Star Trek Lives
10/05/09 18:27 Filed in: Films
My thoughts on Star Trek (2009), the new
re-booting of the Star Trek franchise,
directed by J.J. Abrams.
Executive Summary
While I was watching and immediately thereafter, I loved the movie. Every minute of it. It was exhilarating, interesting, fun, neat, cool, wowee. I came out of the theatre breathless. Since then, however, little things have started to bother me. Thoughts have occurred, concerns have been raised, worries have arisen.
Disclaimers
I am a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. Or a nut, a geek, a weirdo. I am committed to Star Trek (The Original Series that is, hereinafter referred to as “TOS” to differentiate it from later TV iterations) and the films that flowed from TOS. The Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories.
I have watched the 79 TOS episodes enough times that I am pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of them. I can answer most trivia questions, as long as they are not too inane or petty (I can’t name the planets visited in each individual episode, for example). I could probably recite a pretty close approximation of the dialogue from most of TOS movies, especially II, III, IV and VI, to the point where I annoy the heck out of my partner and any one else who might watch one of the movies with me.
I don’t particularly like Star Chat: The Next Conversation, Star Trek: Deep Sleep Nine or Enterprise. Voyager had its moments. I believe that Brannon Braga and Rick Berman destroyed Star Trek by straying immediately and significantly from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision as soon as he died and I do not support their contention that TOS’s optimism would not play to a 80s or 90s audience. I think it was their commitment to making Star Trek “real” by making it dark and pessimistic that drove audiences away.
Star Trek (2009) as a Movie
This movie has it all and is well-deserving of the praise being heaped on it by professional and amateur reviewers across North America. It moves, from the first frame to the last. It features well drawn characters and surprisingly good acting performances across the board.
People who are new or fairly new to Star Trek will have no problem following the very simple plot: bad guy attacks, new recruits get called into action on an understaffed ship to repel the bad guy, people die. Lots of action, lots of funny bits, not too heavy on the message.
People who know Star Trek, once they get over their initial aversion to the new actors in well-loved roles, will like it because, while it truly re-starts the whole Kirk/Spock/McCoy story on a new track, the characters and their relationships are, for the most part, true to the original.
And it’s a darn good, entertaining story.
Actors and Roles
Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott is the only real miss among the re-casting of the roles. It may not be Pegg’s fault. It may just be the writing. But I can find nothing in the Montgomery Scott of the original series that suggests the laugh-a-minute character Pegg portrays.
In the cases of all the other roles, the re-casting and reformulating work for me. I like Spock as a passionate young man, caught between the two worlds. This is a Spock who still struggles with the decision to join Star Fleet and upon whom the dire events of this movie have the most significant impact. In light of his new reality, it should not surprise us that this Spock shows more fire. And Zachary Quinto is more than up to the task of this new, fiery Spock.
I very much liked how Spock's relationship with his father is consistent with the series — Sarek's absolute disdain for Spock's decision to forsake the Vulcan Science Academy for Starfleet comes through beautifully in early scenes — yet is affected in a realistic and believable manner first by the death of Amanda, Spock's human mother, and second by the destruction of the planet Vulcan and about six billion of its inhabitants: in this case, the relationship between father and son is appropriately strengthened, the anger over Spock's decision quickly vanishes, and Sarek allows his own emotional side to show much much earlier in this new reality than in the original series.
Chris Pine as Kirk works well too. Pine has that youthful arrogance, that brash confidence that Shatner’s Kirk seemed to lament losing in the movies. I can see Pine as the younger version and I think he captures the essence of James T. Kirk well.
Karl Urban is, in my opinion, slightly less effective as Leonard McCoy. His first appearance on screen comes across a bit “over the top” but he settles in nicely into the role of the folksy doctor, not entirely comfortable with technology nor with military power structures, who pledges his loyalty early to Kirk and the gang.
Zoe Saldana is a revelation as Uhura. I always liked Nichelle Nichols and her portrayal of the efficient communications officer but Saladna is given more to work with and she works it well. She’s like the uber-Uhura: smarter, more capable, more confident, sexier even. Too bad they reduce her to the trophy by the end of the movie.
John Cho does a heck of a job with the part of Sulu, another of my faves from TOS. George Takei was amazing in the role and Cho carries the torch well. As Takei did way back when, Cho plays his scenes with the big boys as an equal and he compares favourably with them. More Sulu, please.
The final regular role picked up from TOS is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. Well, to be honest, it really is Anton Yelchin as a Chekov/Wesley Crusher blend. I don’t mind Yelchin in the part but I just don’t like the part. Leave Wesley out of it, please. We don’t need a smart-alecky teenager on the bridge!
Star Trek (2009) as Star Trek
This section is not for the faint of heart nor, probably, for non-Trekkers.
First, Star Trek (2009) is Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan re-done with new actors, better effects and a brighter ship. It’s that simple. Same basic plot, similar gang of rookies, same outcome.
Second, while I accept fully (and actually embrace) that the arrival of the villain from the 24th Century on the date of Kirk’s birth in the 23rd Century changes the timeline irrevocably from that date onward, I cannot understand how the script writers could completely and totally erase Kirk’s older brother, George Samuel (see TOS episode “Operation: Annihilate”) who would have been born before the time line changed. As a result, he would exist in the movie world and should at least have been dealt with somehow (how’s that for Trekkie pickiness?).
Third, I like very much that the writers incorporated so many references and homages to TOS episodes and movies. It helps the new movie feel right. From the explanation for McCoy’s nickname to the original Spock greeting the new Kirk with “I have been and ever shall be your friend” to “I’m a doctor not a…” to Scotty crooning about coaxing more power out of the engines, there is a lot there that the Trekkie could love but that would slip right past the casual viewer. There is even a scene between Kirk and Spock that, in goal, tone and flavour, is lifted right out of TOS episode “This Side of Paradise”. And the last look we have of Christopher Pike has the great captain in a wheelchair, an interesting foreshadowing of his future fate. All good stuff.
Fourth, I agree with several critics who complained that the Enterprise is almost invisible as a character in this movie. The ship looks great but the audience is rarely treated to a full shot of this beautiful spacecraft. I am willing to admit to a certain feeling of awe as the new-look Enterprise rose majestically from the rings of Saturn halfway through the movie but that was about it for wow shots of the ship.
Fifth (and final, I promise), I like the fact that the villain, Nero, is just your average Romulan (well, just your average Romulan whose appearance resembles the villain from Star Trek: Nemesis, who wasn’t even Romulan, rather than any real Romulan we’ve ever seen). Nero is the run-of-the-mill commander of a run-of-the-mill drilling ship. In the 24th Century, he’s really a nobody. When he accidentally finds himself in the 23rd Century, however, suddenly he’s in command of the most modern ship around. It’s the technology that makes him scary, not any particular trait of his own. In fact, he’s quite banal as a person and the filmmakers don’t try to make him anything more. A refreshing change and I think a reference back to such TOS episodes as "Charlie X", "The Squire of Gothos", and even "Devil in the Dark", where the villain is just an average, flawed being trying to cope with the life he, she or it has been presented.
One Last Issue
It bothers me that Star Trek (2009) is completely lacking in strong female roles. We counted a grand total of five speaking roles for women in the entire movie: Kirk’s mom, Spock’s mom, the green woman, the Starfleet officer on the shuttle early in the movie, and Uhura.
Kirk’s mom gives birth, then disappears both from Kirk’s life and from the movie. Spock’s mom emotes, then disappears as well. The green woman is portrayed as a dim-witted sex-pot; the officer on the shuttle puts McCoy in his place and then disappears.
Even Uhura, who gets a distinct bump up in her role and expertise over TOS, ends up being little more than a prize in the on-going competition between Kirk and Spock.
It’s scary. I wondered for a while whether this seemingly deliberate choice was intended to be ironic – a send up of the lack of representation of women in leadership roles in TOS and even in TNG and the other series. I wish I could believe it. The fact of the matter is, Star Trek (2009) is a very male film. Male in flavour, male in attitude, male in on-screen representation. It’s sad, really.
Executive Summary
While I was watching and immediately thereafter, I loved the movie. Every minute of it. It was exhilarating, interesting, fun, neat, cool, wowee. I came out of the theatre breathless. Since then, however, little things have started to bother me. Thoughts have occurred, concerns have been raised, worries have arisen.
Disclaimers
I am a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. Or a nut, a geek, a weirdo. I am committed to Star Trek (The Original Series that is, hereinafter referred to as “TOS” to differentiate it from later TV iterations) and the films that flowed from TOS. The Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories.
I have watched the 79 TOS episodes enough times that I am pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of them. I can answer most trivia questions, as long as they are not too inane or petty (I can’t name the planets visited in each individual episode, for example). I could probably recite a pretty close approximation of the dialogue from most of TOS movies, especially II, III, IV and VI, to the point where I annoy the heck out of my partner and any one else who might watch one of the movies with me.
I don’t particularly like Star Chat: The Next Conversation, Star Trek: Deep Sleep Nine or Enterprise. Voyager had its moments. I believe that Brannon Braga and Rick Berman destroyed Star Trek by straying immediately and significantly from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision as soon as he died and I do not support their contention that TOS’s optimism would not play to a 80s or 90s audience. I think it was their commitment to making Star Trek “real” by making it dark and pessimistic that drove audiences away.
Star Trek (2009) as a Movie
This movie has it all and is well-deserving of the praise being heaped on it by professional and amateur reviewers across North America. It moves, from the first frame to the last. It features well drawn characters and surprisingly good acting performances across the board.
People who are new or fairly new to Star Trek will have no problem following the very simple plot: bad guy attacks, new recruits get called into action on an understaffed ship to repel the bad guy, people die. Lots of action, lots of funny bits, not too heavy on the message.
People who know Star Trek, once they get over their initial aversion to the new actors in well-loved roles, will like it because, while it truly re-starts the whole Kirk/Spock/McCoy story on a new track, the characters and their relationships are, for the most part, true to the original.
And it’s a darn good, entertaining story.
Actors and Roles
Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott is the only real miss among the re-casting of the roles. It may not be Pegg’s fault. It may just be the writing. But I can find nothing in the Montgomery Scott of the original series that suggests the laugh-a-minute character Pegg portrays.
In the cases of all the other roles, the re-casting and reformulating work for me. I like Spock as a passionate young man, caught between the two worlds. This is a Spock who still struggles with the decision to join Star Fleet and upon whom the dire events of this movie have the most significant impact. In light of his new reality, it should not surprise us that this Spock shows more fire. And Zachary Quinto is more than up to the task of this new, fiery Spock.
I very much liked how Spock's relationship with his father is consistent with the series — Sarek's absolute disdain for Spock's decision to forsake the Vulcan Science Academy for Starfleet comes through beautifully in early scenes — yet is affected in a realistic and believable manner first by the death of Amanda, Spock's human mother, and second by the destruction of the planet Vulcan and about six billion of its inhabitants: in this case, the relationship between father and son is appropriately strengthened, the anger over Spock's decision quickly vanishes, and Sarek allows his own emotional side to show much much earlier in this new reality than in the original series.
Chris Pine as Kirk works well too. Pine has that youthful arrogance, that brash confidence that Shatner’s Kirk seemed to lament losing in the movies. I can see Pine as the younger version and I think he captures the essence of James T. Kirk well.
Karl Urban is, in my opinion, slightly less effective as Leonard McCoy. His first appearance on screen comes across a bit “over the top” but he settles in nicely into the role of the folksy doctor, not entirely comfortable with technology nor with military power structures, who pledges his loyalty early to Kirk and the gang.
Zoe Saldana is a revelation as Uhura. I always liked Nichelle Nichols and her portrayal of the efficient communications officer but Saladna is given more to work with and she works it well. She’s like the uber-Uhura: smarter, more capable, more confident, sexier even. Too bad they reduce her to the trophy by the end of the movie.
John Cho does a heck of a job with the part of Sulu, another of my faves from TOS. George Takei was amazing in the role and Cho carries the torch well. As Takei did way back when, Cho plays his scenes with the big boys as an equal and he compares favourably with them. More Sulu, please.
The final regular role picked up from TOS is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. Well, to be honest, it really is Anton Yelchin as a Chekov/Wesley Crusher blend. I don’t mind Yelchin in the part but I just don’t like the part. Leave Wesley out of it, please. We don’t need a smart-alecky teenager on the bridge!
Star Trek (2009) as Star Trek
This section is not for the faint of heart nor, probably, for non-Trekkers.
First, Star Trek (2009) is Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan re-done with new actors, better effects and a brighter ship. It’s that simple. Same basic plot, similar gang of rookies, same outcome.
Second, while I accept fully (and actually embrace) that the arrival of the villain from the 24th Century on the date of Kirk’s birth in the 23rd Century changes the timeline irrevocably from that date onward, I cannot understand how the script writers could completely and totally erase Kirk’s older brother, George Samuel (see TOS episode “Operation: Annihilate”) who would have been born before the time line changed. As a result, he would exist in the movie world and should at least have been dealt with somehow (how’s that for Trekkie pickiness?).
Third, I like very much that the writers incorporated so many references and homages to TOS episodes and movies. It helps the new movie feel right. From the explanation for McCoy’s nickname to the original Spock greeting the new Kirk with “I have been and ever shall be your friend” to “I’m a doctor not a…” to Scotty crooning about coaxing more power out of the engines, there is a lot there that the Trekkie could love but that would slip right past the casual viewer. There is even a scene between Kirk and Spock that, in goal, tone and flavour, is lifted right out of TOS episode “This Side of Paradise”. And the last look we have of Christopher Pike has the great captain in a wheelchair, an interesting foreshadowing of his future fate. All good stuff.
Fourth, I agree with several critics who complained that the Enterprise is almost invisible as a character in this movie. The ship looks great but the audience is rarely treated to a full shot of this beautiful spacecraft. I am willing to admit to a certain feeling of awe as the new-look Enterprise rose majestically from the rings of Saturn halfway through the movie but that was about it for wow shots of the ship.
Fifth (and final, I promise), I like the fact that the villain, Nero, is just your average Romulan (well, just your average Romulan whose appearance resembles the villain from Star Trek: Nemesis, who wasn’t even Romulan, rather than any real Romulan we’ve ever seen). Nero is the run-of-the-mill commander of a run-of-the-mill drilling ship. In the 24th Century, he’s really a nobody. When he accidentally finds himself in the 23rd Century, however, suddenly he’s in command of the most modern ship around. It’s the technology that makes him scary, not any particular trait of his own. In fact, he’s quite banal as a person and the filmmakers don’t try to make him anything more. A refreshing change and I think a reference back to such TOS episodes as "Charlie X", "The Squire of Gothos", and even "Devil in the Dark", where the villain is just an average, flawed being trying to cope with the life he, she or it has been presented.
One Last Issue
It bothers me that Star Trek (2009) is completely lacking in strong female roles. We counted a grand total of five speaking roles for women in the entire movie: Kirk’s mom, Spock’s mom, the green woman, the Starfleet officer on the shuttle early in the movie, and Uhura.
Kirk’s mom gives birth, then disappears both from Kirk’s life and from the movie. Spock’s mom emotes, then disappears as well. The green woman is portrayed as a dim-witted sex-pot; the officer on the shuttle puts McCoy in his place and then disappears.
Even Uhura, who gets a distinct bump up in her role and expertise over TOS, ends up being little more than a prize in the on-going competition between Kirk and Spock.
It’s scary. I wondered for a while whether this seemingly deliberate choice was intended to be ironic – a send up of the lack of representation of women in leadership roles in TOS and even in TNG and the other series. I wish I could believe it. The fact of the matter is, Star Trek (2009) is a very male film. Male in flavour, male in attitude, male in on-screen representation. It’s sad, really.