[Movie] Star Trek (2009)

Short version: I saw Star Trek. I liked the writing and acting. I was neutral on the overall story, canonicity, etc. J.J. Abrams is still a shit director.

I saw Star Trek in Manhattan at the AMC Lowes at 84th and Broadway (I mention this only because it is an awful theater; don't ever go there). It was Saturday at around 10pm and the theater was quite empty. I had heard reports from folks back in San Francisco that showings were repeatedly selling out, but Manhattan has a ridiculous density of movie theaters so a loosely packed house wasn't a big concern.

I was, within the first five minutes struck by what I would deduce as the film's key art directive: respectful modernization. The new textures and old colors on the uniforms, and other costume designs are a good example of this working well, while the overwrought & hyperactive computer displays are an example of this working poorly.

As the movie went on and more of the characters were introduced I was thrilled. To varying degrees the essence of the characters had remained and the performances of the original actors were reinterpreted (good: Karl Urban as Bones ("My God, man!"), not as good: Zoe Saldana playing the all-poise Uhura as a Charlie's Angel). The dialogue was snappy, believable and fun to watch. Things unfolded in what seemed a largely sensible manner.

As I left the theater though, doubts began to appear:

Why was Nero a Bel Air'd copypasta of Nemesis's Shinzon? Plus, why pick on the Romulans? Is Ron Moore the only person who can write a Klingon story anymore? One of the masterstrokes of Generations is that it provides some fascinating back story for an already existing, but underdeveloped race (the El-Aurians). I mean, this is the equivalent of the Romulans waking up to find the writers have left turd on their chest, and then hours later realizing their dog has been shot as well. All other poorly-defined Star Trek races: Beware!

Regrettably, establishing an alternate timeline is pretty much the only way to deal with the dense, conflicting, multi-century Star Trek canon. But there's still a big connection to the main timeline and some stuff crops up there. I felt like some screen time could have been taken from some of the more pointless-yet-cool action scenes or pointless-yet-cool Trek nerd nods to resolve some of the more pressing questions about what exactly is going on.

I don't know who to blame or how it got started, but the needless mood lighting that's invaded action movies circa late 200X has got to go. Watch Rush Hour 1 or 2 and then watch a few minutes (I don't want to kill anyone) of Rush Hour 3 and you'll see how bad this shit has gotten. CSI's crime lab doesn't need to be lit dark and blue and neither does your movie. In the same vein, the Paramount Presents Michael Bay's Transformers Lens Flare From A Light Source Off Screen and the pointless, post-Matrix camera movements (see just after the cut to Spock at the Vulcan Science Academy) can all get the hell off my lawn too.

Good movie? Yeah, I enjoyed myself. Will it hold up in 27 years the way Khan does? Nah. It will be as kitsch and dated and painful as the 23 year old Star Trek IV: The One With The Whales is today.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by nadienne

But...I like the one with the whales!

I guess that's a good thing though, if it means I'll like this one. We're going this weekend, I think.

I have great memories of Star Trek IV, but I recently watched all of the ST movies in a marathon -- IV was downright painful. Perhaps having moved to San Francisco may have spoiled the move for me; but that movie is pretty fucking 80s in some pretty awful ways.

Unless you are one of those types who experience physical pain when the Star Trek canon is violated, you'll like Abrams's Star Trek.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

I think thats the point?

One of the "problems" with Star Trek time travel is that its almost never, ever done right. Like the time Sisko and Bashir went "back in time" to the ... early 21st century? First off - the show was made in the mid-1990s and it still *looks that way*. I'm not even talking about the obvious "lower" production value, you have a guy walking around with a fedora like he's Joey from DeGrassi.

Star Trek IV got it right in that it was "timely". Its suppose to be painful and dated. Duh. Get with the joke, man.

So no movie that directly referenced 80s culture or even the fact that it was made during the 1980s was supposed to be shit. They're all painful and dated and utter crap.



This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.