(a.k.a. Lens Flare: The Motion Picture)
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
9 comments:
Finally, another "Enterprise" fan! I also loved the "Archer and his beagle" reference. I thought I was a Trekkie until I looked around and realized that the really hardcore fans were writing off ENT without even giving it a chance. The poor show could do nothing right in their eyes. The series finale was terrible -- it was as if they thought the show couldn't stand on its own merits after all the work that had gone into it -- but otherwise, I thought it created a fantastic new chapter in the Trek canon. I even liked the Xindi arc!
Anyway, I went to the new movie expecting it to be a big, noisy video game -- all flash and explosions with no decent storyline underneath. I could not have been more wrong. The characters were treated with respect and turned into something new and fresh at the same time. I agree that Karl Urban tried a little too hard to channel DeForrest Kelley, and I'm not sold on the Spock-Uhura romance -- it came out of nowhere, and she threw herself at him at an awkward moment. But for the most part, I was thrilled with this movie. One of the best films, bar none, that I've seen in years.
I came in with TNG, too. TOS has always seemed a little clunky to me.
The only real problem I had with the Xindi arc was that the entire season had a single plot... Which is also what annoys me about most shows on TV right now, that each season is like one long movie. It's not that I think all plots should be resolvable in an hour, but I do like the ability to miss an episode now and then without getting lost.
It also means that the writers have less work to do. Write one plot, and stall, stall, stall.
True, I'll give you that.
Also, has anyone explained yet why the Romulans now have tattooed faces and no hair?
That I do not know, my thinking is it's not all Romulans, just this one group of nutjobs. Or maybe Abrams just likes the look.
I like the idea of a rogue group of Romulan nutcases. :) Perhaps we'll learn more in subsequent movies. I just wonder now if the Klingons will lack their ridges, a la Enterprise/TOS, if they show up.
I've been wondering that same thing... With such a FX-filled movie, it would almost seem criminal for a race to have less makeup... but if they want to keep continuity, they really should. My suggestion would be have several Klingons, and have them at different stages of bumpiness (after all, the disease probably wouldn't affect all bloodlines at the same rate).
Years ago, after the first bumpy-headed Klingons were introduced in the movies, Trekkies already put forward a lot of their own theories, including the idea that the most human-looking Klingons were always the ones chosen for interaction with humans (makes espionage easier). So even if some bloodlines got their ridges back earlier, it would still be explainable that the original series only showed the human ones.
After this movie, I have total faith that Abrams will come up with a solution that will please both continuity buffs and people who want to see ridges.
Think a story arc could be expaned in the now new 'verse going on that very point of the most human being Klingon operatives.
J. has proven without any doubt from me that he can handle the re-birth of the franchise.
I liked the Uhura/Spock match because the actos doing it showed perfect characterization for the subplot. I just don't like that it screws up TOS "Platos Children" but TNG has been trying to get rid of TOS's more hapahazzard style of continuity forever. I thinki this is a great way to do it too :)
I'm only slightly embarrassed to say that I had to look up "Plato's Children", which took me a while because it turns out the title is "Plato's Stepchildren." ;)
My mind was scrambled by Vejer after watching the director's cut of Star Trek the movie all those years ago. And Plato's STEPchidlren is one of my favorite eps tyvm.
Post a Comment