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.