If can you get past young Jimmy Kirk taking a '66 ‘Vette for a 23rd-century thrill ride while jamming to The Beastie Boys’ “Sabotage,” then you should be okay with the rest of J.J. Abrams’ hyperactive, pop explosion refit of the Star Trek franchise.
Sure, there’s a lot of energy-drink-fueled teen giddiness and slapstick to the proceedings—at times you’d think it was Stardate 90210. And while it’s true Old Trek sometimes spent too much time sitting around talking, this new version feels a like a kid on a sugar rush, running circles around the room until you want to scream “Just STOP for a moment! Stand still and take a breath!”
But hey, I love me some Beatsies, and overall, this is one helluva fun Trek–Star or otherwise. Maybe it’s a little too obsessed with hooking in younger, non-Trekkie viewers (product placement in a Trek film feels a lot like billboards at Wrigley Field), but considering all the hoops it has to jump through to get its origin story off the ground… while pleasing both newbies and devotees… and while introducing a very young, fresh-faced cast playing pop-cultural icons… well, this is a fine, fine start. One that not only leaves you breathlessly entertained, but giddy with anticipation for where Abrams and his co-creators can go next now that they have the hard part out of the way.
There is a plot—it involves Nero, a Romulan miner (Eric Bana) on an avenge-the-dead-wife mission (not the last shade of Khan the new film offers up) that involves going back in time almost two centuries and putting a serious hurt on the core systems in the budding United Federation of Planets. (An entity I’m not sure is ever mentioned in the film.) Nero's first pounce comes just as Baby Kirk is being born (in space, not Riverside, Iowa—although he'll grow up there and the town still gets a nice shout out).
In what is a surprisingly touching moment amid the chaos, baby Jimmy Kirk is named and then left a fatherless rebel-to-be. (One critic noted that as the shuttle carrying Momma Kirk and her newborn waif retreats from Nero’s attack, it is literally the last time in his life James T. Kirk will back away from anything.) The Romulan with the Tyson face tattoo then pops back up 25 years later to continue his rampage, rushing the newly commissioned Starfleet flagship Enterprise into action with a crew comprised almost solely of cadets. (More Khan echoes.)
All of this, however, is pretense. Star Trek’s true goal is two-sided: Get young James T. Kirk (Christopher Pine) into the captain’s chair of the Enterprise and get his friendship with his Academy rival, Spock, started.
The ship, its captain, and its first officer will become legendary in time, but Abrams’ Star Trek wields a double-edged sword. The new film benefits from most of us already knowing—directly or indirectly—who these characters are. But that advantage cuts the other way as well, as comparisons to the original actors and their hard-earned dynamic are inevitable.
To everyone’s credit, they all hold their own nicely. Unlike the woe-begotten Hayden Christensen, Pine hits the ground running on his way to Movie Stardom—his lack of intimidation by the boots he needs to fill perfectly echoes Kirk’s own reckless confidence. There are plenty of times when Pine’s New Kirk comes off as an annoying jerk (the infamous Kobayashi Maru test is sadly tossed off as a smug, cocky joke) and his spastic womanizing feels more Van Wilder than Virile Leader.
But then you realize that’s the point. This is young Kirk, all impulse and swagger—he has 30 to 40 more years to season into the Kirk we last saw. Though it is unfortunate the film almost completely skips over his years at Starfleet Academy—Kirk appears to come out of the experience utterly unchanged from the unfocused horndog he went in as. (And yep, he beds a green-skinned Orion lass.)
Meanwhile Zachary Quinto has the doubly demanding job of taking over the role of Mr. Spock. Not only does Spock require the expression of emotion without actually expressing emotion, but Quinto has to do so under the watchful, arched eyebrows of the character’s originator.
The Heroes actor comes through perfectly. When Leonard Nimoy began playing Spock, the character was little more than an exotic prop that the actor, over the course of the next 25 years, developed into the soul of the franchise. Right out of the blocks, Quinto’s Spock is more assertive and yes, emotional (and sports more baby-face softness than Nimoy's sharp angles). And in what may be the move that elicits the most disapproving gasps from the Trekkies, he’s already getting his Vulcan groove on.
The rest of the crew is solid. As Sulu, John Cho gets to show off during a daring sword fight on a shaky mining platform. And I’ve had an eye on Anton Yelchin since last year’s underrated Charlie Bartlett—his Chekov functions mainly as one long snicker about his youth and accent, but here’s hoping the exposure gets the talented young actor a lot more work. (He’s also in Terminator: Salvation later this month.)
The character getting the biggest upgrade in the new film is Uhura—no longer just a lovely woman in a miniskirt and knee boots, she’s now a lovely, intelligent, independent, assertive woman in a miniskirt and knee boots. Zoe Saldana may have been placed here to give the marketing department a hot chick to slap on the posters and to bring some steamy sizzle to the mostly male cast, but she makes it clear Uhura is no longer going to be content to sit at the counsel and read off subspace transmissions.
If Uhura steps up, someone has to step back, and that’s Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott. Scotty shows up late in the frenetic proceedings to function mostly as comic relief and a bit of plot mechanism. (The film goes to great lengths to shuffle everyone around and then greater leaps to shuffle—or beam—them back.) But Pegg's having a blast, and the requisite Scotty Scene is so easily anticipated you'll find yourself counting down the seconds until Kirk yells down to Engineering and Scotty yells back.
Karl Urban makes the most of it as McCoy, nailing the character to the extent he can with little to do. Acting as the adult supervision on this ship of teenyboppers, the irritable country doctor plays straight man to Kirk’s irrepressible womanizing and lackadaisical ambition (we're not quite sure if Kirk wants to get on the Enterprise because he craves action or another run at Uhura–most likely both), but in this film we don’t yet see Bones functioning as the captain’s humane conscience. He doesn’t even spar much with Spock, though the script shoe-horns in most of his famous quips.
In fact, Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do that a lot—sticking in little Original Series bon mots and Easter eggs for older fans. There’s even a Red Shirt, doing exactly what Red Shirts have always done: showing the main characters what NOT to do.
Such nods are a cute and inoffensive way to nab some cheap crowd-pleasing, but I remain unimpressed by Abrams' handling of characters. My
suspicion is that he has trouble seeing them as much more than puzzle
pieces to be moved around in creation of mystery and spectacle. Star Trek gets by thanks to the aforementioned nostalgia bump, but next time out the film makers better get to work on giving their versions of the characters new actions and attitudes that define them, rather than borrowing from the nostalgia bin.
With all these youngsters dashing about and trying to wreck Dad’s starship, it’s nice to have two fine, experienced actors nudging them in the right direction. First up is Bruce Greenwood as Captain Christopher Pike. It’s Pike who grabs young Jim Kirk by the scruff of his drunken neck and says “shape up and fly right”—his “what are you doing with your life?” lecture is one of the films’ few quiet pleasures.
Picking up where Pike leaves off is Prime Spock, or Old Spock. Nimoy gently steps into the film acting as an anchor to the canonical franchise continuity. But most of all, Nimoy brings all his dignity and grace to bear on a task almost more important than saving the world: making sure Young Kirk and Young Spock play nice and become the life-long friends they are destined to be. More than just a gimmicky cameo, Nimoy’s Spock gives the film its Gandalf (or Merlin or Obi-wan) while reminding us how rich and deep run the traditions Abrams is now caretaking.
Sure there are complaints to file with Starfleet Command. Starting with the absence of any sort of time or attention paid to explain what Starfleet is. As in the films and TV shows, you get the sense that Kirk and Spock’s Enterprise is the only ship in the entire fleet that can actually do any thing correctly—it is forever either the first ship on the scene or the last one standing.
And yes, the film is stuffed to bursting with non-stop action. But Abrams, like so many of his peers, needs to understand that action does not automatically equal adventure. Kirk and Company do a lot in a very short time, but there are times when you feel the film is just piling it on in fear of leaving a single scene or moment un-goosed. The Bond and Batman reboots took franchises that had become too silly and campy and toned and slowed them down. Abrams’ Star Trek does the opposite, taking what had become a too-solemn, ponderous affair and setting fire to the ready room table. Often teetering on the edge of losing control, the film does hold it all together. But this is most definitely a summer movie first and a Star Trek movie second.
(At one point, as Scotty finds himself flushed through the engine room’s something or other tubes, you cannot help but think of Sigourney Weaver in the delightful Star Trek tweak Galaxy Quest: “What ARE these things?!? Why are they HERE?!? They serve no purpose!!”… Though I admit it's nicely ironic to see Mr. Scott, who will come to know the Enterprise like the back of his hand, lost in what will soon be his engine room.)
And clearly space battles are not Abrams’ milieu. Star Trek boasts stunning visual effects, but the director has no idea what to do with them. There are a few nice moves here and there, a few glory moments for the NCC-1701, but for the most part the film’s cosmic dust-ups come off a bit static, lacking in majesty and deep-space wonder and sweep. Add that to the “to-do” list for the sequel.
Poor Eric Bana is just here as a set-‘em-up-knock-‘em-down patsy for Kirk and Spock’s coming-out party. He has a fine, tragic villain’s tale, but we hear it from a Vulcan mind meld instead of from him. In fact, Nero doesn’t get to say much of anything. We gather from his catastrophic actions that he has a serious rage on, but popping in as he does from another time with an uncharacteristically tight lip for a space opera villain, it’s hard to connect the madman to his motivations. Add that to that the fact he has no personal vendetta against the Kirk-Spock younglings and poor Nero is not much more than a plot device.
Nor is Nero’s angry quest served well by Orci and Kurtzman's script. In fact, most of the script is devised and twisted solely to get Kirk in the driver’s seat, and that means going through some awkward and painful plot contortions. (He’s on the ship, he’s off the ship, he’s hanging from the edge of something, he’s back on the ship.) In the end, the two-fisted, never-back-down James Kirk must assume his destiny by pulling some a cheap debate-team trick out of Robert's Rules of Order.
Still, most of that carping and nit-picking can be easly brushed aside for now. Once Kirk gets in the chair, old Trekkers can’t help but feel a rush of sweet recognition—and hopefully newcomers catch an inkling of just how much more there is to come. An exercise in pure, near-perfect entertainment, Star Trek keeps a dazzled grin on your face the whole way through. But for many of us there is also the lasting glee, carrried outside the theater, at having Trek back and knowing it will carry on in grand fashion.
Other Trek pieces:
Erika Olson's Non-Trekkie Review of Star Trek
What We Talk About When We Talk About Star Trek — Locke reminiscences on what Trek has meant to him
Posted on May 12, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I thought the red matter looked like it was borrowed from The Fifth Element.
BTW, Is red matter new to the Trekiverse? I did like that we were supposed to be smart enough to figure out what it was on our own without somebody monologueing . . .
And, I guess, post-Vader, you’re just not a bad guy unless you destroy up a planet or two.
Posted on May 12, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“if it’s so easy at the end for Spock to shoot down Nero’s plasma mining platform, why doesn’t anyone from Earth, Starfleet, or Vulcan do that EARLIER? Like maybe BEFORE Vulcan got flushed?”—YES!!! Also, the mining platform was at Starfleet Academy. There’s NO other ships that could take it out before Spock comes around? But I agree it was a fun ride, the characters were portrayed really well. The car ride home conversation is where the chinks in the armor appear.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 6:51 am
It’s been 4 days since I saw the film and the one plot point I can’t forgive is CADET Kirk being promoted to first officer of the Federation’s flagship. As I recall, Saavik was a full lieutenant when she took the Kobayashi Maru test in Wrath of Khan. Compared to the other timeline changes wrought by Nero, I think it would be a minor thing to push Kirk’s test out to after he made LT, perhaps returning for dept head school (I don’t think Trek ever explains why Saavik is a LT while Kirk was supposedly a cadet). As a LT who just finished preparation as a dept head, Kirk would at least be a feasible choice for first officer (though unless a lot of folks died, he’d still jump over a few people. That would be OK since Kirk is SO extraordinary!). The idea that Pike would promote a cadet over his commissioned officers is just absurd.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 10:49 am
John’s and others’ comments identify the other “change” about the feel of this film that irked me. The lack of the “everyman” feel to this movie.
Trek, to me, has never been about a single character or crew. There was always a sense that if the main crew hadn’t saved the day or done what was right, somebody else would have. I always enjoyed the “Lower Decks” episodes for that very reason.
One of the things I always enjoyed about Trek was walking away from a movie or episode and thinking “I could have had a part in all of that.” That, they were really no different than somebody now who had been in the Army or whatever. They weren’t extraordinary in any way other than being motivated to do what was right.
This movie strikes me more as a futuristic chapter of the Die Hard films. Don’t get me wrong, I like the Die Hard films. They’re great fun. But, I never walked out of that film believing I could be anybody in that film because, in those films, the only person worth being was John McClain. He was superman doing only things that HE could do.
The closest you come to that everyman feeling in this movie is Chekov who manages to save Kirk and Sulu.
Like I said, I just can’t get beyond the general idea that 6 billion people dying is perfectly ok because it was necessary to get Kirk in command of that ship.
The needs of the one apparently outweigh the needs of the many in this film.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 10:53 am
One major flaw in your review: Nero does have a personal vendetta against Spock. He even says so, “I have something I want you to see” after he calls him out by name. He blames Spock for the destruction of Romulus and has been chasing him through space and time.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 11:00 am
Really good review, overall.
As to where Nero would have obtained that ship, it’s a mining ship. Remember? They were drilling into Vulcan when the Enterprise showed up. He’s a MINER. He was on board his mining ship when his home was destroyed.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 11:28 am
Jim, I never said Nero DIDN’T have a personal vendetta against Old Spock — I said “he has no personal vendetta against the Kirk-Spock younglings”. Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Obviously yes, the whole POINT is his vendetta against OLD Spock. My observation was that this really ISN’T Young Kirk and Young Spock’s fight — they are merely bystanders to Old Spock’s crisis.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 12:17 pm
So I’ve been reading Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman’s graphic novel “prequel” to Star Trek (it’s called Star Trek: Countdown).
As a comic book, it’s pretty lame (the story is okay, but the dialogue is dead awful), and I can’t say I’d recommend anyone rush out and buy it. But it DOES fill in a LOT of gaps in the film’s story.
Old Spock and Nero are initially ALLIES, working together to side-step the paranoid isolationist Romulan Empire and the stubborn, obstructionist Vulcan Council (along the way they get aid from both Captain Data of the Enterprise and Ambassador Picard). That he feels Spock betrayed him and Romulus, goes a long way toward explaining why so much of Nero’s vengeful rage is directed at Old Spock personally.
It also explains that after the destruction of Romulus Nero winds up at a secret Romulan military outpost, where his modest mining ship, the Narada, is outfitted with Borg technology and weaponry and turned into the massive, fearsome ship we see in the film.
And there’s a lot of information about the red matter, how it’s created, etc, and about the Jellyfish, Old Spock’s ship.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm
So, as I suspected, I did not like the new Star Trek film/movie. Let me repeat myself, I did not like the new Star Trek movie. Unfortunately, giving a movie project to a non-Star Trek fan is comparable to giving a head coaching job with the Yankees to a person who doesn’t like baseball. Being a new convert (watching for only 10 years or so) I came to the realization that this film, like all films, was made to make money – lots of it! Although one could argue that anyone who took on the new Star Trek project would make money, regardless of who was at the helm of this intricate, massive, cultural-hit of a concept. Alas, in this case it is J.J. Abrams, the “stealer,” the “3M” of many of someone else’s idea kind-of director/writer. Please insert your own comparisons for Alias (La Femme Nikita), Fringe (X-Files), Cloverfield (Godzilla meets Blair Witch Project), Lost (The Prisoner [from the 1960's] meets Gilligans Island), etc…
Before I tear a hole in J.J.s alternate-universe of Star Trek, let’s give credit where credit is due and make it clear what the silver-lining was: 1) J.J. probably ignited, excited, and down-right invited non-Star Trek fans into possibly researching/enjoying the Star Trek of old/yesteryears and become a fanatic of the sci-fi “Enterprise” and all its counterparts. 2) He made Star Trek “cool”, especially for the younger generation, perhaps younger than me (30). 3) The set, studio, CGI, casting (mostly, especially “Bones”), and most of the storyline (I’ll get to this later) was awe-inspiring, saliva-inducing, and visually stimulating to any creature on Earth. 4) They lept the “funny” quibbles in the script. Good job.
These examples of what was good should be enough to love the film, right!? It really sounds like I really enjoyed it, right!? No. And here’s why: 1) Once you get past the “glitz & glamor” of JJ’s Star Trek alternate universe, you realize he forgot one thing many Star Trek television series episodes had, a “realness.” Well, you’re thinking I’m some head-case to think Star Trek is real. No, I’m not a crazed, Star Trek lunatic, let me explain. Every Star Trek episode/movie teaches a lesson on life – one could argue Kirk, Spock and crew in the movie showed valor, braveness in this film, but at what cost? The message in this film was transparent: Action, revenge, action. It didn’t teach me anything about the dangers or consequences of revenge. 2) The original Star Trek had its own explosions, shouting, and grunting, but rarely used expletives, such as “G.D.” Of course, in reality people curse, and I probably do it more than others, but it was another discrepancy to start from a sci-fi series that rarely curses. 3) Yes, I mentioned the casting/storyline was “almost there” but the Sulu actor did not come close to the original; the inflection of voice/tone was especially lacking. The storyline: Well it’s completely new for Star Trek – everything that came before, and I mean everything, would logically need to be discarded. Why? In the new film there is now no Vulcan planet, and Kirk’s father, as well as Spock’s mother (an important supporting character in the original timeline) have perished. This changes everything, creating a J.J. Abrams “alternate universe of Star Trek” Star Trek.
Whether you are a purest, hardcore Star Trek fan or newbie, the movie is definitely a love/hate situation. Basically, this movie disregarded/omitted all previously known created Star Trek material, because the timeline has changed and all the choices/adventures would be irrelevant. Does this set-up allow the studios to make new adventures and create new character development? Yes. Does it sum everything I like about Star Trek? Almost.
Overall, there were many good/bad choices. I don’t care for the “hold-my-hand”, watered down, non-thinking Star Trek. To me, there was no rewarding personal character development or new insights. I didn’t take away a moral lesson, such as, “oh, this is how I should live as a person…with character, respect, duty, honor, pride, encompassing critical thinking/feeling skills.” This movie tells me I should live by a feeling that lacks realism combined with frenetic movement, and more explosions, the “I can’t think, but I can react to visual stimulation” crap. Many will like the dumbed-down, in-your-face version of Star Trek, but I will always have the original genius of Gene Roddenberry vision in mind. This is one that is thought-provoking, breeds massive fans and has been doing just fine for 50 or so years without the almighty, J.J. “stealer of good things”…”I’ve got to 3M everything” Abrams. All in all, it’s like different versions/translations of the Bible, everyone has their opinion. But for me, and many others, it just didn’t have the heart of Star Trek and now is a critical time for fans to decide, J.J. is attempting to become the modern-day figurehead of Star Trek, leading the series away from the vision that should and always be guided by the foundation Roddenberry built.
As for the blatant disregard for William Shatner in the new film, especially his original narration, I hope J.J. “boldly goes where no man has gone before” and stays there in an isolated chamber, so he can not steal, borrow, nor corrupt another concept from an original creator and call it his own. “Live, long, and prosper…in a galaxy far, far away”…oh wait a minute; I don’t want to give J.J. any more “new” ideas.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 5:31 pm
If the old-school fans and the new viewers are supposed to read a comic book prequel in order to understand the movie, then there’s something wrong with the movie.
Posted on May 13, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I agree somewhat, Joules, about needing to read a comic book to understand it. But I think the overall reaction from critics, fans, non-fans, and the theater-going public suggests that you really don’t NEED to know all that stuff from Countdown in order to “get” and enjoy the film on its own. I’m certain Abrams and all do not EXPECT any film viewers to have read the comic.
It’s really just for those of us who love to take these things apart and suss out every detail. Who geek out on stuff like Borg technology… lol
The main thing that confuses people about the film itself is the time-travel stuff (Spock showing up 25 years later, etc) and the comic doesn’t help with ANY of that.
As I’ve said before, I kinda dig using other media to fill in a larger story, but like you said, the film still has to stand on its own — I think Star Trek does for the most part.
Posted on May 14, 2009 at 1:05 am
So, let’s see if we have this correct.
Writing a movie that might require some knowlege of a series that has run non-stop on TV for most of the last 40 years and is available on DVD for anybody to watch… bad.
Writing a movie that might require some knowledge of a comic book that few people have read to get an understanding of why Nero holds Spock responsible for the destruction of Romulus… good.
I suppose put in context with the moral relativism of this movie that says that Kirk being in command of the Enterprise is more important than the lives of 6 billion people that makes a lot of sense.
Posted on May 14, 2009 at 2:57 am
Well, the comic book is kind of a non-issue, TJ — it’s just something extra, something that people who are interested can use to fill in some of the back story.
You’ve brought up the destruction of Vulcan several times and tied it to getting Kirk in command of the Enterprise. But Old Spock never makes that decision — he DOES make a conscious effort LATER to get Kirk in command and I thought that part was a bit dodgy–he does not go along with Kirk and Scotty to the Enterprise simply so that Kirk can have his Moment.
But we are given NO indication that Old Spock could have stopped the destruction of Vulcan earlier.
But either way, I fail to see what the comic book has to do with that issue. One is a question of HOW you tell the story (using other media), the other is WHAT story you’re telling about the destruction of Vulcan–which, as I say, is not “allowed” in order to get Kirk in the chair.
Posted on May 14, 2009 at 3:05 am
TJ, you said earlier:
“I suppose my biggest complaint about the film was what, IMHO, was the assertion at the end that, with Kirk in the chair and Spock as his first officer that all was suddenly in sync with the Trek universe.
The message seemed to be that 6 billion people (including Spock’s mother) dying was a small price to pay for destiny. That message seemed to be in drastic contrast to pretty much all things Trek that I just couldn’t get behind in the end.”
I can see how you can argue that JJ ABRAMS and his writers killed those Vulcans (and Spock’s mom) off in the story in order to create the emotional situation they wanted for their characters, but you can’t really attack that as the film’s “message” — otherwise you’d have to argue that every writer of a crime movie is morally “committing” crimes (including murder) in order to create drama and shape their characters. That’s a creative decision that happens OUTSIDE the parameters of the actual FILM.
I sort of get what you’re saying — that the film makers say it’s okay from a creative standpoint to destroy Vulcan (as creators) in order to get the story they want, but you can’t really call that the film’s “message.” A creator, a writer, artist, whoever, has the absolute right to do whatever they want to get the dramatic or artistic result they want.
So maybe you can argue that Abrams et al made the wrong creative decision to destroy Vulcan and kill Spock’s mom. But you can’t really argue that the characters in the film, or the film itself is morally compromised or relativistic because Vulcan was destroyed. Within the moral parameters set up by the film makers, Kirk, Spock, and Old Spock all acted completely morally in regards to the destruction of Vulcan.
As for destiny, well if we know anything about destiny or fate it’s that by their very definition they WILL have their way.
Posted on May 14, 2009 at 3:15 am
I do want to also address your points, TJ, about how the film uses (or doesn’t use) McCoy and Scotty…. and about the “everyman” issue (I agree the show works best when there’s a CREW, with everyone pitching in and I think this film did that fine, to a superficial degree… but let’s be honest — Kirk and Spock are, and always have been, “supermen”, superheroes.)
But one more point about your concerns about Vulcan. You said: “Like I said, I just can’t get beyond the general idea that 6 billion people dying is perfectly ok because it was necessary to get Kirk in command of that ship.”
So I’m trying to understand your complaint? Who are you blaming for the death of Vulcan in order to get Kirk in command? The characters in the film? Or the film makers?
Because as I’ve said, no CHARACTER (other than Nero) “lets” Vulcan die.
Nor did Abrams and his writers destroy Vulcan in order to “get Kirk in command” — yes, they created a crisis that put him in position to take over, but in no way did it HAVE to be the destruction of Vulcan. It could have been anything. Therefore you can’t morally link Kirk and Vulcan. See what I mean?
You can argue that Abrams et al should have found a DIFFERENT crisis to put him in the chair, but I’m sure they’d argue that it HAD to be something really big and catastrophic.
Okay, let’s try THIS argument: by your reasoning, George Lucas is morally bankrupt (no, not for creating Jar Jar) because HE destroyed the planet Alderaan in order to make Luke the new Hero of the Rebellion. Right? Or that the creators of Batman are to be held responsible for the death of his parents, who they killed in order to give Batman a reason for being? Or that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were wrong for destroying the entire planet of Krypton just to give his “Superman” incredible powers here on Earth? Right?
Posted on May 14, 2009 at 4:47 am
Locke wrote:
“So I’m trying to understand your complaint? Who are you blaming for the death of Vulcan in order to get Kirk in command? The characters in the film? Or the film makers?”
The film makers. I think writing the story the way they did ignores a constant that has existed through out pretty much all of Trek. And, I’ll elaborate briefly simply because you asked.
An example, if I may. The TNG Episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise.” In the altered timeline, the crew of the Enterprise C was given a choice. Stay where they were and join the battle with the Klingons, or go back through the rift, facing certain death, all on the off chance that doing so would prevent the war and save millions of lives. They chose the latter despite having no evidence to go on but Guinan’s intuition.
Trek has had more than it’s share of time travel, but the one constant has always been that they try to get it as close to the original timeline before it’s done.
In this movie, not only do they not correct the timeline, but they don’t even try, despite the fact that by mid-film there are two characters in the film that know full well how the timeline is supposed to be (Spock Prime and Kirk, thanks to the mind-meld).
We then see Spock Prime at the end of the film, seemingly content that all was satisfied when Kirk is awarded command of the Enterprise.
So, yes, I see that as the “message” if this film. That, in the end, this film is about Kirk and his crew’s “destiny” to command that ship. In fact, Abrams practically said as much in earlier interviews.
Like I said, I can accept some of the character changes and the lack of canon and all the visual inconsistencies like the uniforms having the wrong insignias on the Kelvin and nacell colors and all the other things that those far more detail oriented than I are concerned with. I simply think that despite all the changes that there should be at least some consistency with the rest of the franchise. They COULD have done both, and didn’t.
How’s this different from Star Wars or Batman or Superman? Because none of those stories involved time travel to begin with. There was never any notion that what had happened could be corrected by going backward through time (although, for the sake of pointing it out, Superman did that very thing in the first film starring Christopher Reeve). In Trek, they rarely accept that kind of catastrophe when it happens the first time, let alone when it happens because somebody mucked up the timeline.
Posted on May 14, 2009 at 5:33 am
I also wanted to follow up on what you said in your post prior to that one, if I may…
“So maybe you can argue that Abrams et al made the wrong creative decision to destroy Vulcan and kill Spock’s mom. But you can’t really argue that the characters in the film, or the film itself is morally compromised or relativistic because Vulcan was destroyed. Within the moral parameters set up by the film makers, Kirk, Spock, and Old Spock all acted completely morally in regards to the destruction of Vulcan.”
Agreed. But, that is ultimately my point. That the film makers got it wrong when they penned out the central theme for the movie. By allowing Vulcan to remain destroyed, they are making the final destination of the film Kirk and company in command of the Enterprise.
If they didn’t want time travel to be a tool that could be used to fix everything in the end, they should have never introduced it to begin with. Eliminate Spock Prime and Nero from the story and simply create a villian from that time period for Kirk to do battle with.
There’s no purpose for time travel to be a part of this movie at all other than to give us a vehicle to get Nimoy on the screen one last time if it’s not going to be used to fix things.
By introducing the Spock from “our” Trek timeline into the story, one should reasonably be able to expect him to act in a way more or less consistent with how he had reacted in versions of Trek past. A Spock that KNOWS how the timeline is SUPPOSED to be, and the willingness to see that it stays as close to that as possible. HE should want it corrected, even if nobody else in the film does.
By having him simply go with the flow at the end of this film, he, in a way, becomes morally compromised even more than the others. They at least have the excuse of not knowing how things were supposed to happen. Spock Prime (and ultimately Kirk) don’t have that excuse.
It’s flawed further it creates an unnecessary choice between saving Vulcan and making Kirk captain because correcting the timeline accomplishes both.
Posted on May 15, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I understand you now, TJ — it’s a very valid criticism. Yes, usually in science-fiction, the main thrust of a time-travel plot is HOW to get things back to the way they SHOULD be. (Though of course one of the cool things with “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was that later we learn there WERE lasting side effects, such as the survival of Tasha Yar and her daughter? Am I remembering that correctly?)
So yes, now I see your point — Abrams USED the destruction of Vulcan as a dramatic plot point, a motivation, and in doing so “killed off” so to speak a large part of Classic Trek continuity for his new reality.
And since we already KNOW Vulcan and the important role it and its citizens play in the life of the Federation, it does indeed feel like a new guy came in and shot our wise grandfather just to “make things more exciting”
In this case time-travel was most definitely NOT used as a challenge, a problem to be fixed — it was used as a ‘reboot’ device that conveniently lets the new Trek creators have a blank canvas to paint on in the coming decades.
And yes, they could have done that without destroying Vulcan (ironically, Abrams took so much heat a few years ago for his un-used Superman script that did NOT destroy Krypton). First and foremost, I think Abrams and the writers simply needed something BIG to not only shake up the characters in the film (and give Spock a bit more tragic heft), but to shake up the series.
And I think it also plays into the theme they’re pitching: Trek as young rebels breaking away from stuffy elders. That’s essentially what Pike tells Kirk in the Riverside bar — we need some wild stallions to stir Starfleet back up. Both Kirk and Spock are much more rebellious against Vulcan/Starfleet. And in a way, by removing Vulcan from the picture, the new Trek takes away the Federation “Father Figure” — Vulcans were always the older, wiser ones sort of ‘tsk-tsking’ the Federation humans.
And I think we can even extend that theme to maybe a bit of intentional (?) nose-thumbing at Old-school Trekkies — Abrams saying, “look, not everything is going to be the same… I’m going to shake things up and try some new stuff, you old fogies — don’t believe me, here.. I’ll blow up Vulcan!”
As for me, I’m willing to sit back and wait — my attitude with the destruction of Vulcan is the same as my general attitude toward the reboot: Okay, you have my attention, you broke it you bought it, now let’s see if you know what to do with it.” The destruction of Vulcan can make for some really interesting new story themes in future films… if Abrams and whoever else comes to play in the new Trek sandbox make good use of the tragedy, then good. If they just blow it off and it becomes a cheap crutch, used once and then glossed over, then yes, it was a terrible, wasteful, cheap creative decision.
Posted on May 18, 2009 at 10:30 am
Thank you, TJ and Locke, for articulating what left me so unsettled about the time travel/destruction of Vulcan elements of the story in this movie. I think these elements *were* just cheap devices used to create the alternate reality that Abrams (et al) want us to accept for the sake of the reboot. The original Star Trek and its offspring were never about characters with Daddy issues (or Mommy issues) or wanton, even gratuitous destruction of the characters’ homeworlds. Let’s leave that to Star Wars.
Posted on May 22, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Nice to read see some feedback from high-level, longterm Trek fans. I too had problems with the film:
- Spock & Uhura kissing: Wait a minute?! I’d imagine even a few centuries from now, there’d be rules about Star Fleet staff having relationships with cadets.
- Where was Remus in the film? I believe the Romulan homeworld was part of a double-planet group.
- Since when does a cadet get promoted to Captain straight from the Academy? Saving the day does come with rewards but more likely a lieutenant rank promotion upon graduation and the highest commendations available.
- Star Fleet vessels are not family ships in the early eras. What the heck was George Kirk’s wife doing on that ship that far along in her pregnancy? Plus, where’s George Samuel, JTK’s older brother??
- Speaking of Kirk’s mom in space, this little new event is ticking some Riverside, IA denizens off. This film just stole their claim to fame as the future birthplace of JTK. Sure they were thrown a bone – the Riverside Shipyards but Hollywood has not exactly treated this little town with respect.
- I thought Sarek was much weaker. “You must choose your own path”….this just took away one of Spock’s psychological childhood demons. The familial distance between him and his father was an instrumental part in Spock’s dichotomy in his dual heritage.
- “Red Matter” ?! Talk about a corny plot device. I know there’s complaints about Star Trek being more technobabble, but naming something THAT powerful “Red Matter” kinda feels like the writers/director are insulting us.
I agree with an earlier poster – where’s the message or philosophy lesson here? This was just more of an action-fest that DS9 disintegrated into in its later seasons.
Posted on May 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm
SLG,
– Remus plays a role in the Star Trek: Countdown comic book prequel (post-quel?) that Abrams et al wrote, but we don’t want to re-open the whole “should you have to read a comic to ‘get’ a movie?” argument :)
– I agree I was a bit taken aback by Lt. George Kirk having his pregnant wife on board — it was more a 24th-Century TNG thing to make starships “family friendly.” Kirk’s TOS Enterprise was always more of military ship, despite it’s “peaceful” mission. However, there is real-life precedent — despite the image of lonely men at sea, during the 18th and early 19th Century Age of Sail some captains did bring their wives to sea with them.
– I’ve written a bit about Riverside, IA in my other Trek piece What We Talk About When We Talk About Trek: http://blog.redbox.com/2009/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-star-trek.html (I’m typing this 7 miles away from Riverside right now — I spend about two-thirds of my time in Chicago and a third in my hometown of Kalona, IA.) I haven’t heard anyone really complain, but then most Riversidians have been pretty good-naturedly bemused by the whole Birthplace thing from the start (20 years ago). But they’re gearing up for the Annual Trek Fest in a month — Nicols, Takai, and Koenig will be here, and I HOPE to do a blog report from the Fest. (However, it’s the same day and time as my 25th High School Reunion, 15 miles away, so I’m going to have to do some jumping back-and-forth.) Trek Fest is always a hoot — much, much more small-town summer fair than Trek convention, but the juxtaposition is always charming. (And no, there is no giant quarry near Riverside… at least not in THIS century.)