Reflections on Star Trek
Everything's behind the cut, because I'm a nice guy like that. ;-)
I went Monday night with one of my co-workers from the bookstore. I've never really allowed myself to get psyched up about the movie; Nemesis blew goats, Enterprise sucked, and Voyager was a disappointment, so I've learned not to get my hopes up.
I thought it was very pretty good. If we're doing stars, I'd give it four out of five; letter grades, a B+
To be brutally honest, I've become so disenchanted with Star Trek over the last several years (and I'm sure my time as a TrekBBS moderator has contributed) that I was ready and willing for J.J. Abrams and his gang to sweep the deck clean and start afresh. They've got a clear path ahead of them, and I wish them well. This is probably the first Trek movie I've seen since First Contact - 12½ years ago - where I felt entertained because of the movie, not in spite of it.
Was it a perfect movie? Not hardly. Nero (Eric Bana) had a better motivation than most of the recent Trek movie villains, but he still doesn't reach that lofty standard set by the late Ricardo Montalban back in 1982. Kirk's ascension to Enterprise captain seems a bit contrived, but it works; they needed to put everyone in place by the end of the movie so we can jump feet first into the inevitable Trek XII (or will it be Trek II?) two or three years from now. And while I felt that Roger Ebert had a valid criticism that the movie lacked the original TV show's sense of boldly exploring the unknown, I'd remind him that the two times they tried to do that in a Star Trek movie, we ended up with "The Changeling" crossed with 2001, and the immortal question, "What does God need with a starship?"
The casting of the main characters was my central concern, and they nailed all of it. Chris Pine is charming, bold, and a bit of an asshole, all qualities that endeared Shatner's Kirk to audiences so many years ago. Zachary Quinto really captures the tension of Spock, and Karl Urban was a pleasant surprise as McCoy; of all the actors, he was probably channelling his predecessor the most. The additions of Nimoy as Spock Prime, Ben Cross as Sarek, and Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike lent gravitas to the film; Greenwood is certainly one of the most underrated actors in the industry.
The main criticism my co-worker voiced afterwards was that while this was a great summer blockbuster, it was poor Star Trek. Was it? I felt that it captured the best of Trek (adventure, smartly written characters, friendship [though it's in its early stages here]) and left out the worst (hamfisted moralizing, technobabble). If anything, this was a trial balloon; Paramount wanted to see if people would still turn out for a Star Trek movie if they actually treated it like an honest-to-God summer tentpole film and not a glorified November Sweeps two-parter. As of this writing, I'd say the answer is a pretty resounding yes. Including Monday's box-office, the film's domestic take now stands at $86.7 million, and it could very well break $100 million before the second weekend starts.
That means Abrams & Co. can improve on this: address the film's faults, but build on what worked here. All these guys are signed for a three-film deal, and while that's de rigueur in Hollywood these days, it also means we've got the opportunity to take advantage of the immense talent assembled here two more times.
It's not my father's Star Trek. It's not even my Star Trek. But it breathes powerful new life into what was thought to be a bloated, rotting corpse, so bring on the sequels. May they live long and prosper.
I went Monday night with one of my co-workers from the bookstore. I've never really allowed myself to get psyched up about the movie; Nemesis blew goats, Enterprise sucked, and Voyager was a disappointment, so I've learned not to get my hopes up.
I thought it was very pretty good. If we're doing stars, I'd give it four out of five; letter grades, a B+
To be brutally honest, I've become so disenchanted with Star Trek over the last several years (and I'm sure my time as a TrekBBS moderator has contributed) that I was ready and willing for J.J. Abrams and his gang to sweep the deck clean and start afresh. They've got a clear path ahead of them, and I wish them well. This is probably the first Trek movie I've seen since First Contact - 12½ years ago - where I felt entertained because of the movie, not in spite of it.
Was it a perfect movie? Not hardly. Nero (Eric Bana) had a better motivation than most of the recent Trek movie villains, but he still doesn't reach that lofty standard set by the late Ricardo Montalban back in 1982. Kirk's ascension to Enterprise captain seems a bit contrived, but it works; they needed to put everyone in place by the end of the movie so we can jump feet first into the inevitable Trek XII (or will it be Trek II?) two or three years from now. And while I felt that Roger Ebert had a valid criticism that the movie lacked the original TV show's sense of boldly exploring the unknown, I'd remind him that the two times they tried to do that in a Star Trek movie, we ended up with "The Changeling" crossed with 2001, and the immortal question, "What does God need with a starship?"
The casting of the main characters was my central concern, and they nailed all of it. Chris Pine is charming, bold, and a bit of an asshole, all qualities that endeared Shatner's Kirk to audiences so many years ago. Zachary Quinto really captures the tension of Spock, and Karl Urban was a pleasant surprise as McCoy; of all the actors, he was probably channelling his predecessor the most. The additions of Nimoy as Spock Prime, Ben Cross as Sarek, and Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike lent gravitas to the film; Greenwood is certainly one of the most underrated actors in the industry.
The main criticism my co-worker voiced afterwards was that while this was a great summer blockbuster, it was poor Star Trek. Was it? I felt that it captured the best of Trek (adventure, smartly written characters, friendship [though it's in its early stages here]) and left out the worst (hamfisted moralizing, technobabble). If anything, this was a trial balloon; Paramount wanted to see if people would still turn out for a Star Trek movie if they actually treated it like an honest-to-God summer tentpole film and not a glorified November Sweeps two-parter. As of this writing, I'd say the answer is a pretty resounding yes. Including Monday's box-office, the film's domestic take now stands at $86.7 million, and it could very well break $100 million before the second weekend starts.
That means Abrams & Co. can improve on this: address the film's faults, but build on what worked here. All these guys are signed for a three-film deal, and while that's de rigueur in Hollywood these days, it also means we've got the opportunity to take advantage of the immense talent assembled here two more times.
It's not my father's Star Trek. It's not even my Star Trek. But it breathes powerful new life into what was thought to be a bloated, rotting corpse, so bring on the sequels. May they live long and prosper.