Star Trek
I just got out of seeing the new Star Trek. It was a fun movie but I think it's most noteworthy not as a movie but as a business decision. Here's my theory. (Fourth paragraph includes actual spoilers, but I encourage you to not read any of this until after you see the movie.)
A few years ago the Star Trek franchise was in trouble. Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise have all been cancelled after achieving decreasing popularity and the rumored "Starfleet Academy" TV series was over before it started. The last two movies, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis", didn't do very well either critically or commercially. The Las Vegas Hilton shut down the Star Trek Experience. Paramount was, essentially, mothballing the franchise after realizing that for whatever reason those characters, those stories, and that universe just weren't selling anymore.
Giving JJ Abrams a shot isn't something Paramount would have normally done, but the game was looking finished. I think they figured it was time to punt. And Abrams punted.
My theory is that almost everything that happens in the new Trek universe happens as a result of that punt and its necessity. It's an attempt to paint the franchise out of a corner by constructing a more commercially viable universe that's better adapted to the modern zeitgeist. That's why the new movie starts with an alternative timeline that begins literally at the moment of Kirk's birth. The plot unfolds from that point in a way that makes the characters not just deceptively different than they were in any previous series, but more appealing to contemporary audiences, primarily Kirk and Spock. Kirk isn't just a brash womanizing hero, he's an acting-out rebel struggling with survivor guilt and his father's death. Spock isn't just super-logical and emotionless, he's "a member of an endangered species", dealing with his own anger and guilt after watching his home planet collapse and his mother die. A character so emotionally compromised that he can't perform his duties. The Vulcans are no longer a powerful race of advanced creatures lending humanity a hand, they're a refugee people without a home, forced out of their isolation, possibly with a score to settle. And these are just details of a universe that's a complete break from the traditional Trek canon. The new Trek gives future scripts and writers an updated palette of characters and carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want without the canon cops coming after them, plus there's still Old Spock to provide a little Future Tech Ex Machina whenever new plots require it.
And that's what the new Star Trek is about. It's not just a prequel. It's not just about younger actors playing old characters. It's not even about reviving the old franchise. The new Star Trek is a new movie set in a new universe with new characters which happen to resemble the old characters. It's not just a story, it's the foundation for future stories. Tinkering with that much of the formula is a risky move, but better than the failure that seemed all but certain a year ago.
A few years ago the Star Trek franchise was in trouble. Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise have all been cancelled after achieving decreasing popularity and the rumored "Starfleet Academy" TV series was over before it started. The last two movies, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis", didn't do very well either critically or commercially. The Las Vegas Hilton shut down the Star Trek Experience. Paramount was, essentially, mothballing the franchise after realizing that for whatever reason those characters, those stories, and that universe just weren't selling anymore.
Giving JJ Abrams a shot isn't something Paramount would have normally done, but the game was looking finished. I think they figured it was time to punt. And Abrams punted.
My theory is that almost everything that happens in the new Trek universe happens as a result of that punt and its necessity. It's an attempt to paint the franchise out of a corner by constructing a more commercially viable universe that's better adapted to the modern zeitgeist. That's why the new movie starts with an alternative timeline that begins literally at the moment of Kirk's birth. The plot unfolds from that point in a way that makes the characters not just deceptively different than they were in any previous series, but more appealing to contemporary audiences, primarily Kirk and Spock. Kirk isn't just a brash womanizing hero, he's an acting-out rebel struggling with survivor guilt and his father's death. Spock isn't just super-logical and emotionless, he's "a member of an endangered species", dealing with his own anger and guilt after watching his home planet collapse and his mother die. A character so emotionally compromised that he can't perform his duties. The Vulcans are no longer a powerful race of advanced creatures lending humanity a hand, they're a refugee people without a home, forced out of their isolation, possibly with a score to settle. And these are just details of a universe that's a complete break from the traditional Trek canon. The new Trek gives future scripts and writers an updated palette of characters and carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want without the canon cops coming after them, plus there's still Old Spock to provide a little Future Tech Ex Machina whenever new plots require it.
And that's what the new Star Trek is about. It's not just a prequel. It's not just about younger actors playing old characters. It's not even about reviving the old franchise. The new Star Trek is a new movie set in a new universe with new characters which happen to resemble the old characters. It's not just a story, it's the foundation for future stories. Tinkering with that much of the formula is a risky move, but better than the failure that seemed all but certain a year ago.