A fierce dissection of Star Trek (the new movie). I read it and realized something: I'd enjoyed the movie while it was unfolding, but after a week I really hadn't given it a second thought. It had gone in one ear and out the other, and left very little behind. Something with the Star Trek name on it should not be that ephemeral.
And then I realized the reason was simple: it was a con job. It was slick enough to disguise its lameness while unfolding, but not on scrutiny.
There's a lot in the piece that digs into what went wrong, both from a story POV and an SF-is-all-too-often-sexist-in-that-insidious-way-that-everyone-just-shrugs-off POV. I'd vote more for incurious than sexist: here's a movie that is about people going out into space for chrissake and it gives us disconcerting amounts of screen time with barfights and pratfalls and musical-bedroom silliness ... and, my biggest gripe of all, even stoops so low as to recycle with a completely straight face the exact same overblown SF action tropes so effectively parodied in — get this — Galaxy Quest!
Hell, at this rate I'm prepared to say that Galaxy Quest was even the better movie. Funnier, certainly.
There's a lot more that was wrong, but I suspect I'm going to end up saving all that for when I sit down with the DVD and do my own postmortem.
As someone else once said about the Rolling Stones after they unloaded Black And Blue on the world, this is Trek as we may have to learn to like it. Except that if the history of popular culture taught us anything, it's that we don't have to learn to like it.
I'm wondering how many other people are going to look back on this in a year and wonder how they were so badly duped.
Follow me on 
Friend me on 
Friend me on 
Also on 
I wholeheartedly disagree. Below is my summation of the movie:
Star Trek
Like many other fans of Star Trek in its various incarnations and timelines, I went to this movie in a state of disillusionment. Spurned by series that had an interesting cast make-up but little in the way of talented writing or compelling plots to support it, I attended the movie fully expecting to be disappointed again. A Star Trek Origin Story? How could anything like that be remotely interesting? I believed it was just another marketing attempt to beat a dead horse.
I stepped into the theater a disillusioned soul; however, I emerged reborn - my fervor for Star Trek kindled anew with a passion I had not felt since TNG. How is it possible? Was it the special effects? Was it the eye candy? Was the writing tolerable? In what way can such a thing be?
Deus Ex Machina.
In comics we have seen writers implement tools that have caused a world ‘reset’ - or at the very least a ‘reset’ whereas certain events in major characters’ lives are concerned. With the use of such a tool or concept however comes a substantial risk: the risk of ruining the very nature of a character or a story. When utilized effectively, this tool can in fact breathe new life into a character, story, or in this case - an entire genre. Used effectively - this tool will not ignore the storylines and plot elements devised by previous writers. Instead it will incorporate strands of these things, using them to initiate the catalyst of change. It is in such a manner that the movie begins.
Towards the end of The Next Generation, audiences were treated to Spock’s efforts to ignite the bond of kinship between the Vulcan and Romulan People. Take this work, combine it with the continued discover of new particles and matter and weaponry, and then you have your first element of a twist. Combine the inclusion and re-examination of beloved character origin stories with an amazing cast of actors hand picked to portray the younger Enterprise crew, and there is magic. Absolute magic.
I think perhaps my favorite member of the cast would have to be Karl Urban - who portrayed an even old then, but still young, Bones McCoy. It’s said that Leonard Nimoy cried when seeing his portrayal, saying the original actor DeForest Kelly, would approve. One look from the moment the character appears, and I can certainly understand why. The entire cast remained spot on in their portrayal of the characters, bringing us the things we’ve likely imagined but never actively seen. Combine this with writing that included classic lines without making it seem forced, while weaved into an intriguing plot and there is the new Star Trek Movie.
It made me a believer again.
It can make a believer out of you.
[Reply to this comment]
Good article! It really nails my biggest problem with the movie, Nero. His motivation and his character really don't hold up to any scrutiny and what's worse is the filmmakers seem to know it. Apparently, the majority of footage cut from the movie is Nero scenes and what's left of him is only what's absolutely necessary to the story. Even worse, he really isn't needed for the drama of the story. I mean, he has one brief 15 second altercation with Kirk and he talks to Spock for like 10 seconds. The conflict between Nero and everyone else is barely there. It would have been more interesting had they gone for a more MacGuffin-esque route with the story and didn't explain who or what was on the ship ala Star Trek IV or Star Trek Generations. Then they could have cut that Spock exposition mind meld scene.
THAT BEING SAID, that doesn't ruin the movie at all for me. Personally, I think the movie fails if you look at it from the story and characters. Neither are particularly deep. But, man, the details are just amazing. The waltz playing over the destruction of George Kirk's ship. Kirk picking up a salt shaker shaped like the Enterprise. Sulu fucking up going into warp speed the first time. Scotty's reptilian sidekick's glistening eyes. Yeah, those moments stick with me. In ten years? Who knows.
[Reply to this comment]
Leave a comment