Rod Roddenberry's Trek Nation is finally approaching terminal velocity.  With a brand new trailer and more momentum behind the several year in the making documentary, the film is finally finished and seeking distribution. 

Wired.com had a recent conversation with Trek Nation director Scott Colthorp and asked several questions about the film, his Trek lifestyle, Gene's vision, and what he thought of the J.J. Abrams reboot.  We're really looking forward to the "Trek Nation" release.  Not that we didn't love "Trekkies", but we really would like to see a much more serious look at Trek & Trek Fandom.  Check out the interview excerpt below.

Wired.com: So how long have you been a Trekkie?

Scott Colthorp: From what I understand, there are numerous ways for one to have an awakening, from meditation, to near-death experiences and perhaps psychedelic drugs. But for me, it was Star Trek.

Wired.com: I saw that coming.

Colthorp: It was at a gathering of my college roommates every evening to watch reruns of the original series that I found my first satori. My roommates and I ran the gamut of diversity: An Army brat, a fraternity brother, an art student and myself, a struggling philosophy student.

It was the Gene Roddenberry-penned script, “The Menagerie,” which was reformatted from the original pilot, “The Cage,” that grabbed my attention. I suppose my initiation to many philosophical concepts was birthed from multiple viewings of that episode. Of course, it was only during the making of this documentary I have been able to articulate what I discovered intuitively from watching this show as a pimple-faced college student many eons ago.

Wired.com: What do you think of J.J. Abrams’ reboot?

Colthorp: I think J.J. Abrams’ re-envisioning of Star Trek was long overdue. The franchise needed some fresh talent and J.J. brought an action-packed film of the highest order, although it lacked many of Gene’s humanistic themes. But I think it takes an ambitious, action-oriented, and philosophically minded artist to speak deeply about the human condition without boring today’s youthful audience. That’s a tall order.

Wired.com: What did you learn most from those involved with or inspired by Trek during your filming?

Colthorp: That Star Trek was produced as a vehicle to express the worldview and philosophy of one man, Gene Roddenberry. As a result, many of the writers of The Next Generation, the sequel to the original series created 20 years later, spoke at length about the unusual constraints the show’s creator placed on their writing. I suspect there have been very few television shows that have the creator’s value system so entangled in the scripts.

Wired.com: So what are your thoughts on the original series’ persistent optimism?

Colthorp: A great question that is thematically explored in our film. Roddenberry was unabashedly humanistic as we know from his membership in the American Humanist Association. His humanistic optimism was boldly present in the original series, a show which was birthed in the political and social upheaval of the ’60s. It makes sense that Star Trek would emerge from the milieu of this era. It reached through the screen and promised millions of viewers a future where the fear and prejudice they were seeing in the headlines would no longer rule the day. And he did it in an intelligent and entertaining manner. I think the fans will be thanking him well into the 21st century.

Wired.com: How do you think that optimism plays in our terrorized 21st century?

Colthorp: Gene Roddenberry was concerned about terrorism in the late ’80s when he created The Next Generation. He talked about it in many interviews. He and other writers explored the subject in various episodes through the years. Even with the rise of postmodernism and its moral relativity, Gene kept his optimism about humankind’s potential. But, many of the writers weren’t so keen with his grand narrative.

In fact, one of the show’s top writers felt that Gene may have taken his optimism too far, perhaps even becoming dogmatic about his position. Our documentary puts Gene’s optimistic orthodoxy under scrutiny, and poses the question: Could Gene have made his Star Trek in today’s time? In fact, many of our interviewees commented that Star Trek began to lose much of its optimistic tone after Gene’s passing in 1991.

Wired.com: Abrams’ reboot is violent and rough, compared to the series. Is that optimism and violence bound up in our new century, as it was in the ’60s, which was an exceedingly violent era?

Colthorp: I believe youth-oriented demographics and moral relativity have more to do with the violent nature and dystopic message of films today than most other factors combined. But there are many of us who would like to see the film and TV industry work harder to present a more positive view of the future, irrespective of the times. Millennials from all over the Western world are being drawn to collaboration in place of competition, to service over profit, and to compassion over selfish conquest.

Granted, this optimistic view of cultural maturation is not well accepted among postmodern cynics and the scientific-materialist crowds, but is gaining interest in many circles. Developmental psychology, evolutionary biology, and Integral Theory are all pointing to a future where humankind may, indeed, shed its prejudices for a more inclusive future. We will see.

Wired.com: So where does your film sit in comparison to 1997 documentary Trekkies, which focused on Star Trek’s biggest fans?

Colthorp: Ten years ago, Rod Roddenberry and I set out to create a film that was, in many ways, an antithesis to Trekkies. We agreed that our documentary would not focus on the overzealous, costumed fans. We wanted to go beneath the surface of fandom and explore the roots of the show’s popularity and endurance from the perspective of a son, Rod, who lost his father when he was 17. What we discovered was an ex-cop with a philosophical bent, and the courage to share his ideals in the form of a television show. (source Wired.com)

Read the full interview here.