Reply to comment

I thought about that afterwards; that it wasn't really Pegg's portrayal of Scotty, or Scotty himself they approved of, but the idea of Pegg in that role.

Is/Was Trek cool? To whom, where and when? I thought socialists thinking first and shooting later-- but still shooting when there was no other choice, which plenty of times there wasn't-- was pretty cool.

Does it really take that much? The show doesn't always focus on it, but it IS kind of a Communist dream. Technology and an economy of plenty rather than scarcity (hence the lack of cash) takes away from every individual the responsibility for providing for their basic needs: food, shelter, clothing. The only risks are voluntary. What we really never get to see, though, is how "ordinary" people live, on Earth, who are not members of Starfleet. Starfleet life does carry greater risks, and the work itself is its own reward-- there is no hazard pay.

Although Trek never shows it to us, I sort of imagine the Federation being a lot like Banks' Culture, with Starfleet in the place of Contact. (I suppose Trek doesn't have an equivalent to Special Circumstances; too bad.)

It is a paradox, though, and I'm tempted to just cut right through it. The people who are saying this is really good, or the best Trek film ever, aren't fans. JJ Abrams is popular AND cool. Why wouldn't people have gone to see this film without the Trek name? Why on Earth not?

(I have the same objections to Mission Impossible. Why not just call it Mission Ridiculous and get it over with.)