Saw the new "Star Trek" movie at the super secret World Premiere a few weeks back in Austin, Texas. Wrote an opinion for it immediately afterward for IMDb, but somehow my opinion never got published.
I will say that I am one of few dissenters on the crazy "this is the best Trek ever" bandwagon. That distinction belongs to "Wrath of Khan", for reasons that are myriad and don't really belong here. The new film is good, not great, but does accomplish a major task, which is to make the franchise fresh for new audiences.
Remember that Roddenberry's "Trek" was all about ideas: can mankind reach an enlightened state of existence, and tackle the universe's great mysteries (read: social allegory of the time) with intelligence and wisdom, instead of might and fight? For the most part, "Trek" has managed to embody more of the former, while giving us enough space battles and arch-nemesis' to keep the sci-fi action fans happy.
How does Abrams new movie marry these basic tenets of "Star Trek"? It doesn't, opting for lightning-fast-action right out of the gate, and not stopping for a second to ponder anything of depth for its running time. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - what it gives us a pretty cool sci-fi action movie, just not a true "Trek" movie.
Abrams may or may not have been the man to ultimately give this series new relevance. Only time (and sequels) will tell. Let's look at his casting choices, and how they fare. Pine as Kirk is passable - he neither defames the legacy nor elevates it. Much more interesting is Quinto as Spock. The script plays up Spock's inner battle between logic and emotion, and Quinto finds the right tone for this re-imaging (it doesn't hurt that the REAL Spock, Leonard Nimoy, shows up for inspiration. How the filmmakers manage that trick may upset your Trek sensibilities, depending, really, on how well you like the movie). Saldana's Uhura is soulful and intriguing, and Urban has got the right idea as Bones (but tell me you don't think of Hugh Jackman every time you see him). Let's hope we see more of him in the sequels. Sulu and Checkov, just like in the TV show, get little screen time or depth, and Pegg is funny as Scotty, but you're always aware that its Pegg, and not the character, making you laugh.
But finally, regardless of what you think of the casting choices, or the playing loose with the Trek universe rules, or the little things that don't seem quite right, the move suffers because of its lack of a strong villain - Bana's miffed Romulan is a snooze. Given hardly any screen time or back story, he's simply there to create a reason for the movie to be, instead of emerging seamless from the world of Trek itself.
And that may be what makes or breaks this for you. Sure, it's pretty rousing entertainment, but it's really not Roddenberry's universe anymore. And as such, things can come and go as they please to fit the needs of Abrams' vision. Whether or not it's a vision that can stand the test of time, like, oh, say "Star Trek", is a future-tense discussion.
I will say that I am one of few dissenters on the crazy "this is the best Trek ever" bandwagon. That distinction belongs to "Wrath of Khan", for reasons that are myriad and don't really belong here. The new film is good, not great, but does accomplish a major task, which is to make the franchise fresh for new audiences.
Remember that Roddenberry's "Trek" was all about ideas: can mankind reach an enlightened state of existence, and tackle the universe's great mysteries (read: social allegory of the time) with intelligence and wisdom, instead of might and fight? For the most part, "Trek" has managed to embody more of the former, while giving us enough space battles and arch-nemesis' to keep the sci-fi action fans happy.
How does Abrams new movie marry these basic tenets of "Star Trek"? It doesn't, opting for lightning-fast-action right out of the gate, and not stopping for a second to ponder anything of depth for its running time. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - what it gives us a pretty cool sci-fi action movie, just not a true "Trek" movie.
Abrams may or may not have been the man to ultimately give this series new relevance. Only time (and sequels) will tell. Let's look at his casting choices, and how they fare. Pine as Kirk is passable - he neither defames the legacy nor elevates it. Much more interesting is Quinto as Spock. The script plays up Spock's inner battle between logic and emotion, and Quinto finds the right tone for this re-imaging (it doesn't hurt that the REAL Spock, Leonard Nimoy, shows up for inspiration. How the filmmakers manage that trick may upset your Trek sensibilities, depending, really, on how well you like the movie). Saldana's Uhura is soulful and intriguing, and Urban has got the right idea as Bones (but tell me you don't think of Hugh Jackman every time you see him). Let's hope we see more of him in the sequels. Sulu and Checkov, just like in the TV show, get little screen time or depth, and Pegg is funny as Scotty, but you're always aware that its Pegg, and not the character, making you laugh.
But finally, regardless of what you think of the casting choices, or the playing loose with the Trek universe rules, or the little things that don't seem quite right, the move suffers because of its lack of a strong villain - Bana's miffed Romulan is a snooze. Given hardly any screen time or back story, he's simply there to create a reason for the movie to be, instead of emerging seamless from the world of Trek itself.
And that may be what makes or breaks this for you. Sure, it's pretty rousing entertainment, but it's really not Roddenberry's universe anymore. And as such, things can come and go as they please to fit the needs of Abrams' vision. Whether or not it's a vision that can stand the test of time, like, oh, say "Star Trek", is a future-tense discussion.