UPDATE! Lest it be said that I cannot laugh at myself, check out this Onion review. (FYI: they’re just making up the part about the Klingons. There weren’t any in the film!)
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=videoembed
The advantage of being in a history and philosophy of science program is that you are almost guaranteed to have a bunch of sci-fi loving nerds for friends who will be excited about things like new Star Trek movies.
So the gang and I headed out to the theater today to check it out. Now, I should say upfront that I was never much of a fan of the original series. I was of the TNG generation, but I know Kirk, Spock, Uhura, McCoy, tribbles, etc., and I thought it could be interesting to make a film looking at the original crew’s early days in the academy. Still, I had no expectations of this being a great film, or even a good one. I expected a rather trite action film with some Star Trek fanservice slapped on top of it, and that’s essentially what I got.
That being said, I thought the film was fairly well done for what it was. The plot made absolutely no sense, but the action moved so quickly that you didn’t really have time to stop and think about how nonsensical it was. The effects and visual design of the film were tight and consistent, I didn’t find any moments were I was completely jarred out of the film by blatant visual inconsistencies (like when films run amok with the cgi).
I know this sounds almost like an endorsement, which I’m sure shocks many of you who think my complete and total disdain for many popular movies (Star Wars prequels, LOTR, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2–I’m looking at you!) is somehow unjustified, and you expected me to be unjustifiably critical of this film as well. But I think I’m neither unjustified in hating movies that are blatantly bad movies. Nor would I say I was endorsing the Star Trek film. Rather, what I’m saying is that I can see that it fits in a particular genre of film (action), and for that genre it is well done. But is it a Star Trek movie? Is it a good movie? No. It is clearly neither.
Why isn’t it a Star Trek movie?
Because one of the things at the heart of all the Star Trek series was a willingness to contemplate and engage with difficult ethical dilemmas. Sure, some of those dilemmas were deeper than others. And yes, in a feel-good family friendly series, the solution to those dilemmas was almost always a cop-out in which miraculously all parties could be happily appeased. But that too was part of the mythos of Star Trek, that belief in a future in which sagacity and technology could actually solve problems instead of just create them.
Is there any hint of genuine ethical dilemma, or the slightest hint of philosophical contemplation in this film? Not really. There is the scene when Kirk is being asked to defend his cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test, but both the situation and the characters’ responses to it are pulled almost entirely from Star Trek II. So not only is the one interesting ethical dilemma in the film entirely recycled from films past, but the tension of the moment is instantaneously diffused and forgotten when the entire academy gets called up for an emergency mission to Vulcan. Suddenly, the incommensurable Kirk “I don’t believe in a no win situation”/Spock “you must learn to face fate and face fear” divide becomes nothing more than a cute plot device. Oh no! Kirk is on probation. How is McCoy going to smuggle him on board the Enterprise?
After that moment, it’s all pretty clear cut good guys versus bad guys film. The villain in the film probably has the most nonsensical motive of all movie villains ever, and the fact that his crew just follows him on his planet destroying rampage tests the limits of one’s belief in the absolute loyalty of a crew to their commander. Spoiler explaining why the villain’s motivation makes no sense: Nero, like the rest of his Romulan people, is counting on Spock to save their planet from imminent destruction. Spock fails. Planet is destroyed. Temporal anomaly is created that sucks both Nero and Spock’s ship backward in time. Instead of saying, “hey, now that we’ve gone back in time, we can warn the Romulan people and they can save themselves from destruction,” Nero decides to torture Spock, destroy Vulcan, and destroy the Federation for the destruction of Romulus which never happens. Can we say, wtf?
Another reason why it’s not really a Star Trek film: because Star Trek was about the characters. It took show after show to craft personalities that, love them or hate them, were an important part of why you kept watching every week. This film basically stands on the shoulders of giants and creates silly caricatures of their work. Sure, it’s nice to see an Uhura with a mind of her own, even though that glimmer of personality, intelligence, and strength leads nowhere in the end. Kirk, however, is as bratty and inscrutable as ever (sure, there’s a scene where we’re told he’s a genius, but his actions never betray a motive beyond that of making trouble and purposefully getting under everyone’s skin). McCoy’s crustiness only serves to make him a vehicle for one-liners and comic relief. Scotty, too, is only about the brogue and the comedic quips. The only character who is interestingly developed is Spock, but his development is undermined by the fact that the whole premise of the movie is to get Kirk into the captain’s chair.
This is amazingly unfortunate, given that the movie throws all canon out the window by telling the story in which an alternate timeline becomes reality. This could have been done to some real purpose, to show us a world in which Spock takes command of the Enterprise and Kirk learns to be the first mate. Spoiler: But for some reason, despite the fact that Spock Prime (that is, the Spock from the future who has lived out the Star Trek universe as it has been told in the tv series and movies) knows the timeline of his universe has been catastrophically altered, his only concern is to make sure the Enterprise is manned by the crew we know and love. Yep, even though creating temporal anomalies and traveling back in time is as simple as making a black hole with a little Red Matter (ie, unexplained black hole making goo) and flying into it, no one suggests for one second going back in time to stop the destruction of Vulcan and saving it’s 6 billion some inhabitants from instantaneous death. Nope. All anyone cares about is making Kirk captain of the Enterprise so he can stop the bad guy.
But now I’m starting to digress into the problems with the plot of the movie, which are so extensive they require a separate list to recount. Suffice it to say, that even though Star Trek has often had weakly written episodes and, in its later years became far too reliant on resorting to time travel when they were out of good plot ideas, this movie’s plot puts all others to shame in terms of it’s sheer stupidity and sloppiness. But again, I feel like the filmmakers were counting on the rapid pace and breathtaking visual thrills to distract from the fact that it was utterly void of genuine content. And it does largely work for this reason. You come out of the theater thinking, “wow. What just happened?” And presumably, most theater goers won’t bother to actually try and answer that question. It’s only if you do that you realize what a dissatisfying mess the whole thing really is.
And that’s why I consider it not just a bad Star Trek movie, but a bad movie in general. The movie is essentially a night on the town with a cheap paid escort: you pay your money for 2 hours of eye-candy, but the conversation is vapid and disappointing. Now, some theatergoers, will be perfectly content investing in nothing more than the mile a minute thrill ride of a film. But if you like a little substance to go with your pretty moving pictures, you’re going to have to look elsewhere.
