Star Trek: Everything Old is New Again

“To not like it would make them dickheads”
-Leonard Nimoy

Yesterday I went to my local theater to see the new Star Trek film. I didn’t want to put up a review right after viewing, in order to produce a more objective review. After giving it twenty-four hours to sink in and discussing the film with a few (Trekkie) friends I can effectively give you my thoughts.

My history with the Star Trek universe is brief but plentiful. I was a Star Wars kid when I was younger, still am. No matter how bad they try to tarnish the name I can still go back and enjoy the original trilogy (and even Episodes 2 and 3). I wasn’t into Star Trek until I met one of my (now) ex-girlfriends. She and her father would watch together, and she cried at the end of Nemesis when Data was killed. Needless to say I wasn’t that emotionally invested in either sci-fi series.

But I gave Trek a chance, and I was hooked. I started with the “logical” choice, The Next Generation. From there I delved into the movies, DS9, and Voyager. Through Wikipedia and Memory Alpha I became knowledgeable about the rich history of Star Trek. How Gene Roddenberry had intended for his show to be a series of morality plays to help people understand and cope with the changing times of the 1960s. This same vision was brought into another era of change, the late 80s and early 90s. With the death of Gene, the failure of Star Trek Enterprise, the departure of Rick Berman, and Paramount’s overall lack of faith in the franchise it seemed that Star Trek was dead.

Thanks to Wikipedia I heard about a new Star Trek film that was being directed by JJ Abrams of Lost. I am not a fan of Lost, so I was skeptical. Furthering my skepticism was hearing that Abrams was not a fan of Trek. I thought to myself, what could someone who was not a fan bring to the franchise? It turns out the answer is perspective.

After years of Berman-helmed flops and a legion of fans that take the franchise too seriously, bringing in a guy like JJ Abrams was the shot in the arm Trek needed. Seeing a fresh take on Star Trek was like, excuse the comparison, seeing a refit of the USS Enterprise. It’s new, it’s different, but it’s still definitively the Enterprise.

I won’t go through the entire film scene-by-scene; if you’ve seen it you already now what I’m talking about, and if you haven’t you’ll hate me for spoiling it. Chris Pine as Kirk was a great decision, he managed to capture the essence of Shatner’s performance while bringing something new to the table. Actually, put in any other actor/character combination and it’s the same outcome. Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldana were fantastic, Simon Pegg was expectedly hilarious, Karl Urban was a great choice for Bones, and Anton Yelchin and John Cho made the best of smaller roles. Even Leonard Nimoy, whose addition I questioned, was appropriately used. It seemed like everyone understood that this was an ensemble film, and worked together to put together a great product.

My one nitpick about characters was Eric Banas tattooed Romulan, Nero. One review I read classified Nero as an “ineffective” nemesis, and I can’t say I disagree. Bana is a good actor, but the role wasn’t strong enough and could be called a poor-man’s Shinzon (from ST: Nemesis). I’m not sure what could have been done to make Nero more menacing, but this was one miss in a film full of hits.

Ryan Church, Neville Page, and John Eaves put together a sleek, beautiful bridge. All of the interior set designs were both functional and visually appealing. Industrial Light & Magic, Digital Domain, and the other special effects designers did the series proud with their realistic and appropriate visual effects. I won’t lie, the first time they introduced the Enterprise I got chills.

But in order to maintain journalistic integrity I’m going to discuss the issues that Trekkies may have with this film. One problem I’ve heard concerning the film is how the characters differ from their original portrayals. To me, this is a small concern. I can understand that there have to be changes in the characters in order to keep them relevant, as well as the new actors adding their own personality and spin to the role. The larger concern for me is not how the characters are changed, but why.

The plot of the film revolves around a singularity that takes Nero’s ship back to the year 2387 and shoots out (Nimoy’s) Spock twenty years later. Because of this black hole, we are now in an alternate or parallel universe to that of original Trek canon. Because of this JJ Abrams can get away with minor changes to the characters without affecting the overall history of Star Trek. Kirk’s father and Spock’s mother can be killed without harming the continuity of TOS episodes.

While most situations affected by this timeline switch are small, the biggest change is in Quinto’s Spock. Instead of the stone-faced, unemotional Spock we get a much more dynamic character. Spock struggles with his human emotions, dislikes Kirk, and even enters a relationship with Uhura. While this completely destroys Trek canon, we are again saved by the alternate universe plot device.

Though I called this plot device an issue, it actually helps the film. By removing the story from the original timeline the writers and actors are free to explore brave new portrayals for the revered, and revived, franchise. The interesting aspect of this new timeline is that, one way or another, things are the way they should be by the end of the film. Kirk is captain, Spock is Kirk’s friend, Scotty is aboard the Enterprise, Bones is chief medical officer, and Admiral Pike is in a wheelchair. No matter how much they changed, the essence and the authenticity of the characters are still there.

Overall I’m very happy with Star Trek. They treated the series with reverence while still making innovations. Seeing the Enterprise, and hearing the famous “boldly go” speech by Nimoy at the end of the film were spine-tingling. The film was peppered with action, humor, and serious issues in correct Star Trek proportions. The series is in capable hands, JJ Abrams and the cast will (hopefully) bring even more to the table in the sequel. Getting all the introductory material frees up the next film for just about anything. I can’t wait.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon] Sphere: Related Content

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Star Trek: Everything Old is New Again”

  1. steve says:

    I saw the movie the other day, I too let myself think about it before I formed my final opinion about it, and I will say this:
    It was not a great Trek film.
    I’m not a die hard Trek fan, but I have been a fan of the series since I was about 10, and so I know alot about it.

    == Spoilers ahead if you care ==

    The alternate history time line crap pissed me off.
    JJ Abrams ruined the entire time line. I can’t figure out if he did this on purpose so that he can in some way “make Trek his own” or just because he had a script he liked, or because he just didn’t care. Regardless of why, he still ruined the whole time line.
    I get that it’s an alternate time line, but I still don’t enjoy it.
    Trek would have been better off waiting 10 more years and then getting a Next Next Generation.

    The film itself was enjoyable, too much action, and not enough thinking for a Trek Movie. Star Wars was always about epic space battles, Star Trek was about getting people to think. And mixing up those two things is what the major problem with Star Trek has been for the past 10 years of so.

    And for the record, Berman was the problem with Trek after Gene died.

    P.S. I look forward to the sequel, only to see if Abrams fixes the time line, if he does, then all is forgiven.

Leave a Reply