Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Star Trek JJA
Spoiler Assessment: Past the assertions in the first couple of paragraphs, this first section is pretty much spoiler-free. But in the sections that follow—after the subtitles—spoilers for those who haven’t seen the new movie are frequent.
Seeing the new Star Trek movie confirms that there are now two Star Trek story universes. There is Star Trek GR, the universe created by Gene Roddenberry and his collaborators on the original series and the Next Generation, altered but carried forward under the direction of Rick Berman. There are hundreds of hours of television and feature film stories set in this universe, along with many books and other forms of story.
But Paramount, owner of Star Trek copyrights for movies at least, authorized a new Trek movie universe, represented by one story told over a couple of hours plus, in this new feature film: what I’m calling Star Trek JJA, for the movie’s producer and director, J. J. Abrams.
I have some thoughts about the implications of this below, but first: the movie.
The impression produced by the commercials and previews turned out to be accurate: this is a fast-paced action movie, with (mostly) convincing and even inspiring visuals. The sets, effects and cinematography produce an exciting ride in a credible and exciting Trek context.
In order to give themselves over to this ride, even casual viewers of past Trek need to have confidence in the actors playing these iconic characters. These actors succeed in creating that confidence, with skill, presence and—aided by the scriptwriters—with new colors to the characters as well as selected references to the spirit and sometimes the vocal and visual mannerisms of the actors who created these characters.
This is especially true of the crucial trio: Chris Pine as Kirk, Karl Urban as McCoy, Zachary Quinto as Spock. Urban is almost an idealized DeForrest Kelley—younger and stronger than we ever saw D.K. as McCoy. Pine has the Shatner swagger and smile, but he fits the premise of this movie especially well because he’s the same, only different. He’s Kirk in an alternate timeline.
The wonder is Quinto. It’s not just that he instantly looks like Spock, but that he establishes complete credibility as Spock with so little apparent effort. Playing any Vulcan is difficult, and several actors have visibly labored with their portrayals, not always successfully. But playing the ultimate Vulcan is the ultimate challenge, and Quinto does it with seeming ease. Even when he is behaving in ways unfamiliar from Star Trek GR, he’s believable.
I’d been neutral on whether Quinto would really make a credible Spock (though I was rooting for him as a fellow Pittsburgher), but I had real doubts about Zoe Saldana as Uhura. She doesn’t look or sound like Nichelle Nichols, so it seemed like it could have been a case of indifferent casting: any young black actress is good enough. But Saldana is gorgeous and alluring in her own way, and a fine actor. Her scenes with Quinto were models of restraint, yet full of emotion.
Simon Pegg makes a charming Scotty, and even though John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov didn’t do much for me, one of the virtues of this movie for Star Trek GR fans is how it expands on these characters, giving them real expertise.
They are a young and attractive group as well as a capable one, and together with the look and feel of the film—purchased, it must be said, with a budget that goes higher than any Star Trek GR film had gone before—this movie revitalizes Star Trek for feature films.
Beyond the young crew, Bruce Greenwood was outstanding in the crucial role of Captain Pike, and the other subsidiary characters were fine, although I didn't really believe Ben Cross as Spock’s father, Sarek. Leonard Nimoy was perfect as Spock Prime—which seems redundant, but to me this performance was better than his previous 24th century Spock portrayals in those Next Generation episodes.
There were several references or homages to Trek GR films, both visually (the Enterprise fly-by as in Star Trek: the Motion Picture) and in the dialogue (Spock Prime repeating a famous line from Star Trek: Wrath of Khan and both Spock and Kirk repeating or referencing lines from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.) And that’s not counting the obligatory TOS echoes from Bones and Scotty.
There are as well some directorial references to other space opera movies, especially Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some of the Star Wars stuff was questionable: Scotty’s little Ewok-like alien buddy was cute I guess, but the animated monster chasing Kirk on the ice planet was an embarrassing drag.
As they enabled J.J. Abrams fluid direction, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman noted one basic structural element of Trek GR movies: they properly begin with the Enterprise getting underway on this adventure, and they properly end with the Enterprise warping off to its next adventure.
Warp, by the way, is handled more realistically (that is, according to theory) than in other portrayals: the ships simply disappear, though with a satisfyingly loud pop.
I’ll leave it to others to parse the look of this Enterprise, but it looked pretty good to me, and though it wasn’t quite the “character” GR said it should be in a Trek story, it was an exciting vehicle.
As a movie script, I thought this one was fluid and skillful, especially given all that it had to accomplish. Part of its accomplishment was obviously knowing Trek—playing with what it wanted to keep, and knowing what it was departing from. I also really liked the music, especially in certain scenes, and appreciated the quotes from past Trek movie scores—although I noted that the signature four note theme beginning didn’t emerge until the end credits. You know, your father’s Star Trek.
[continued]
Spoiler Assessment: Past the assertions in the first couple of paragraphs, this first section is pretty much spoiler-free. But in the sections that follow—after the subtitles—spoilers for those who haven’t seen the new movie are frequent.
Seeing the new Star Trek movie confirms that there are now two Star Trek story universes. There is Star Trek GR, the universe created by Gene Roddenberry and his collaborators on the original series and the Next Generation, altered but carried forward under the direction of Rick Berman. There are hundreds of hours of television and feature film stories set in this universe, along with many books and other forms of story.
But Paramount, owner of Star Trek copyrights for movies at least, authorized a new Trek movie universe, represented by one story told over a couple of hours plus, in this new feature film: what I’m calling Star Trek JJA, for the movie’s producer and director, J. J. Abrams.
I have some thoughts about the implications of this below, but first: the movie.
The impression produced by the commercials and previews turned out to be accurate: this is a fast-paced action movie, with (mostly) convincing and even inspiring visuals. The sets, effects and cinematography produce an exciting ride in a credible and exciting Trek context.
In order to give themselves over to this ride, even casual viewers of past Trek need to have confidence in the actors playing these iconic characters. These actors succeed in creating that confidence, with skill, presence and—aided by the scriptwriters—with new colors to the characters as well as selected references to the spirit and sometimes the vocal and visual mannerisms of the actors who created these characters.
This is especially true of the crucial trio: Chris Pine as Kirk, Karl Urban as McCoy, Zachary Quinto as Spock. Urban is almost an idealized DeForrest Kelley—younger and stronger than we ever saw D.K. as McCoy. Pine has the Shatner swagger and smile, but he fits the premise of this movie especially well because he’s the same, only different. He’s Kirk in an alternate timeline.
The wonder is Quinto. It’s not just that he instantly looks like Spock, but that he establishes complete credibility as Spock with so little apparent effort. Playing any Vulcan is difficult, and several actors have visibly labored with their portrayals, not always successfully. But playing the ultimate Vulcan is the ultimate challenge, and Quinto does it with seeming ease. Even when he is behaving in ways unfamiliar from Star Trek GR, he’s believable.
I’d been neutral on whether Quinto would really make a credible Spock (though I was rooting for him as a fellow Pittsburgher), but I had real doubts about Zoe Saldana as Uhura. She doesn’t look or sound like Nichelle Nichols, so it seemed like it could have been a case of indifferent casting: any young black actress is good enough. But Saldana is gorgeous and alluring in her own way, and a fine actor. Her scenes with Quinto were models of restraint, yet full of emotion.
Simon Pegg makes a charming Scotty, and even though John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov didn’t do much for me, one of the virtues of this movie for Star Trek GR fans is how it expands on these characters, giving them real expertise.
They are a young and attractive group as well as a capable one, and together with the look and feel of the film—purchased, it must be said, with a budget that goes higher than any Star Trek GR film had gone before—this movie revitalizes Star Trek for feature films.
Beyond the young crew, Bruce Greenwood was outstanding in the crucial role of Captain Pike, and the other subsidiary characters were fine, although I didn't really believe Ben Cross as Spock’s father, Sarek. Leonard Nimoy was perfect as Spock Prime—which seems redundant, but to me this performance was better than his previous 24th century Spock portrayals in those Next Generation episodes.
There were several references or homages to Trek GR films, both visually (the Enterprise fly-by as in Star Trek: the Motion Picture) and in the dialogue (Spock Prime repeating a famous line from Star Trek: Wrath of Khan and both Spock and Kirk repeating or referencing lines from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.) And that’s not counting the obligatory TOS echoes from Bones and Scotty.
There are as well some directorial references to other space opera movies, especially Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some of the Star Wars stuff was questionable: Scotty’s little Ewok-like alien buddy was cute I guess, but the animated monster chasing Kirk on the ice planet was an embarrassing drag.
As they enabled J.J. Abrams fluid direction, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman noted one basic structural element of Trek GR movies: they properly begin with the Enterprise getting underway on this adventure, and they properly end with the Enterprise warping off to its next adventure.
Warp, by the way, is handled more realistically (that is, according to theory) than in other portrayals: the ships simply disappear, though with a satisfyingly loud pop.
I’ll leave it to others to parse the look of this Enterprise, but it looked pretty good to me, and though it wasn’t quite the “character” GR said it should be in a Trek story, it was an exciting vehicle.
As a movie script, I thought this one was fluid and skillful, especially given all that it had to accomplish. Part of its accomplishment was obviously knowing Trek—playing with what it wanted to keep, and knowing what it was departing from. I also really liked the music, especially in certain scenes, and appreciated the quotes from past Trek movie scores—although I noted that the signature four note theme beginning didn’t emerge until the end credits. You know, your father’s Star Trek.
[continued]
Time Travel and Its Implications
Any story that depends on time travel has some built- in wonder, lots of wonderful opportunities, and a lot of pitfalls and potential headaches. But this time there’s also an important outcome outside the story itself.
Villains who travel back through time to alter the past and hence the future, present a number of problems, especially when they fail. The Borg in First Contact failed, for example, but it’s not clear what prevented them from trying it again—and again and again. This problem is solved in this movie because it’s a single ship and a single villain, and neither survives. (Spock’s advanced 24th century ship doesn’t survive, either—but Spock Prime does. With his knowledge, the Federation could be centuries ahead of their competitors.)
Plus the effects of time travel can be complicated and hard to keep straight. It may take repeat viewings to sort out just what legitimately could have been changed in the Star Trek GR universe by the incursions from the future that wound up establishing Star Trek JJA.
But that was the outcome: the end of Star Trek GR and the beginning of Star Trek JJA.
For those who saw the movie but were confused about this, here’s how I understand it: a 24th century Romulan mining ship comes back in time to the 23rd century in search of Spock, but they come not to praise him, but to bury him. Or at least to force him to witness the destruction of his home planet of Vulcan, as revenge for his inability to stop the destruction of Romulus and the villain’s family.
24th century Spock is also pulled into the past, where the Romulans have already altered history by killing Kirk’s father. The destruction of Vulcan, the death of Spock’s mother, and other events further diverge from the conditions that must exist for the Star Trek stories we know to take place.
Even when the villain is defeated, this alternate timeline remains—apparently shocking some moviegoers who expected a characteristic reset button return to “normal.” But Spock Prime states it clearly: things will not be what they once were going to be.
There’s a certain elegance in beginning the Abrams era with an alternate timeline. There’s the built-in advantage of globally known iconic characters, revisited, revived and revised. But now their future is unknown, their adventures new. The constraints of a story universe filled with people, places, events and previous stories are avoided.
But Star Trek GR is honored in the sense that it isn’t just ignored. A connection is made—personified by Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime—that acknowledges Star Trek GR, even making it integral to the plot. It also doesn’t completely negate the timeline of Star Trek GR. But this is a new timeline: Star Trek JJA, and this is where the action is going to be.
If Star Trek JJA doesn’t go all the Oedipal way by actually killing the father, it does make the death of the father definite. The dedication of the movie—coming at the end of the long end-credit sequence, instead of at the beginning—to Gene and Majel Roddenberry, was more like a tombstone: he’s dead, Jim.
Was this the only way to make new Star Trek stories? No--there's the 25th century still open, for example, as well as the post-Nemesis 24th. Was this the only way to revisit the 23rd century--did they have to destroy Vulcan, etc.? No, not really. What they should have done will doubtless be debated for awhile. But what they have done has consequences.
Clearly there are now events that happened in original series television episodes and the movies—beginning with the very first pilot episode, and including the Spock trilogy that began with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan—that cannot happen in the Star Trek JJA timeline. Spock’s mother cannot beg him to save his father’s life, because she was killed, etc. All of this also calls into question the characters and events of Star Trek GR’s 24th century.
Let’s admit that there are inconsistencies in Star Trek GR, even within the original series, but certainly in the Berman era. An earlier time travel movie, Star Trek: First Contact, altered or at least stretched “facts” about Zephran Cochrane and other aspects of the GR universe past, as well as arguably altering the time line itself. Then there are elements of the prequel series Enterprise that trouble some, and let’s face it, there are 24th century stories that some wouldn’t mind erasing.
Ultimately what we’ve got are stories. They may now occur in two separate Star Trek story universes, but they rise or fall on what they are as stories.
New feature films will be in the Star Trek JJA universe. But the Star Trek GR universe still exists, in all those hours and pages. Star Trek GR can still generate new stories, though chances are they will be limited to novels, independent films and fan fictions. The canon of Star Trek GR ends with “Nemesis.” What happens next in that story universe is up to other imaginations, and those stories are all equal: they rise or fall on their own merits.
Any story that depends on time travel has some built- in wonder, lots of wonderful opportunities, and a lot of pitfalls and potential headaches. But this time there’s also an important outcome outside the story itself.
Villains who travel back through time to alter the past and hence the future, present a number of problems, especially when they fail. The Borg in First Contact failed, for example, but it’s not clear what prevented them from trying it again—and again and again. This problem is solved in this movie because it’s a single ship and a single villain, and neither survives. (Spock’s advanced 24th century ship doesn’t survive, either—but Spock Prime does. With his knowledge, the Federation could be centuries ahead of their competitors.)
Plus the effects of time travel can be complicated and hard to keep straight. It may take repeat viewings to sort out just what legitimately could have been changed in the Star Trek GR universe by the incursions from the future that wound up establishing Star Trek JJA.
But that was the outcome: the end of Star Trek GR and the beginning of Star Trek JJA.
For those who saw the movie but were confused about this, here’s how I understand it: a 24th century Romulan mining ship comes back in time to the 23rd century in search of Spock, but they come not to praise him, but to bury him. Or at least to force him to witness the destruction of his home planet of Vulcan, as revenge for his inability to stop the destruction of Romulus and the villain’s family.
24th century Spock is also pulled into the past, where the Romulans have already altered history by killing Kirk’s father. The destruction of Vulcan, the death of Spock’s mother, and other events further diverge from the conditions that must exist for the Star Trek stories we know to take place.
Even when the villain is defeated, this alternate timeline remains—apparently shocking some moviegoers who expected a characteristic reset button return to “normal.” But Spock Prime states it clearly: things will not be what they once were going to be.
There’s a certain elegance in beginning the Abrams era with an alternate timeline. There’s the built-in advantage of globally known iconic characters, revisited, revived and revised. But now their future is unknown, their adventures new. The constraints of a story universe filled with people, places, events and previous stories are avoided.
But Star Trek GR is honored in the sense that it isn’t just ignored. A connection is made—personified by Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime—that acknowledges Star Trek GR, even making it integral to the plot. It also doesn’t completely negate the timeline of Star Trek GR. But this is a new timeline: Star Trek JJA, and this is where the action is going to be.
If Star Trek JJA doesn’t go all the Oedipal way by actually killing the father, it does make the death of the father definite. The dedication of the movie—coming at the end of the long end-credit sequence, instead of at the beginning—to Gene and Majel Roddenberry, was more like a tombstone: he’s dead, Jim.
Was this the only way to make new Star Trek stories? No--there's the 25th century still open, for example, as well as the post-Nemesis 24th. Was this the only way to revisit the 23rd century--did they have to destroy Vulcan, etc.? No, not really. What they should have done will doubtless be debated for awhile. But what they have done has consequences.
Clearly there are now events that happened in original series television episodes and the movies—beginning with the very first pilot episode, and including the Spock trilogy that began with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan—that cannot happen in the Star Trek JJA timeline. Spock’s mother cannot beg him to save his father’s life, because she was killed, etc. All of this also calls into question the characters and events of Star Trek GR’s 24th century.
Let’s admit that there are inconsistencies in Star Trek GR, even within the original series, but certainly in the Berman era. An earlier time travel movie, Star Trek: First Contact, altered or at least stretched “facts” about Zephran Cochrane and other aspects of the GR universe past, as well as arguably altering the time line itself. Then there are elements of the prequel series Enterprise that trouble some, and let’s face it, there are 24th century stories that some wouldn’t mind erasing.
Ultimately what we’ve got are stories. They may now occur in two separate Star Trek story universes, but they rise or fall on what they are as stories.
New feature films will be in the Star Trek JJA universe. But the Star Trek GR universe still exists, in all those hours and pages. Star Trek GR can still generate new stories, though chances are they will be limited to novels, independent films and fan fictions. The canon of Star Trek GR ends with “Nemesis.” What happens next in that story universe is up to other imaginations, and those stories are all equal: they rise or fall on their own merits.
What is the Human Adventure?
Some observers are finding credibility gaps in this film, as in the villain’s ship, etc. but that happens in every movie, especially science fiction. Some have noted the villain’s clichéd motive, and though I agree that avenging your wife’s death has become so frequent and reflexive a motive as to be deadened, there’s also the cliché of an evil crew following the obsessions of the pirate captain. Some fundamentalist religious motive might have been more topical, but that would have brought out the protesters, so I assume Paramount wouldn’t go for that.
Still, the movie wisely didn’t spend a lot of time on the villain. (Khan’s generous screen time worked because his flamboyance nicely matched Shatner’s, but the villain-hero balance didn’t work in Nemesis on a visceral enough level.) Eric Bana is credibly creepy as Nero, although I can’t believe they used such a cheesy name—the most villainous Roman emperor as the Romulan working class villain? I don’t get it.
Keeping the fast forward momentum and the adrenalin attention of this film also has its costs. Action and dramatic scenes are pushed to the edge—in fact, Kirk is literally hanging off some kind of a cliff at least three times. (The Iowa Indiana Jones?) But there are only so many solutions to extreme jeopardy, and fortunate coincidence is one this movie uses more than once, when somebody (usually a bad guy) is distracted by something more important or pressing.
It’s all fun while it’s happening (which of course is the point) but perhaps as a result of maintaining that adrenalin attention along with all the other stuff the movie needed to do, there isn’t a lot of the kind of talk we got used to in Star Trek GR.
In this film, the talking moments are all taken up by character, plot and necessary exposition (as when Spock Prime explains the backstory.) There is some fine dialogue in this movie, and some memorable turns of phrase. (Pike suggesting that young Kirk was headed towards a future of being a “genius-level repeat offender” is my first favorite.) But the kind of talk—of debate over means and ends, over meaning and ethical responsibilities—that characterized Star Trek GR was largely absent.
But it wasn’t just talk about ethics that was absent. Leonard Nimoy was right in saying that this film portrayed a group of people getting together to solve problems—there was certainly that kind of talk on the Enterprise bridge. But personally I didn’t see much to support his assertion that this movie portrays the futility of seeking revenge, or at least that Kirk and Spock see it that way. I heard only a quick exchange on the subject between Kirk and Spock, with Spock seeming to speak in favor of vengeance, and once Nero expressed his preference for dying, Kirk quickly and happily assented, and destroyed an apparently helpless ship.
Otherwise, the new 23rd century of Star Trek JJA has some problems: Captain Pike thought Starfleet was getting stultified, and the Enterprise security officers—if that’s who there were—turn out to be bullies and thugs, who kept beating on the civilian Kirk when he was helpless. The one opportunity of going back in Trek history that’s appealed to me is to begin filling in a little more of how we got “from here to there,” to reference that awful song that introduced Enterprise: how Earth overcame its still-current quick march to self-destruction, and how Starfleet became what it is. It’s never really happened, and I don’t expect it to anymore. But I wonder if the 23rd century can be as much like the 21st as it seems to be in this movie—complete with Budwiser product placement—and we still survive, and form something like Starfleet and its Prime Directive.
It’s pretty clear already that this movie has resurrected Star Trek from the dead once more, at least in terms of commercial viability. Star Trek JJA has a credible young crew adding new dimensions and possibilities to familiar characters. The scriptwriting skills and the moviemaking skills are there, and there’s little doubt now that the money will be there, for another adventure and probably more. But just showing that humanity survives, still asserting some idealism, was a necessary but not sufficient for the Star Trek GR vision. What is the human adventure that continues?
Some observers are finding credibility gaps in this film, as in the villain’s ship, etc. but that happens in every movie, especially science fiction. Some have noted the villain’s clichéd motive, and though I agree that avenging your wife’s death has become so frequent and reflexive a motive as to be deadened, there’s also the cliché of an evil crew following the obsessions of the pirate captain. Some fundamentalist religious motive might have been more topical, but that would have brought out the protesters, so I assume Paramount wouldn’t go for that.
Still, the movie wisely didn’t spend a lot of time on the villain. (Khan’s generous screen time worked because his flamboyance nicely matched Shatner’s, but the villain-hero balance didn’t work in Nemesis on a visceral enough level.) Eric Bana is credibly creepy as Nero, although I can’t believe they used such a cheesy name—the most villainous Roman emperor as the Romulan working class villain? I don’t get it.
Keeping the fast forward momentum and the adrenalin attention of this film also has its costs. Action and dramatic scenes are pushed to the edge—in fact, Kirk is literally hanging off some kind of a cliff at least three times. (The Iowa Indiana Jones?) But there are only so many solutions to extreme jeopardy, and fortunate coincidence is one this movie uses more than once, when somebody (usually a bad guy) is distracted by something more important or pressing.
It’s all fun while it’s happening (which of course is the point) but perhaps as a result of maintaining that adrenalin attention along with all the other stuff the movie needed to do, there isn’t a lot of the kind of talk we got used to in Star Trek GR.
In this film, the talking moments are all taken up by character, plot and necessary exposition (as when Spock Prime explains the backstory.) There is some fine dialogue in this movie, and some memorable turns of phrase. (Pike suggesting that young Kirk was headed towards a future of being a “genius-level repeat offender” is my first favorite.) But the kind of talk—of debate over means and ends, over meaning and ethical responsibilities—that characterized Star Trek GR was largely absent.
But it wasn’t just talk about ethics that was absent. Leonard Nimoy was right in saying that this film portrayed a group of people getting together to solve problems—there was certainly that kind of talk on the Enterprise bridge. But personally I didn’t see much to support his assertion that this movie portrays the futility of seeking revenge, or at least that Kirk and Spock see it that way. I heard only a quick exchange on the subject between Kirk and Spock, with Spock seeming to speak in favor of vengeance, and once Nero expressed his preference for dying, Kirk quickly and happily assented, and destroyed an apparently helpless ship.
Otherwise, the new 23rd century of Star Trek JJA has some problems: Captain Pike thought Starfleet was getting stultified, and the Enterprise security officers—if that’s who there were—turn out to be bullies and thugs, who kept beating on the civilian Kirk when he was helpless. The one opportunity of going back in Trek history that’s appealed to me is to begin filling in a little more of how we got “from here to there,” to reference that awful song that introduced Enterprise: how Earth overcame its still-current quick march to self-destruction, and how Starfleet became what it is. It’s never really happened, and I don’t expect it to anymore. But I wonder if the 23rd century can be as much like the 21st as it seems to be in this movie—complete with Budwiser product placement—and we still survive, and form something like Starfleet and its Prime Directive.
It’s pretty clear already that this movie has resurrected Star Trek from the dead once more, at least in terms of commercial viability. Star Trek JJA has a credible young crew adding new dimensions and possibilities to familiar characters. The scriptwriting skills and the moviemaking skills are there, and there’s little doubt now that the money will be there, for another adventure and probably more. But just showing that humanity survives, still asserting some idealism, was a necessary but not sufficient for the Star Trek GR vision. What is the human adventure that continues?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)