Star Trek (2009)

Star Trek (2009)

Film review by: Witney Seibold

 

            I am not the person to review J.J. Abrams’ new “reboot” of “Star Trek.” The original “Star Trek” television series was a regular staple in my household back in the 1980s, and it was familiar to me before I realized there was much else on television. When “Star Trek: The Next Generation” began airing in 1987, I was there at the beginning. Throughout my adolescence, TNG played a vital role in my social life, and I attended several Trek conventions. My best friend and I would meet every Tuesday to discuss the minutiae of the previous night’s episode. My first girlfriend and I bonded over “Star Trek.” I even have an opinion on the Trekkie vs. Trekker debate.

 

            (Trekkie is for proper fanatics. Trekker is for those nerds in denial, trying to sound cooler.)

 

            So it’ll be impossible for me to review the 2009 “Star Trek” with anything approaching objectivity. I can point out what I observed and how I feel about this new film, but know, dear reader, that this is an opinion from a bona fide Trek nerd.

 

            So, the story of this thing: A wicked Romulan from the future named Nero (Eric Bana) has killed James Kirk’s father, and created an alternate timeline. This creation of alternate timelines is par for the course on “Star Trek,” although it was handled much more creatively in the NextGen episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise.” It also smacks of a cheat, as now Abrams can abandon all canon previously laid down in any of the TV series, and do whatever he likes.

 

            This, of course, makes for much more creative license, and that’s good for Abrams and good for those not familiar with Trek. But it’s important to remember that Trekkies were the ones who pretty much invented the concept of sci-fi canon. It was Trekkies who drew blueprints of the Enterprise, laid out timelines, and were intensely aware of any continuity errors. By the time NextGen was on the air, entire teams of writers and technical advisers were working ‘round the clock to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. By using the “alternate timeline” excuse, one is losing a vitally nerdy part of “Star Trek.”

 

            Anyway, we flash forward to the childhoods of Jim Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) on their respective planets of Earth and Vulcan. Kirk is a hellion who listens to 200-year-old rap songs (“Sabotage” by The Beastie Boys, no lie) and steals 300-year-old cars to go hot-rodding. Spock, being half human (his human mother is played by Winona Ryder), is torn between a coldly logical way of life, and a passionately emotional human one.

 

            Kirk is entreated by Capt. Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to join Starfleet, and direct his energy and intelligence somewhere. At Starfleet academy, where all the women wear miniskirts, just like in the 1960s, he meets Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Dr. Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban, the only actor who seems to channel his acting predecessor from the TV series), and, of course, Spock. He and Spock don’t get along at first.

 

            The new cadets are, inexplicably, recruited for a battle mission when Nero emerges from a longtime obscurity, and blows up Vulcan. Kirk sneaks onto the Enterprise where Spock and Uhura, secret lovers (!), are both serving. Also on board are familiar names like Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and Hikaru Sulu (John Cho from “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle”). Through some complications and battle-related crises, Kirk ends up in command of the Enterprise. Along the way we pick up Montgomery Scott (a very good Simon Pegg) and the elderly Spock (Leonard Nimoy), and the lot of them go into battle against the evil Nero.

 

            As an entertainment, “Star Trek” does not disappoint. The action scenes are exciting, if a little oddly edited, and the action-y thrill of explosions, swordfights, and phaser battles are all in tact. Starships zip about at warp speed firing all manner of space weapons in battle scenes of astonishingly good special effects.

 

            As a design exercise, “Star Trek” is amazing. The ships look like a bright, sanitary version of the dank space ships we’ve had to endure in most space operas ever since, well, “Alien.” We rarely get to slow down to get a good look at the sets, but from what I could tell, they were very well put together.

 

            The storytelling left a bit to be desired. “Star Trek” is infused with that adolescent brand of comic book storytelling, in which the characters clearly state what needs to be done, and then take a long time questing to do it. Once one goal is accomplished, they repeat with the next one. “You must make him display that he is unworthy by getting a rise out of him.” The next few scenes are doing just that. “You need to land on that platform and turn it off.” O.k. Done. This makes for a pleasingly easy-to-follow efficiency to be sure, but leaves off any ambiguity, struggle, or threat of failure. I don’t necessarily want to see them fail from time to time (all the characters are, after all, heroic archetypes), but I need to feel like they might.

 

            The main problem with “Star Trek,” I feel, is that Abrams and crew went out of their way to make the entire ides of “Star Trek” seem young, cool, hip and sexy. The problem with this is that “Trek” has never been young, cool, hip, or sexy. “Star Trek” has always been technically sound, philosophically poignant, dramatically a bit cheesy at times, and focused on the awe and grandeur of the vastness of outer space. One always got the feeling that, despite the farfetched technologies like transporters and faster-than-light travel, the Enterprise could actually exist. A regular watcher could not only regurgitate details of the ship’s operation, but kind of know how to operate it themselves. All of this was abandoned in favor of a new kind of fast-paced, aggressive version of Trek. Like I said, this still makes for a fine entertainment, and it was never outrageous or boring, but… did they have to use “Star Trek” to tell this story? Could they not have started from scratch?

 

            Overall, though, I did not once feel the same kind of rush or pang of familiarity that I got with the old “Star Trek.” The film’s ads brag that “This is not your father’s Star Trek.” No. It’s not. I find is suspect that in all the press materials, people are only ever talking about “rebooting a moribund franchise,” or “keeping the Star Trek name alive.” No one has ever talked about the need to tell new stories, or more deeply explore the characters. No one is talking about the central philosophy of optimism that moved so many Trek viewers. It’s a grand sci-fi action flick to be sure, but, well… just not “Star Trek.”

 

            In nerdspeak: This Trek feels like the old “Star Trak” images and characters pasted onto a sci-fi skeleton of “Star Trek” ripoffs, “Star Wars” wannabes, and a particularly well-written “Star Trek” novel. Yes, I read many “Star Trek” novels.

 

            Luckily, I have all my old videos in perfect working order, and I can revisit them every time I need that nostalgia and intelligence again. For those only superficially familiar with “Star Trek,” by all means, go see it. You’ll appreciate it. In terms of “Star Trek” movies, it’s certainly better than some of others.

 

            Am I splitting hairs? Yes I am; I can’t help it. But don’t let my nerdiness subtract from your enjoyment of the film, no matter where you stand in your familiarity with Trek. See this perfectly decent action film, appreciate its homage to some of pop cultures most familiar people and places. If this leads you to NextGen, then you’ll be lucky to discover the single best television program ever produced in the history of mankind.