First-pass thoughts on the new Star Trek movie (2,500 words)

[bironic]

Saw Star Trek: All the Characters Cry Into Darkness last night with a group of local fangirls plus a bonus group ditto who'd picked the same showing. That was a nice follow-up experience to the 2009 Reboot, which I first saw in Boston with my grad school class + significant others + our program administrator. In an attempt to buoy my low

Comments

[cold_clarity]

I really love this review!

I have mostly a fond-nostalgia-type connection to Star Trek. I watched most of NextGen as a kid with my dad (and I saw a few episodes of DS9 and Voyager because of him)--but I don't think I started watching TOS until I was in college (I saw The Voyage Home in middle school though; mostly I was amped about THE MOTHERFUCKING WHALES), and I only just started revisiting the Next Generation fairly recently. I'm mostly throwing all this background out there to say: I'm aggressively fond of the entire Star Trek universe, I love that I get to explore all the material over again now that I'm older, and I actually really do identify as a Star Trek fanespecially as it applies to TOS), or just the plain old experience of participating in the fandom that a lot of fans have

[cold_clarity]

ALL THAT SAID--I never gave much thought to the characterization/mischaracterization of the main cast. probably because I don't have a very strong idea of the ways in which the crew of the enterprise were characterized in TOS (in spite of having seen most of it, and several of the films, at this point). I really like getting your perspective on that! and, after reading through your writeup, as well as lettered's, I have to agree that it really would have made so much more sense to build up nu!crew as...new people, with different lives, different histories, and different relationships to one another than the TOS crew (as opposed to just using them to puppet out fanservice-y moments--not that I minded those moments, necessarily).

speaking of fanservice (or failed fancservice): I was really annoyed with the recycling of Khan. I just. why go to all the trouble of creating an alternate timeline if you're going to just sort-of port villains across universes. whyyyyy. I spent most of the movie being like HE'S NOT KHAN and then having a 'fuck you

[bironic]

I am also planning to see it again, and it's funny because I think we have exchanged thinking points. I tend to come up from the details first toward theme second, so I picked out all these little ways in which something worked or didn't work, including characterization, and it's only been after reading people's reactions that the themes are taking form, like what you say here:

2. made some attempt at sparking conversations about ethics. jumbled worldbuilding aside, the conversations about a culture's move towards aggressive militarization following a violent attack (and the preponderance of reactionary attitudes that would condone condemnation-without-trial) [...] the film's brief glance at the question of what constitutes an "appropriate response" to a violent and/or traumatic event (especially when the targets/victims/survivors of said event are participant in a broader hegemonic power structure). This will be really interesting to pay more attention to next time and see how coherently the movie tries to come at this question; the

[cold_clarity]

I filed it under "Kirk uncovers Starfleet conspiracy" and "evil Admiral is trying to subsume scientific exploration under military action" rather than "movie is trying to make a larger point about ethics and current politics" because the Admiral was just so over the top, and, granted, because I had a hard time parsing themes when the pace was so fast. The whole Bush-era metaphor escaped me until the giant crash at the end, but I get it in retrospect with the manhunt across borders and the "weapons of mass destruction," although muddied by the bodies in the weapons themselves, and it'll be interesting on second watch to see if it still feels as disrespectful and ham-handed as the first time, coopting this imagery of recent mass trauma without addressing the fallout (of Khan's final crash, anyway) or making a new or deep point.it's interesting--I never got the sense that it was meant to read as Kirk-versus-Starfleet (mostly because Spock spent the whole trip to Qo'noS/Kronos being all like I REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ETHICALLY

[cold_clarity]

...this also leads me to recall the New Caprica arc on Battlestar Galactica, which really did upset and offend me, because it felt so transparently like a sloppy and disposable reference to the various conflicts/U.S. occupations in the Middle East that never bothered to present any meaningful insights into said conflicts. I'm not sure why that bothered me so much, but the thematic overtones of STID didn't really bother me at all.

so yes. running with this free-association train: my brother asked me if this movie dealt with "deep questions" in the way that Prometheus dealt with its existential questions--which is to say, he wanted to know if STID was as completely incoherent and disjointed in its presentation and subsequent examination of its themes as Prometheus. and I'm still thinking about this question, because I don't know how to answer it. I walked out of Prometheus feeling much more strongly that the scriptwriting was a complete and total disaster than I did when I walked out of STID, but I'm actually beginning to think that

[bironic]

I don't think that handling an issue with ham-handed obviousness is the same thing as handling an issue in such a way that it begins to seem like the writers have a trivial or shallow take on the matter (though they do tend to correlate quite a bit). that said, I do think that the discussion-of-topical-issues will ultimately read as trivial in a rewatch because the film doesn't seem to have much interest in investigating the questions it brings up in a deep way?

Good distinction, and good follow-up point! I'm going to have to see the movie again to be able to comment further.

it's interesting that they work to point out that Khan, regardless of the things he's done, should maybe still have a right to a trial! it's interesting that they problematize the issue of the military industrial complex! […] but. the questions get lost and somewhat muddled in the rollercoastering of the rest of the movieI'll say-I don't even remember the line about the trial nor recall how much explicit attention was paid to the military-industrial complex. :

[cold_clarity]

Ha, I actually have an outline for a follow-up post because I think it'll be illuminating-er, for me, anyway-to compare my reaction to STID to my reactions to Prometheus (which I just saw a few weeks ago) and the new Superman trailer.

I'm excited to read it!

(1) Because basically I gave Prometheus more leeway on the sloppy messaging and ridiculous pseudoscience, which I suspect is related to my level of canon devotion (infinitely lower Alien series than for Star Trek) as well as my tendency to look for something good (or bad) in a media source if popular opinion is skewed far in the other direction.

it's funny; I didn't dislike Prometheus--I actually paid to see it twice. I enjoyed the sci-fi-thriller-horror aspect of it, and I had fun cheering for the xenomorph monsters at certain points (maybe this says something about me?). I didn't really get frustrated with the film until I started discussing it with other people, and we tried to hash out the various thematic explorations that it carried out (or failed to carry out). and,

[cold_clarity]

also, I'm sorry that I keep leaving you mile-long replies! I hope I'm not coming off as...overly argumentative (or just straight-up obnoxious). I tend to uncover my own thoughts better through conversation, so...here I am? thanks for letting me chatter on, at least!