Post by fred22312 on May 17, 2009 13:01:44 GMT -6
When I first heard about the new Star Trek movie, I was naturally excited about it. My excitement was soon tempered, however, when I learned that it was being directed by JJ Abrams. Surely nothing good could come of this, especially in light of his previous productions which were all rather unpleasant. The release of the trailers and TV-spots did not ease my worries. Again, my assumptions regarding what Abrams was going to do proved right. A scene showing a young Kirk driving at high speed down the highway, running from a police robot until he finally drives the car off the cliff, jumps valiantly out and states his identity with all possible bravado was just one nail in the coffin of this movie.
Having watched the movie, I have found it lacking in two specific ways. First, there is the thoroughly flagrant excision of cannon from the story, the removal of historical, according to Star Trek, events and their justification behind the banal excuse of an alternate timeline. Secondly, there is the complete excision of the very elements which are necessary for Star Trek. That is, the deeper things than the details of history. That is, the behaviors of the characters, the underlying assumptions which governed the universe and the actions they were likely to take. These very characteristics are absent from this movie, completely, replaced with insignificant caricatures of genuine characters.
The first reason for my disliking of this movie is the more superfluous one. There have always been factual inconsistencies in Star Trek, every series has them, they are a natural occurrence. And yet, this movie was made to show the state and the development of the 'young' characters of Star Trek. This would, normally, confine it to a specific period of time, a specific set of events which would be visited, in the movie, in greater detail. Motivations for the characters would be shown, challenges posed, solutions provided. While this would be a limiting setting, since one ought to focus on a period which is largely confined, it would still provide the possibility for development. Development of the universe, development of the characters or, at the very least, a greater understanding of the characters. Their childhoods, their motivations, their goals, their philosophies, etc. Despite this possibility, despite this stage on which can be set the events of the movie, JJ Abrams has managed not only to not provide any of the aforementioned possibilities, he has also managed to rework the entire cannon, a cannon which spans some 4 series and 10 movies! An entire universe has been changed, rendered unfixable and treated with such a banality which has removed any possible good from the movie. Without a second thought, JJ Abrams utilized the old 'red shirt' technique, to build up tension. Since he as a director did not have the depth of skill, a lack which plagues much of Hollywood today, he had to sacrifice not only the odd officer or starship to build up tension for his universe, he also had to sacrifice a planet. Without adequate reason, JJ Abrams completely destroyed years of precedence.
The characters, as I mentioned, were not particularly well characterized. Kirk's change of heart, from the pedantic rebel without a cause to a rebel in starfleet without a ship, was done over the course of one minute. A heart-touching story by Captain Pike regarding his father's death left Kirk, on the outside at least, as apathetic as before. One scene with him looking out on Enterprise (being built on the surface of the Earth when even Enterprise NX-01 was built in space dock) and then he boards the shuttle, to meet the rest of the crew. One, among many, unexplained personal developments. What happened to Kirk? What forced this change? Can Abrams deal with anything more than innuendo? The reasons for Kirk's actions, the motivations which drove him, the defects which held him back are never explained, drowned in a torrent of factual errors and insufficient characterization.
The flagrant lack of factual understanding, and the utterly dimensionless characters aside, the second really big problem was the wholesale removal of the more subtle Star Trek elements. The interpersonal interactions, many of which were present even in Enterprise, and thereby give a historical precedent to even this 'alternate reality.' The constant introduction of aliens in the background, of many fanciful but meaningless types is among the most noticeable. Virtually every scene where there is no fighting, and there is almost no no-fighting, another new and always physically exotic alien is introduced. But what purpose does this serve? Aside from taking a page from the Star Wars theory of inter-species interaction, where aliens almost always take a back seat to humans. These always silent, or chirpy aliens contribute nothing meaningful to the story, or the environment. Perhaps they were intended to detract for all the defects the movie suffers from, or perhaps another uninspired attempt on the part
of Abrams to add a touch of his own to the movie. Regardless, the pretense of these physically interesting but passive aliens seems to imply something very un-star trek. In particular, that aliens are some sort of peculiar beings, to be watched, sitting silently, but not approached. To be kept as pets or curiosities, but not looked at with respect and not treated with equality. But this is just one of many such examples. But it is not simply these short examples which remove any star trek quality from the movie, it is also the absence of so many behaviors.
The previous Star Trek movies, not to mention episodes, always demanded certain behaviors of the crew, from the original as well as the later Enterprises. Problems encountered were not always to be solved with guns. Wit, diplomacy and understanding always played a major role in the solution of problems. The universe was given a deeper more vibrant texture. There was not simply the good people, from the Enterprise, who would sweep into a situation and administer their proper justice, the different sides were given some consideration, and in the end there was a growth and development of the characters involved. This movie has none of these things. Even the Wrath of Khan possessed a certain uncertainty, a moral ambiguity regarding the use of the Genesis Device, even First Contact involved a rise and resolution of the internal conflicts of Picard, but this movie had nothing. From
beginning to end, there were the unchanging characters. The perpetually conflicted Spock, never ever expanding his understanding or his contemplation of the cultural tightrope he is to walk, only whining about which he should choose. The ever rebellions Kirk, constantly in opposition to everyone, not for any purpose of creatively developing a viewpoint but simply to be in opposition, Abram's limited view of a rebel. Uhura, the linguist taking a second job as... a *****? Aside from studying linguistics we learn ever so little about her, the entire movie she seems determined to sleep with Spock, but nothing more. McCoy, the doctor a friend to Kirk, apparently joining Starfleet because he has lost everything. But surely, there is more to this man's character than that? Chekov, a 17 year-old math whiz navigator. The great revelation and characterization of his character? A Russian, who confuses the sounds of W and V. Sulu? A swordsman, with a neat sword, also helmsman. And scotty, a brilliant engineer, sent to a backwater planet for beaming a beagle into nothingness. What more can be said about these characters? We have not gleaned any of their motivations, any of their drives. From their limited actions, we cannot even begin to understand them.
What is the end result of this movie, then? I can call it, at best, a very pedantic, very predictable, very
unexciting action movie and, therefore, the pinnacle of such movies. A starship battle here, a swordfight there leads inevitably to the good guys wining and the bad guys loosing. An action movie, by any other name... It has a new skin, to be sure. The guns are replaced with phasers, the cars with ships, but in the end it is precisely the same (Star Trek has never been particularly violent or action packed, but why would it need to take refuge in these very quaint characteristics? A violent, action packed film is not guaranteed to be a good one, indeed it would be meaningless to just throw violence and action into one out of some mainstream misconception that the violence makes the film, as Abrams has done.). But it cannot be called Star Trek, because there is a certain requirement for that. Not one of those requirements specific of a certain period, one of those easily antiquated ones which succumbs to age and becomes meaningless outside its time. Rather, Star Trek requires something slightly more profound. To be sure, it cannot match the works of philosophy or literature, written by philosophers
intent on profound analysis of humankind, it is entertainment, after all, but it was never devoid of them. In the very least, Star Trek introduced some questions of right and wrong, echoed some parables, played the mild part of a philosopher. These qualities gave it the significance, the timelessness which is completely absent from this film, in even the most minute quantities. It stands now, a great disappointment.