Trekking With Tim, Day Eleven: Star Trek
Editor Tim Ryan offers his final thoughts on a franchise he's grown to appreciate.
Day Eleven: Star Trek
We've reached the end of the known Star Trek universe, and I have to say it's been a memorable ride. Now, we arrive at the film that spurred this whole project in the first place: JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot. First, I must offer a few words of dissention from my esteemed colleagues, who have powered the movie to a startling 93 percent on the Tomatometer. Star Trek is a good film, but it falls short of greatness for several reasons. Far be it from me to become the arbiter of all things Trek, but this new movie is a wham-bam spectacle short on the cerebral probing of the earlier movies. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; I love a good explosion as much as the next guy. However, in too many scenes, the editing is so kinetic that it's nearly impossible to tell what's going on. And though I don't require heavy-handed moralizing, this outing feels conspicuously absent of any larger socio-political context, which has long been a hallmark of the series.
That being said, I think Star Trek is ultimately a worthy film. For starters, the new cast does an excellent job in reinterpreting these iconic characters in a way that never comes across as mimicry (especially strong are Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty). In addition, it's great to see a Trek that far outpaces available technology; beyond warp drive and teleportation (two big caveats, I know), the Enterprise's computers have always seemed endearingly lo-fi. Not this time. Finally, Star Trek is admittedly awesome in its visuals and set design; its future-retro look is almost always sleek and occasionally quite remarkable.
But is it Trek? Perhaps not, in a strict sense; in many ways, the movie owes more to the origin stories of recent comic book adaptations than to the franchise's roots. However, we're so far removed from the context of the original series that a different direction is undoubtedly justified, and on that front, this new incarnation of Trek appears to be on solid ground.
When I began this project, I went into it with an open mind, but I still harbored a sneaking suspicion that Trekkies' devotion wasn't wholly warranted. Decades of parodies and potshots directed at Klingon-speaking, hopelessly nerdy conventioneers can do that to you. As I watched these films, what I discovered was a worldview (or, in this case, a universe-view) that was admirably positive and enlightening. So many sci-fi films present a dystopian perspective on the future that it's comforting to see a vision of racial harmony, of fundamentally sound scientific advancement, of morality and camaraderie. Though the mythology of Trek at first seemed impenetrable, I found many of these films accessible on their own terms; if a greater understanding of Gene Roddenberry's creation deepens the viewing experience, it's by no means essential. Even the occasionally outmoded and cheesy aspects of the movies become strangely charming if you view them within the larger scope of the series. I began this undertaking as an agnostic. At this point, I'm certainly no evangelical, but I'm definitely a believer.
Of course none of Trek's liberal humanist outlook would have endured if the franchise didn't provide some good times. I'll fondly remember plenty from these films: the menacing Khan and his minions on the hostile desert planet of Ceti Alpha V; the Enterprise crew adrift in modern-day San Francisco; the frigid, foreboding climes of Rura Penthe; the invasive machinery of the Borg. In addition, I've enjoyed making the acquaintance of some memorable characters; I'll miss the irascible Bones, the basso profundo of Sulu, and, of course, the constant probing of Spock, whose conflicted nature remains the ultimate key to the series. I don't know if I'll end up running through every episode of, say, Deep Space Nine, but it's not out of the question; at very least, I'll be far less inclined to click past any Trek show I find while channel-surfing.
Thus, with my mission complete, I shall now rank all the Trek movies:
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
5. Star Trek
7. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
8. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
10. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Finally, I'd like to say thanks to all the folks who took the time to comment on my articles. Your words were encouraging, edifying, and passionate, and I hope you had as much fun following me on this journey as I did absorbing the Trek universe. May you all live long and prosper.
Stardates:
- Day One: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
- Day Two: Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
- Day Three: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
- Day Four: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
- Day Five: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
- Day Six: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
- Day Seven: Star Trek: Generations (1994)
- Day Eight: Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
- Day Nine: Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
- Day Ten: Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
- Day Eleven: Star Trek (2009)
jokerboy1991 on 05-7-2009 04:39 PM
Ryan, what did you think of Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto? I liked them both a lot, Pine was pretty awesome as Kirk. I thought the script was pretty weak, too many coincidences and illogicalness (what did Nero do for all those years?!?). I also though Eric Bana was really good but really under written and was made into a generic villain.
Tim Ryan on 05-7-2009 04:45 PM
I find little to dispute there. It was nice to see Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto not resorting to Nimoy or Shatner-isms, but carving out their own takes on the characters. Nicely done.
niall1 on 05-7-2009 07:31 PM
generic is right
and YEAH I THOUGHT THAT TOO..what the hell did they do for all those years..
also, this wasn't trek..like if you removed the characters names and the title, it would just be a sci-fi action film..it wasn't terrible, abrams knows how to make stuff blow up real good, but still it wasn't trek..
AND K BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE MOVIE WAS KARL URBAN..he embodied deforest kelly i thought..
marvel-fan on 05-9-2009 06:20 PM
jokerboy1991, nero went into a blackhole and it sent him years into the future. he didnt just wait years until he decided to take action. i disagree with you on the script. the writing and story were gold, but i agree with you on pine. i find him easier to watch then shatner, pine brings humor and familuarity which helps with a film so futuristic.
jokerboy1991 on 05-9-2009 11:54 PM
Wait what? Spock even said that what took seconds for him took 28 years of waiting for Nero. Also I'm not going to excuse those coincidences because of the idea of destiny/fate, it was sloppy writing. I just thought Nero was so under developed and just a run of the mil bad guy despite Bana being pretty good. I thought Scotty, Sulu, and Uhura were pretty under written. I thought that the romance between Spock and her was really shoe-horned in and felt really unnecessary. I still think they should have had Spock fight at the end, he fought so much during the movie that it would have made sense, also since Nero is trying to kill him but they decided to go for the cliche ending with Kirk facing off with Nero. I still think it's a really solid movie, I've seen it twice, but the script held it back from being great for me. Even a scene like Scotty being in that water thing was unnecessary, maybe thats just me, but I sat there just thing why is this scene needed?
Also how did Nero know he killed Kirk's dad? Remember he said that to him while they were fighting. I did love that line though "James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life!"
Super fun movie, but I thought the script was meh.