RICKRUCKER.COM
5/13/09
Star
Trek: Okay
That's it. It surprises you, intermittently, provides entertainment. Then it ends exactly like the mediocre Next Generation movies, almost note for note. Overall the film is comparable to the original X-men, insofar as it sets up a solid universe for sequels. This may be better, marginally. Even Khan could potentially make a comeback, if they can find the right oily pecs!
I loved Star Trek growing up, mainly the original series. So I was dreading some of the plot points here. Like time travel: one of the biggest headaches in Trek lore. If anybody can travel in time, then every Trek movie would be about some Romulan coming back from the future to kill Kirk. If J.J. Abrams wasn't a fan of Trek, he wouldn't even know what to avoid: like time travel plots, Romulans and ending note for note like the mediocre Next Generation movies.
But surprisingly, the film draws strength from the time travel plot. Every character in this alternate Trek universe has to step up and show why they're bad motherfuckers. It's like they're forced to leap into the big, franchise archetype shoes, before their time. That's the main driving force of the film: the crew snapping into place, being forced to perform.
After 8 years of Bush, America is actively celebrating competence: go Sully! I'm all for it. As civilizational propaganda, this is fine stuff. After all, this characteristic is by no means innate in humans. Much status throughout human cultures and history was dead-set at birth. Captain Kirk goes from suspended cadet to Captain because--well, he's Captain Kirk. This film celebrates daring, competence and courage. Other than that, there's nothing artistically transcendent in the film--or "too cerebral" as the NBC executives famously called the first Trek pilot. Hell, there's more intellectual ideas floating around the infamous brain-transplant episode Spock's Brain than here.
The actors are good, Zachary Quinto as Spock, especially. Kirk (Chris Pine) doesn't necessarily stand out: you could imagine a variety of actors hitting the same notes. Only McCoy (Karl Urban) seems to be doing a Deforest Kelly impression, but hell, I liked it, I wish there was more McCoy in this film. McCoy's lack of presence is conspicuous here, considering the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy were basically the only non-cipher characters in the original Trek. This Trek is Kirk and Spock obsessed to a fault.
Maybe to get more mileage out of the main heroes. The film uses scattershot Joseph Campbell hero myth elements for both Kirk and Spock, a first for Star Trek. This comes at the cost of the "cerebral" stuff Star Trek did well (mostly in the original series, in episodes penned by real sci-fi writers). This is kind of an unwelcome coup, though, considering it essentially disses the art of science fiction allegorizing that spawned and informed the original Trek. The characters were deliberately insignificant, because who cares about fake people? What are you, stupid? They're all just symbols, are you so idiotic you want to hear how they grew up?
When the Romulans were first introduced (ahem in episode 9, Balance of Terror), the writers called their planet "Romulus" because nobody gave a fuck about realism. The Romulans were just there to represent an aspect of human nature. Meanwhile, many years later, our villainous "Romulan" "Nero" is sad his planet and people named after a human myth got blowed up. "The planet of Chuck E. Cheese is hostile and contributes to the Cheesians warlike temperament!"
Both Kirk and Spock have daddy-issues, and you can go down the checklist to find all the other hero-stages checked off. Here, old Spock is the wise old man! This sort of hero myth writing is often called "unoriginal" by pseudo-intellectuals, and perhaps they're right. But it's weird territory. I myself set out to write a fantasy novel, once, as hackily and rapidly as possible, but quickly found myself really into it. I based the plot on the hackiest, most stereotypical fantasy novel covers I'd ever seen, conceived everything as cynically as possible. But by the end, I was sure it was a work of monumental, awesome merit. I now have doubts. So it's a double-edged sword. The problem is, to really innovate a plot that releases power requires visionary talent, which most people ain't got. I always know it's a bad "literary" novel or film if it feels like I'm in the middle of the story ten pages before it ends. Yeah, your plot arc was "original": it released no power whatsoever. But old sci-fi and Trek released power because the stories were saying something about human beings, human nature and human history, which is arguably far more artistically valid than hero tropes that happen to resonate with the largest numbers of people.
But seriously, that's the other thing that bothered me about J.J. Abrams. Without understanding what made the best Star Trek great, how can you expect him to produce anything but a blockbuster in the modern, mythological mold? His brain dead-stops beyond Spielberg populism; a fine trait to get famous in Hollywood, but also a tragedy for any narrative aiming for anything beyond lighting up unconscious klaxons in human brains.
Classic Star Trek required understanding people, conflicts, cultures. The modern blockbuster makes no such demands. It pretends to superiority through showing more realistic human beings, sort of. Hollywood types pretend conventional characterization is not only king, but all there is. Meanwhile, the "sermonizing" of Trek was paramount because ideas were paramount; characters were secondary cogs in the narrative machine.
Since sequels to "hero's journey" stories can be absolutely disastrous (see: Star Wars prequels, Matrix sequels, Hannibal), I suggest the next filmmakers study why Star Trek was originally great. I'm sure you won't listen to average Trekkies, which is good. Get somebody who respects sci-fi narratives. I think most of them are dead, though. Bring in that bitter fuck Harlan Ellison as screaming, bastard script consultant, that'd be fun.
Also, Spock doesn't believe in destiny, for Christ's fucking sakes. That alone demands a rolled-up newspaper across J.J. Abrams' head. But go see Star Trek, if you haven't, it's okay, which is all America can hope for from its summer blockbusters. Please, kill the pain!