So, with my man J.J. finally committing to directing the next Star Trek, I thought I'd celebrate by dropping a review of his first effort that I wrote at the time:
 |
| art by Brock Rizy |
So
we can all agree that Star Trek was butter (well, not all of us, but
I'll get to that), so I won't waste time trying to convince you to
like it. Instead, I'll try to lend some perspective to the franchise
in light of what we have at this point. Just so we're on the same
page, let's go over what J.J. Abrams did right.
One
of the things that strikes me most now, months later, is how focused
the movie is. It knows what it wants to do and gets right to it.
Kirk's an out of control cowboy, Spock's trying to find himself,
Bones is a spaz (in a good way), and never are we in doubt about
these guys' personalities. The characters are established quickly, as
is the plot. The story is speeding towards it's own resolution almost
from the prologue. I mean, the prologue itself is a complete story:
We establish the villain's goals; the destiny of our star; and the
heroic nature of Starfleet itself. After that the Abrams seems to be
using the ABC method of story telling. Fate seems eminent and,
clocking in at a lean 127 minutes, little time is wasted in
fulfilling it. Kirk's destined to be captain of the Enterprise, Spock
& Kirk are destined to be friends, Sulu's destined to have madd
skillz with a sword: By the time this movie is over, all is as it
should be.
Of
course, the vehicle of all this destiny is the U.S.S. Enterprise.
She's a prime example of what pushes this movie to the next level for
me; perhaps rivaling Star Wars if the merchandise is leveraged right.
I speak, of course, about Stark Trek's mech design. We can start with
the Enterprise herself. Have you seen her? She's built like a
freakin' muscle car! The redesign on the warp engines alone is
revolutionary. The bridge design is pretty much like the classic
bridge, but streamlined so that it still feels futuristic, and
doesn't fall into that future-retro trap. The Narada is a monster of
a ship, which also works, visually, as a mining vessel. Even the
Kelvin with it's single warp engine was pretty cool looking.
Everything down to the phasers and that foldaway sword Sulu had, the
design is brilliant.
Another
positive facet of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is the strong
characterizations. This has been one of Abrams' strengths through his
career. I would suggest this was accomplished as much by casting as
by writing. Zachary Quinto (Heroes, as if you didn't know) was
probably the least controversial casting decision, and I must admit,
he didn't disappoint. Zoe Saldana(Avatar) as Uhura was another easy
one, though she didn't have much to do (then, Uhura's never had much
to do). Karl Urban was the most pleasant casting surprise of the
movie. His Bone's was genius. He took what at first glance might have
been considered an elaborate McCoy impression and brought us a
brilliant, manic doctor; paranoid, but with good reason. Now, Urban's
a guy who's delivered a healthy dose of mediocrity in the past. I can
only attribute this energetic performance to handling by J.J. Abrams.
Of course, the one everyone was worried about was Chris Pine's Kirk.
Would it be an imitation; or a complete departure? In the end, they
exorcised Shatner from the role, while keeping the essence of Kirk
himself; the spirit of adventure, the cowboy recklessness, the
gravitation to responsibility. This role is probably the one aspect
that creates a wormhole from Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek to J.J.
Abrams' Star Trek.
And
so, I say that to say this: The movie's great. But there's more to it
than that. I think Star Trek made a bit of cinema history. It's an
in-continuity reboot of a franchise. How many of those have we had in
the movie industry? Comics has them constantly, to it's detriment,
but this is the first I've heard of a movie franchise rebooting while
retaining it's continuity. I would suggest that this is due to Abrams
having a comic book state of mind. And when I say “Abrams”, I'm
really referring to his entire writing team. They've shown this state
of mind in the past on Alias and Lost (I wouldn't know about
Felicity, maybe someone out there can enlighten me) and I think it
works in their favor.
And
perhaps it's this state of mind that leads to some of the flaws this
film has. Yes, Star Trek had flaws, and they're worth mentioning
because they speak to what the essence of the franchise was and what
it will be going forward. One of the most noticeable aspects of
Abrams' Star Trek is that, as a sci-fi epic, it's more fi than sci.
Now, that can be taken a-lot of ways, so here's what I mean by that.
Star Trek, since it's inception, has been about exploration and
diplomacy in space. J.J. Abrams' Star Trek has neither. No scientific
discovery; no sociological anthropology; no nothin'! Even the bad
guy, while very three-dimensional and who's story was capable of that
social anthropology I mentioned, wasn't really gotten into because,
in the end, Nero and his beef weren't the point. The point was that
Kirk and Spock are great friends and great adventurers. Now, this was
simply Abrams playing to his own strengths: that's what he's supposed
to do, it's quality control. But, having said that, is this what we
can expect from a J.J. Abrams Star Trek? And let's not forget the
Romulan question. Trekkies have been complaining about the
miss-characterization of the Romulans for years now, and while,
granted, Nero isn't the modal Romulus native one would come across in
a Trek story, this representation did nothing to allay such
grumblings. And that's important. 'Cause here's the stakes:
Star
Trek is a decades old, world famous sci-fi franchise; 2nd,
some would say, only to Star Wars. This latest movie has set itself
up not just as a narrative reboot, but a cultural reboot. It is no
longer Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek; it's J.J. Abrams' Star Trek: And
Abrams does, or seeks to do, what Bryan Singer couldn't do with
Superman; make it relevant to today's audience. But now that it's
relevant again, can it rest on just the adventurism and cool
characters? Will the audience require more mature themes in the
future? After all, this film brims with energy, but it's a sophomoric
energy, a trait Star Trek shares with MI:3, lest we forget. Can that
be maintained as a sufficient status-quo through future movies as not
only the cast, but the audience ages?
And
what of television? Is this strictly a movie franchise now, or can we
expect another series. And what would it possibly be about? Certainly
not Kirk and Spock; that's the movie's territory. Perhaps this will
force the producers to give us a perspective that goes beyond a
captain and his crew on a Starfleet vessel. As much as I liked
Abrams' Star Trek, it does leave questions about the franchise's
future. Great things are possible, but it requires someone with fresh
ideas and a commitment to depth as an integral quality of the Star
Trek universe. Can J.J. the take this thing beyond the first film of
a franchise reboot? We shall see.
No comments:
Post a Comment