{"id":5094,"date":"2010-05-04T19:45:08","date_gmt":"2010-05-05T00:45:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.allyngibson.net\/?p=5094"},"modified":"2010-05-04T19:45:08","modified_gmt":"2010-05-05T00:45:08","slug":"on-star-trek-magazines-movie-spectacular","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.allyngibson.com\/?p=5094","title":{"rendered":"On Star Trek Magazine’s Movie Spectacular"},"content":{"rendered":"

Within the next week or so, the new issue of Star Trek Magazine<\/i>, issue #26 in the United States, issue #153 in the United Kingdom, will start showing up on newsstands. Its cover proclaims it to be “The Ultimate Movie Guide,” and all eleven Star Trek<\/i> movies, from 1979’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture<\/i> to 2009’s Star Trek<\/i>, are profiled.<\/p>\n

\"DummyA number of writers, among them David R. George III (the Crucible<\/i> trilogy), David A. McIntee (Doctor Who<\/i>‘s Sanctuary<\/i>), and William Leisner (Losing the Peace<\/i>), penned two-page articles on a given film, offering insights into the film both as a piece of cinema and as a piece of Star Trek<\/i> history.<\/p>\n

My contribution, “The Decline and Fall,” covers 1994’s Star Trek Generations<\/i>. The seventh film in the series, Generations<\/i> was the “passing of the torch” film, and I explain where the film came from, how it developed, what it was for, and ultimately why it failed.<\/p>\n

My approach for the article was inspired largely by Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood’s monumental Doctor Who<\/i> reference work, the six-ish volume About Time<\/i> series from Mad Norwegian Press. They put Doctor Who<\/i> into the context of the time in which it was made, they found something interesting to say about even the most uninteresting of topics, and they weren’t afraid to have an opinion.<\/p>\n

To give you an idea of the flavor and the perspective of “The Decline and Fall,” this is the article’s opening from my vastly-too-long first draft:<\/p>\n

It’s difficult to imagine now, when a Star Trek<\/i> film can garner nigh-universal critical praise and Spock\u0092s saturnine visage can grace the front of a box of Frosted Flakes<\/i>, but Star Trek<\/i> was, for a few brief months in 1994 — dare we say it? — cool<\/i>. Star Trek: The Next Generation<\/i> has just finished its seventh and final season with the stunning “All Good Things…” and received an Emmy nomination for Best Drama for its trouble. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine<\/i> was about to enter its third season, Paramount was a few short months away from launching a brand-new television network to be anchored by Star Trek: Voyager<\/i>. Patrick Stewart and William Shatner appeared together on the cover of Time<\/i>. Star Trek<\/i> was, beyond a doubt, more popular, more influential<\/i> that it had ever been. The future beckoned. There were summits still to climb, and the film Star Trek: Generations<\/i>, bringing together two generations for a single adventure, would lead the way. We forget this now because recent history — Voyager<\/i>‘s limp journey home, Enterprise<\/i>‘s inconsistent mission and ever-dwindling ratings, Nemesis<\/i>‘ underwhelming box office performance, the polarization and indifference of fandom to all three — colors our view of the past, but sixteen years ago it truly seemed that Star Trek<\/i> would conquer the world. Now, we see Generations<\/i> as part of the tapestry. What we cannot see, because what the film does is so commonplace now, is how revolutionary<\/i> it was for its time. Ironically, were it not for Generations<\/i> itself, what the film does — a merging of generations — would not<\/i> be so commonplace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When you pick up Star Trek Magazine<\/i>, you’ll find about a third of that; the article was pared considerably from my first draft. How “vastly-too-long” was that first draft? Well… it reaches 3k; the assignment was for 1.2k. I had a lot of ideas, I wanted to get them down on paper.<\/p>\n

The authors and movies covered in the issue include:<\/p>\n