost, it had to reintroduce all seven original characters as Star Fleet cadets and do it convincingly enough that they wouldn't be rejected by the die-hard Trek faithful and at the same time render them palatable to those unfamiliar with original series. That, alone, sounds impossible. Secondly, it had to create a plot device fitting to base a movie on. Finally, it had to accomplish both of these under astonishing time constraints. As a fan of the original series, I think they did an unbelieveable job. It's doubtful that the wisdom of the original Trek crew existed from their graduation from Star Fleet. Rather, it was acquired while on their five year mission. There's plenty of time to introduce ethical quandries in later films. The first film had more important priorities.

  • Posted By: ssbn777 @ 05/11/2009 11:22:54 AM

    Movies are supposed to be about entertainment value, not some self-righteous thinly-veiled lesson in morality or political correctness. If I wanted to have leftist ideology and propaganda shoved down my throat for 2 hours, I'd go and watch a Michael Moore "movie". Or I'd turn on the evening news, then MSNBC or CNN???.

    • Posted By: scifictor @ 05/11/2009 1:11:51 PM

      Movies are NOT all just entertainment value. Movies are stories (most of them) written to express emotions, make people think, understand the experiences of others and - yes sometimes just excite us with the actual experience or make us laugh etc. Was the movie Babel about entertainment or making a point? What about Dumb and Dumber? They are not the same There is plenty on both ends of the spectrum - and I like stuff along the whole spectrum - but its not fair to reduce them all to having no purpose other than to entertain.

  • Posted By: scifictor @ 05/11/2009 11:23:10 AM

    Hey! I heard that they're rewriting Beethoven's 5th to expand its appeal to some new auduences that never liked listened to classical music. They are going to breath some new life into classical music (by adding some rock guitars and drums etc). I'm sure that some "pursits" won't like it but everyone else will. THOSE people really need to get over it already. Sound familiar? Gene Roddenberry had an idea - that people like me liked. It was imperfect and sometimes silly, and the characters had flaws, but it still retained a special quality about it. It was what it was. I didn't need it to have "fresh air" breathed into it. People who are "fans" of something, like that thing for what it is. Does that make them elitist or purists? Would you like someone rewriting your favorite music to suit the tastes of the "in-crowd"? The new movie is a slap in the face that says - "we could have done it sooo much better -see?". It is the fact that someone "reinvented" it - that shows it is hollywood that needs the fresh air - as they are continue to remake and remake, instead of using new material. The Day the Earth stood Still is another example of a remake that misses the entire point of the orginal (which it is supposed to be).

    • Posted By: ssbn777 @ 05/11/2009 11:26:48 AM

      I suppose you didn't like the recent BSG remake, either....

      • Posted By: scifictor @ 05/11/2009 11:58:43 AM

        I thought the BSG remake was well done - the characters were al lot edgier than the original ones. I didn't buy the whole human but still cylon with no way to tell the difference thing... Didn't see the whole series...

        • Posted By: ssbn777 @ 05/11/2009 12:08:44 PM

          The point is, is that the old series has its own character and charm, but the new series was great too. I enjoyed both, and didn't see the remake as crossing any kind of sacred line....

  • Posted By: scifictor @ 05/11/2009 10:44:15 AM

    One of the best thing I liked about the original series was the interplay between its characters. The new movie replaces the original Kirk with a disrepectful, self-centered egotistical cheater - with absolutely no experience in leadership. Apparently, that is the kind of person who should be placed into a position of great responsibility and authority. Message - Being tough and pushy will get you to the top - not hard work, ethics, or respect for others.

    • Posted By: ssbn777 @ 05/11/2009 11:24:58 AM

      "The new movie replaces the original Kirk with a disrepectful, self-centered egotistical cheater - with absolutely no experience in leadership."

      Sounds disturbing like certain recent events in real life, now doesn't it? LOL!

  • Posted By: ssbn777 @ 05/11/2009 11:18:57 AM

    Movies are supposed to be about entertainment value, not some self-righteous thinly-veiled lesson in morality or political correctness. If I wanted to have leftist ideology and propaganda shoved down my throat for 2 hours, I???d go and watch a Michael Moore ???movie???. Or I???d turn on the evening news, then MSNBC or CNN....

  • Posted By: DeanJ @ 05/11/2009 10:33:32 AM

    This is all very deep and emotional and such but the article is comparing apples to oranges. All of the deep moral issues in Trek were dealt with in the television series'. The original, Next Generation, Voyager... they all dealt with these big social and political issues because they had the time to do so. The Trek movies have always been a combination of big bangs and humorous character interaction. That has been the formula for success in the movie-versions, from Wrath of Khan to First Contact. History tells us that when you only have 2 hours to gain and impress an audience, any attempt to delve into deep social, political or religious issues will be met with deserved disdain (anyone remember Star Trek V - The Hunt for God?)

    Trek is back as far as I'm concerned. This reboot gives us everything we need to make it vital and yes commercially-successful once again. Hopefully they will solidify this new fan base with a sequel and then maybe we can consider a new TV-series to once more lead the Geek-based Moral Conscience into the future.

  • Posted By: DeanJ @ 05/11/2009 10:32:15 AM

    This is all very deep and emotional and such but the article is comparing apples to oranges. All of the deep moral issues in Trek were dealt with in the television series'. The original, Next Generation, Voyager... they all dealt with these big social and political issues because they had the time to do so. The Trek movies have always been a combination of big bangs and humorous character interaction. That has been the formula for success in the movie-versions, from Wrath of Khan to First Contact. History tells us that when you only have 2 hours to gain and impress an audience, any attempt to delve into deep social, political or religious issues will be met with deserved disdain (anyone remember Star Trek V - The Hunt for God?)

    Trek is back as far as I'm concerned. This reboot gives us everything we need to make it vital and yes commercially-successful once again. Hopefully they will solidify this new fan base with a sequel and then maybe we can consider a new TV-series to once more lead the Geek-based Moral Conscience into the future.

  • Posted By: OBloodyhell @ 05/11/2009 3:17:38 AM


    :::::"Trek" wasn't always [too utopian]. "The City on the Edge of Forever," from the original series' first season, has as an important plot point an alternate timeline in which an antiwar activist inadvertently helps Nazi Germany win World War II.

    How amusing that one should mention "City On The Edge of Forever" in modern times, yet blithely fail to grasp the explicit, particular relevance to the actions of the Left in these times. As Churchill once commented, "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times he will pick himself up and carry on...". This, the Newsweek writer does indeed.

    The premise of CotEoF is that of McCoy, thrown back in time, saves the life of an extreme pacifist who subsequently prevents the USA from entering WWII until too late. Germany wins. And the world destroys itself in trying to throw off the Nazi yoke.

    Anyone besides me seeing a connection between this and the rabidly unconstrained pacifism of the modern American Left? Anyone? Bueller?

  • Posted By: OBloodyhell @ 05/11/2009 12:20:04 AM

    :::::In one noteworthy scene, an offer of mercy to the villain by the Enterprise crew becomes an apparently pleasurable opportunity for retribution, leading to a screen full of twisting metal and laser fire.

    Funny, to me, this seems an acknowledgment of post-911 sensibility. The offer of mercy is given, as one would hopefully expect. This represent a moral choice, to eschew simple revenge. When the fanatical enemy, who is clearly guilty of genocide on a scale which makes Hitler, Stalin, AND Mao look like two-bit pikers (I mean -- really -- 6 BILLION people, an entire planet with all its life forms, is utterly destroyed), says that they'd rather die than accept their mercy, the response of "OK, have it your way" with a grim smile, is nothing but a completely rational response. Being above revenge does not prevent one from feeling and appreciating the very rational, reptile-brain pleasure one gets from seeing it anyway. God may be capable of such distance from personal experience, but I don't expect anything even vaguely human to attain that state (even assuming it is a desirable state) anytime soon, and, if they do, they certainly won't be interesting to write stories about -- because they'll have nothing in common with us.

    If the chief target audience for the Star Trek reboot, the current generation of youth understands this, and does so despite the libtard preachings of peace at any price, perhaps there is hope for the next generation after all.

  • Posted By: OBloodyhell @ 05/11/2009 12:19:25 AM

    :::::In one noteworthy scene, an offer of mercy to the villain by the Enterprise crew becomes an apparently pleasurable opportunity for retribution, leading to a screen full of twisting metal and laser fire.

    Funny, to me, this seems an acknowledgment of post-911 sensibility. The offer of mercy is given, as one would hopefully expect. This represent a moral choice, to eschew simple revenge. When the fanatical enemy, who is clearly guilty of genocide on a scale which makes Hitler, Stalin, AND Mao look like two-bit pikers (I mean -- really -- 6 BILLION people, an entire planet with all its life forms, is utterly destroyed), says that they'd rather die than accept their mercy, the response of "OK, have it your way" with a grim smile, is nothing but a completely rational response. Being above revenge does not prevent one from feeling and appreciating the very rational, reptile-brain pleasure one gets from seeing it anyway. God may be capable of such distance from personal experience, but I don't expect anything even vaguely human to attain that state (even assuming it is a desirable state) anytime soon, and, if they do, they certainly won't be interesting to write stories about -- because they'll have nothing in common with us.

    If the chief target audience for the Star Trek reboot, the current generation of youth understands this, and does so despite the libtard preachings of peace at any price, perhaps there is hope for the next generation after all.

  • Posted By: KandSteve'sDad @ 05/10/2009 7:17:23 PM

    Did I enjoy the movie - yes, but in the same way that I do Transformers and Terminator. This definitely was not the cerebral Star Trek that I grew up with and grew to love. It's not thoughtful science fiction. It's dead, Jim.

  • Posted By: expatincebu @ 05/07/2009 7:15:16 PM

    goldwave, your point is correct but your analogy is wrong. Gene Rodenberry created Star Trek. These buffoons that have taken it over are using the franchise name to create a cheap copy devoid of the best parts of the original. It is not a creative work, otherwise they would have created their own future vision with their own characters. It is nothing more than a commercial driven cheap imitation copy. It is a form of legalized piracy.

    • Posted By: purrmonsta @ 05/10/2009 5:36:46 PM

      You're joking, right? Did you actually see the movie? I was a Trekkie as a child and was skeptical at first, but was won over by the great performances, characters, and stories within the stories. This was very well done and I will see it again! Rodenberry and his vision live on.

  • Posted By: Sonoluma @ 05/08/2009 10:23:12 AM

    Personally, I have zero interest in seeing this movie and see it as simply being a cheap attempt at cashing in on the the ST franchise with a younger audiences & new age brackets. The previews make it out to look just as bad as the Star War prequel trilogy Episodes 1-3 were. Lots of fancy CGI, horrible acting, terrible story lines & any real fans of the series will be horribly let down.

    • Posted By: purrmonsta @ 05/10/2009 5:33:15 PM

      I differ with you. The movie was fun, thought-provoking, even moved me to tears at a few points. The acting was fine, including a few memorable brief appearances (Winona Ryder, Nimoy) and an extraordinary Eric Bana villain performance. Kirk and Spock won me over in the first half hour, and I really DID NOT want to like them! Live long and prosper.

  • Posted By: purrmonsta @ 05/10/2009 5:10:56 PM

    PS...I meant "Well said to zepnath who commented here...NOT to Marc Bain.

    One thing nobody's mentioned - Winona Ryder was AWESOME as Spock's mother. Small part, big talent. Nice to see her again doing something great.

  • Posted By: zephnath @ 05/10/2009 4:49:43 PM

    I disagree, there was more Moral delema in this movie than there has been in the last three movies. The delemas are just a little more personal, and touch where others didn't dare go before. For instance, Spocks delema with being human or vulcan, his issues with his feelings, especially those of his mother. Or there is Kirk's self righteousness, which gets him in trouble in several ways, but eventuallly is his greatest strength once he learns how to focus his tallents and work with a team. It goes into the remorse that Nero, the Evil Romulan, feels for losing his family. Spock's father coming to terms and admitting that he too, feels emotions. Sure the action was present, but the back story was the moral delemas that are so easily missed. There are ton's of them, which is most likely why they are missed, to busy looking for the big touchy moment, when there are many smaller ones ever present.

    • Posted By: purrmonsta @ 05/10/2009 5:02:19 PM

      Well said...I too saw many moments of moral and ethical import amid the action. This movie rocked on many levels.

  • Posted By: Draco1962 @ 05/10/2009 3:51:24 PM

    "...the big moral lessons are nowhere to be found. Sure, it's just a summer blockbuster, but by leaving out the spirit of ethical inquiry, the new "Trek" isn't true to the show, or its fans."

    Either you are a disgruntled Trekkie that has yet to get out of your mom's basement since TOS ended the first time, or you haven't a clue. Either is sad to say the least. Yong Kirk and Spock before TOS would have likely been more brash and without much control over their emotions. Lessons can be given without the "preachyness" that TOS and it's spinoffs, most notably TNG followed as part of the Roddenberry canon. Because you fail to see them does not mean they do not exist. The first thing that all should keep in mind is that it is entertainment - first and foremost.

  • Posted By: Draco1962 @ 05/10/2009 3:51:06 PM

    "...the big moral lessons are nowhere to be found. Sure, it's just a summer blockbuster, but by leaving out the spirit of ethical inquiry, the new "Trek" isn't true to the show, or its fans."

    Either you are a disgruntled Trekkie that has yet to get out of your mom's basement since TOS ended the first time, or you haven't a clue. Either is sad to say the least. Yong Kirk and Spock before TOS would have likely been more brash and without much control over their emotions. Lessons can be given without the "preachyness" that TOS and it's spinoffs, most notably TNG followed as part of the Roddenberry canon. Because you fail to see them does not mean they do not exist. The first thing that all should keep in mind is that it is entertainment - first and foremost.

  • Posted By: Still Free in the USA @ 05/07/2009 1:22:05 PM

    FMN76-Same reason you pass a budget without a "vote" by putting "provisions aside" after the supposed vote; to make it pass anyway. Injustice. Ah, I had just finished my Nancy Pelosi workout Video "Sweatin with the Socialists"; jumpin, up and down, clapping and I was just being silly

    • Posted By: DemGirl1970 @ 05/10/2009 3:29:37 AM

      Wow- left v. riight in a Star Trek comments blog. Sad.... So much for Utopian society of the future....

      • Posted By: SimonHawkin @ 05/10/2009 1:24:40 PM

        Star Trek society is far from utopian, it just looks that way because it is presented in a comics book form, suitable for children. Serious issues tend to be either bowdlerized or simply ignored.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse