I was going to write a review of Star Trek. But then I couldn't be bothered. Lovely wife loves it and wants to see it again in IMAX; I thought it was good, but all that time travel made it feel too geeky and continuity-ridden for my liking. But it's definitely one of the best, if not the best of the Trek movies, and I did love the fact they showed Christopher Pike (who was the captain of the Enterprise in the show's original pilot) as a decent captain, on a par with Kirk, rather than a simple placeholder, waiting for Kirk to come along. Plus Karl Urban as Bones was spooky.
Thing is, it's supposed to be a movie that sheds the Star Trek universe of geekiness and makes it accessible to non-fans. However, while preparing to write said review of Star Trek, I went to its IMDB page to do some research. Turns out the geeks hadn't got the message.
First thing to make me roll my eyes and laugh was the cast list. See if you can see what I mean:
After that, I checked out the goofs page. I did so love this one, not just for being wrong, but because someone cared enough to add it:
Continuity: In the final "Spock on Spock" scene, you can see the obvious height difference between the two. Young Spock should be the same height as old Spock.
I won't even delve into the forums. They're busy complaining about promotion-speed.
Still, if it makes them happy and it's a good film: an enjoyable romp, but not an absolute must-see.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
Was it supposed to 'shed the geekiness'? I don't see why making it accessible for non-geeks shouldn't also make it enjoyable for geeks, and why it being enjoyable for geeks makes it somewhat less good. If that's what you're getting at.
Geeks still like Doctor Who. Does that make it less of a mainstream hit?
May 14, 2009 | Reply
Excellent post. I consider myself a geek too but you're right, some of the Trekkers/Trekkies out there really are nitpicking. I do think, however, that some of the worst offenders, the ones who are into all the technobabble and whatnot, became fans with The Next Generation. I think fans of the Original Series focus more on the characters. (They're the ones complaining that Spock should have gotten it on with Nurse Chapel and not Uhura!)
May 14, 2009 | Reply
Not exactly. I was kind of going for 'geekiness' in the sense of memorising the technical manual (ie appealing only to geeks by indulging in things only geeks like). New Trek is supposed to be able to appeal to a wide audience as well as geeks. That's the hype. My point is that the technical manual lovers are still carrying on as always which has the potential to put people off. Assuming they go to IMDB of course, which is arguably geeky.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
I sort of see what you're getting at; it's the same sort of thing as the rabid Whedon fans putting people off watching Serenity and Dollhouse because their intensity is irritating. I've still not watched The Wire, for much the same reason. But I'm not sure that film/programme makers ought to be concerned about how fans respond to their work. If it has broad appeal, then that's their job done, and Star Trek certainly seems to have broad appeal. For example, there's a lot of backstory referenced with Old Spock, but you don't need to know it to enjoy his scenes — it's enough to know that he's from the future.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
The height difference thing is bogus. Humans tend to shrink as they get older, and Spock, being half-human, could very well be experiencing that now, at his advanced age.
Yes, I'm a geek. You couldn't tell that already?
May 14, 2009 | Reply
@Nick: I think fans of the original series did go a little strange between the original series and the movies - that is, after all, when Klingon got invented, they put the slash into Kirk/Spock fiction and more or less invented the TV series convention for themselves. But, yes, ST:TNG is a lot to blame and let's not dwell too long on the crimes of Voyager lovers.
@Stu-n: It's more that the fans should learn to behave themselves. They're in mixed company now ;-)
@Jaradel: Daft, isn't it? Particularly when you consider how many different gravity fields everyone's supposed to have lived in. Moi un geek aussi... I believe Stu-n's preferred term is NerdFilla™ though.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
@Nick: Re: Spock/Uhura vs. Spock/Chapel - I have been reading that apparently TOS fans had always seen an undercurrent of mutual respect and affection between Spock and Uhura, something I must not have picked up on when I was in kindergarten. But Spock/Chapel?? That was always one-sided, and I could see that even when I was little. My first reaction to Spock/Uhura in the movie was definitely "WTF???". I think it would have played better had it been more subtle - snogging in the lift was definitely not subtle!
@Rob: I had a copy of "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" growing up, and I read that book cover to cover countless times. I loved that level of attention to detail. That being said, I am much more open and forgiving of the current movie's plotline than some Trek fans have been. The show has always had a history of time travel / alternate universe / alternate reality, so why should this be so hard to swallow? I think it's rather bold of Abrams and co. to take this tack, and I for one am interested to see where they go with it. Frankly, a rehash of old eps line-for-line would have been boring. Let's see what new kinds of trouble the Enterprise crew get into in this alternate timeline (though I'm not opposed to seeing old characters pop up in new situations).
@stu-n: I think the rabid fans, the ones who think that the franchise exists to service their desires, need to STFU. I love Star Trek - it was my first real fandom immersion, before I even knew what that meant - but I don't think that gives me the right to dictate the direction of the franchise. In spite of my ability to quote Star Trek II chapter and verse, I don't mind the current custodians of the franchise shooting for a broader fanbase as long as the story quality doesn't suffer.
Neil Gaiman has a lot to say about fans and entitlement issues, and while his rant is focused on fans of writers demanding that next book LIKE RIGHT NOW, there are ideas that apply to fandoms in general.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
I seem to remember a bit of flirtation between Uhura and Spock over a Vulcan harp at one point in TOS.
Personally, I'd have been happier without the time travel. Although "big scary thing only Captain Kirk can stop" is essentially Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the whole thing ends up very complicated just so they can say "Aha! It's all changing. Continuity is not an issue." Which is what they did with the first few seasons of Enterprise, and a few episodes of Voyager and the time war, etc, anyway and turned them into lead.
I'd have preferred Abrams and co to have had the balls just to reboot the whole thing and say "And?" when everyone complained they'd messed up continuity.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
What I loved about the approach to time travel was that no one seemed to astounded by it. Not Spock Prime (oh yes), not Kirk Pine, just a general acceptance of what must have happened, which is about right considering Enterprise is still canon in this new universe and what went on in that series.
But the process of the reboot was to do with acceptance. The last thing Paramount wanted to do was piss off the fanbase, especially in these web-enabled days. Trekkies would not have accepted it as proper Trek unless there was some mechanism which allowed them to.
It seems to often happen that a general audience will look to the fans of a franchise to tell them if something is any good. Happened to me when Doctor Who first began, people asking, 'you're a fan, is it any good?' The last thing they wanted was for the other end of that conversation to be -- 'It's rubbish. It's not proper Star Trek.'
I just hope the sequel doesn't ruin everything by pinioning itself around trying to put everything back the way it was or for that matter remaking one of the old episodes in the new style. The hard part is coming for the writers in developing an entirely new story instead of what amounts to an entertaining couple of hours of retro-continuity.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
Sorry, that was me.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
I seem to remember a bit of flirtation between Uhura and Spock over a Vulcan harp at one point in TOS.
Yeah, I think you're right... but it was subtle, wasn't it? I guess to my primary school brain at the time, it came across as "Oh, they both like music, isn't that sweet."
I'd have preferred Abrams and co to have had the balls just to reboot the whole thing and say "And?" when everyone complained they'd messed up continuity.
And watch as the fanboys' heads exploded when they tried to reconcile the movie with their prized collectors' edition box sets of the original series, their 1970s fanzines, and their shelves of Star Trek novels? That would've been a hell of a mess for the cinema staff to clean up. *snicker*
It could be argued that Abrams and co. did reboot the franchise with the alternate timeline, though. He blew up Vulcan and killed Spock's mum, for cryin' out loud. It doesn't get more ballsy than that, does it? I say he did reboot it - he just did it in a way that allows the existence of the previous 43 years of the franchise to be explained, while still giving future films a clean slate to work with. The one thing the movie preserved, which for me was the most important thing, was characterisation. Everyone was believable in their roles and no one seemed OOC. Even the Spock/Uhura relationship, while jarring, was not beyond the pale; Spock has had romantic relationships with human women before, and Uhura's always had a soft spot for Spock, from what I remember.
Now, some people are arguing that Nero and Old Spock went to a parallel universe, instead of traveling back in time in "our" universe, but I think if that had been the case, Old Spock would have alluded to that.
As for continuity, the fanboys were - and are - still complaining about it. That will never end.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
What's great is that the public is talking about Star Trek again. I haven't seen that in a while (beyond the "is Trek dead" conversations). Even the diehard fans haven't been this excited about the franchise in my opinion since the days of the Spock Trilogy (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and Voyage Home.) Which means, JJ Abrams and crew have done a great thing and have successfully resurrected the franchise. Now if only George Lucas had the balls to let someone do the same thing to Star Wars instead of being stuck in his Prequel Universe with the only sequel stories marginalized in some novels.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
@Nick: Yeah, the new film has allowed me to "come out of the closet" with respect to my Trek fandom; it's been uncool in the last few years, even amongst sci-fi fans, to admit to liking Trek. I don't know if that's due to the spinoffs, the last Next Gen film (which blew major chunks and came across as a bad fanfic), or simply the franchise itself falling off the radar in favour of BSG / Lost / etc.
Lucas' major mistake was not letting other people direct the films or write the screenplays. Example: I read the novelisation of "Return of the Sith", and it was SOOOOO much better than the film in terms of dialogue. Lucas doesn't know how to coax good performances out of his actors, and he can't write dialogue for shit. Really - even Harrison Ford told him that, in not so many words! But Lucas was/is a control freak, and the Star Wars franchise suffered for it amongst the older fans.
Yes, I'm a bit talky today. The rebirth of the Star Trek franchise has me a bit giddy, and it keeps my mind off of my feeling of dread over the imminent demise of the Tenth Doctor.
May 14, 2009 | Reply
I am merely feeling significant frustration that I will have to find a way of getting to see ST without the boy as he actually isn't all that into science fiction.... it all looks so good and everyone I have heard has raved about it...
May 15, 2009 | Reply
I'm really looking forward to ST. The original TV series always gives me a warm cosy take me back to childhood feeling, I loved all the films, liked New Generation, and even tolerated Voyager (mind you my children were very young then, so I used to tune into it for winddown time), and from what I've seen of the trailers I will love the new film. Don't really care about continuity or not, so long as it works in itself, and it sounds like it does.
Lisa, shame we don't live nearer. I'd come and see it with you! (Would go with Spouse, but it always seems like a waste to pay for a babysitter and then go to the cinema!)
May 15, 2009 | Reply
I went into HMV on Oxford Street yesterday, and they were playing Wrath of Khan on their video screens. They'd just got to the bit where Khan activates the Genesis device. I had to stay to the end.
'His was the most... human.'
Waaah!