Forget Everything You Thought You Knew About Star Trek
In some ways the tart title Star Trek seems ridiculous for the eleventh movie in a series plus six television series, almost ignoring the episodic nature of the franchise. Director J.J. Abrams and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are obviously and admittedly no Trekkies, and they bring back a young Kirk and Spock without exactly making it an origin story, in the alternate-dimensions/Marvel multiverse mode (ala Batman Begins), which the series has never exactly done before. But despite the action-movie makeover Star Trek appears on its surface, the title suits because the movie is about the franchise.
Anyone who's ever seen a Star Trek before knows its aesthetic feels weirdly dated for a series set in the distant future. Continuity with Gene Roddenberry's original creation has always trumped cool spacegear; even the small advances have been justified by setting subsequent series further ahead in spacetime. But the series has always been contemporary as an allegory, making analogy to current events, ethics and philosophy. The integrity of that analogy has always been more important than kinky duds, and its effect on ratings may be one reason the latest series "Enterprise" was canceled.
This Star Trek doesn't take enormous liberties with costume, starship or even Spock's hair, but it does action and storytelling in a dramatically different way. The way it's lensed and color-corrected instantly shout "this ain't your daddy's Star Trek". Kirk and Spock do a lot of punching, for Kirk and Spock. This is Star Trek with the Beastie Boys in it. People get naked.
Like Captain Kirk, the series is reborn young, sexy and a lot less sensible. The story centers around a tiny blob that creates black holes called 'red matter', which, having falling into the wrong hands, has led to the creation of... black holes. It's so silly a plot device they had to have Leonard Nimoy explain it to the audience. A far cry from the meditative Star Trek: The Motion Picture, this Star Trek's moralizing doesn't hold a lot of red matter, so to speak. It gives an obligatory gloss over what it means to be Vulcan -- whether intellect and emotion are mutually exclusive -- but it's not a really important struggle in the world today, a superabundance of logic, whatever Maureen Dowd says.
Despite its departure from the rest of the series, in some ways Star Trek is a paean to nerdom. Ironic as it is to be sentimental about a Vulcan, the film is most deeply felt in its reverence for Nimoy as Spock -- plus he's given the best jokes at the end. There's an inexplicable scene where Scotty accidentally beams into the plumbing (because nerds love schematics, right?) and after a cheap laugh about fencing, Sulu saves the day with his incredible swordsmanship. Those little episodes are done with unabashed style, giddy with invention, and they reinforce the fact that Star Trek has its nerdy cult for a reason: it's great entertainment.
But the biggest shift is that Star Trek, as a prequel, reworks characters and events in the Star Trek universe, even to the prohibition of events from previous movies. Entire planets don't exist anymore. We can infer that Spock gets laid. More importantly, if Shatner isn't Kirk, what is Kirk? Apparently being raised by a single mother has made him flamboyantly angsty. And the rest of the crew: is eastern European really an archetype? Is that why Chekov is suddenly a child prodigy? Just mention a wormhole and the audience forgives these leaps, but it makes very clear that they're not continuity problems they're reinventions, that the franchise has nowhere to go but everywhere, and that this isn't meant to be the series' origin story so much as a re-origin story.
Star Trek actually does go where the series has gone before... but it boldly goes. If there is a cohesive philosophy underwriting Star Trek, it's discovering a way to win whatever the odds, and that sometimes the best logic is to behave erratically. And as the new Kirk fights harder and thinks less, so does Star Trek, and it certainly finds its way to win: beating expectations, the box office, and inaugurating a new era for the franchise. While it isn't the series' most nuanced message, its masterstroke is that the new crew's brash ethos is completely endemic of the film itself, which makes it a hugely satisfying package.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
To give everyone a better sense of the priorities of Abrams and Paramount, in the publicity Crew pic shows Kirk at the front, Spock behind to the immediate right and UHURA (not McCoy) behind to the immediate left.
Indication of things to come?? A love triangle in the making??
Lets be honest. the majority of Star Trek movies have been complete dreck or wasted opportunities.
This new vision of Star Trek however, is fun and action packed. It doesn't take itself too seriously, but it still respects the audience's desire for some escapist summer fun.
Watched Star Trek since I was a little kid (40 years), consider myself a fan. I don't dress up in ST uniforms, or speak Klingon, but I have a few friends that do, and feel they are free to do whatever moves them.
I thought we had a set of excellent performances, with Karl Urban, Zack Quinto and Mr. Nemoy all doing a great job. I enjoyed everyone in the movie, even the oddly cast Tyler Perry (perhaps I am too used to seeing him as an older woman).
I thought the special effects were excellent.
I thought the direction of the movie was 2nd rate, the plot filled with HUGE, HUGE holes that were insultingly bad, as a bit of review by a critical mind would have cleaned up 90% of it. I thought, conversely, that the Dialogue between the characters was generally excellent, and the action fast paced, and exciting even if lacking real genius.
Overall, I wish the cast, crew and producers the best. If this one does well, we will have more, and perhaps another turn at making more ST. After all, Robert Wise failed on STTMP, but Wrath of Khan followed it. Lets hope that History will repeat in this case...and not simply diverged.
The new Star Trek film is TOO horrible. The food is ALL wrong!
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/intergalactic-eats/
Much like how the first X-MEN movie inspired Marvel to create a line of comics featuring the same heroes and villains from their mainstream continuity but in a distinct continuity which allowed the versions of their heroes to be younger, angrier, and hornier. That new continuity is known as the ULTIMATE Universe.
This was ULTIMATE STAR TREK.
Not exactly a compliment, but it is what it is.
Now if we can just cut Abrams out of the picture, along with anyone else who thinks it's cinematic to shake the camera during action (and not-so action) sequences.
I enjoyed it. There just haven't been a lot of movies in the past few years that I can say that about. I might even go see it again just to be able to catch all the things I probably missed the first time around. That is highly unusual for me.
I keep reading that a "reboot was necessary"...
Necessary for what?
To make a ton more money?? Is THAT what "reboots" are for??
Or is the argument that a reboot is necessary to bring a beloved and revered concept into the "mainstream"??
Using that logic, then we should "reboot" the bible..
Let's bring the bible more into the mainstream with Adam & Steve instead of Adam & Eve. Kill off all the Apostles (they are all probably Vulcans, after all) and make Christ a woman instead of a guy.
I mean, if rebooting a set of beliefs, values and morals is the goal, then EVERYTHING should be rebooted..
Is that the argument that is being made?
You're comparing your fandom of Star Trek to someone's devotion and faith to Christianity?
You're comparing ST to the Bible?
And, btw, Christianity DID get a reboot.
It was called Protestantism.
Star Trek is a system of morality, beliefs and values based on a TV show.
Christianity is a system of morality, beliefs and values based on a book..
What's the difference??
Maybe not so much as what demographics attended, but what demographics loved/hated it. That would explain at lot more.
Loved the film and believe that the reboot was warranted and necessary. One quibble though- as enjoyable as ogling Zoe Saldana may be, the retro-costuming was a bad call and a severely false note: her mini-skirt would be an inappropriate uniform in *this* century, let alone the next. The semi-gratuitous underwear scene should have been plenty to dispose of any fanboy desire for T&A. In the (probably inevitable) event of a sequel, let's go back to gender neutral uniforms, hmm?
That's called "Star Trek: The PC Next Generation."
It ain't "Star Trek" with the original crew.
You really don't respect the "canon," do you?
Obviously, you won't get your wish.
See William Bradley's Profile
Kirk has always done a lot of punching, in the movies as well as the TV show.
He's also always been the consummate ladies man.
This is the same guy, just growing up without the proper grounding after his father died when he was born in this reality.
Till he's taken under the wing of Capt. Christopher Pike ...
Am I the only one who noticed that this Kirk can't fight? He gets his ass handed to him in SIX DIFFERENT BRAWLS!
0 for 6!
WTF Abrams?
To be fair...
In the bar scene it was 6 to 1 odds...
In the other brawls, he was going up against Romulans and Vulcans. Try sparring with a grizzly and you'll get the gist of it.
Although you have to admit:
"I've Got Your Gun" was classic Shatner-esque Kirk... :D
Kirk was still badass. I think that in time Kirk will become a better fighter. He can't win everything all the time.
I think this was intended.
Nice article. I am interested to find out more demographic info on those who have attended the film. For example, what is the ratio of baby boomers to kiddiots? It would do a lot to help explain its popularity.
My demographic is as follows.
I voted Democrat in the 2006 election and voted for Obama in the last Presidential election.
I am a lower income late 40s father and grandfather that lives in rural NE Florida.
I have been a Trekker since the 7th grade and have penned a couple ST:TNG episodes, one of which was good enough to be ripped off by Paramount as (any TV writer can tell you) Paramount is wont to do.
I thought the movie was exciting, funny and action packed. As a stand alone movie it was awesome and I liked it a lot.
However, I hated it because it wasn't Star Trek. I hated it because it tried to pass itself off as Star Trek..
This was Star Trek 90210: FAST AND FURIOUS
Are you gonna repeat the same frakking attack on Star Trek at every possible opportunity?
It's getting real boring.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
