I really do have to wonder just why nobody at Paramount are capable of realising that all they need for a good Star Trek story is a basic but solid plot in which our characters have a problem to solve and our main hero has a decision to make. Compared to the bullshit that the Franchise has been these past ten or so years, any reboot of Star Trek could have been accomplished simply by going right back to that basic formula for storytelling.Natorgator wrote:If you loathe time travel, you're gonna hate it. WARNING, this contains spoilers. From Wired:
LOS ANGELES, California -- Director J.J. Abrams continued the worldwide roll-out of his new Star Trek prequel Wednesday, showing four extended preview clips to a capacity crowd of stars, executives, press, crew, studio employees and their various entourages at the Paramount Pictures studio theater.
After showing the same clips to similar gatherings in Europe and New York, Abrams faced a mixed reaction from the media and those Trekkers lucky enough to crash the viewing parties. But Wednesday's presentation attracted a friendlier group, as Trek was returning to its home dry dock for an event that had the back lot buzzing.
Beyond the congratulatory handshakes, hugs and air kisses thrown Abrams' way, the real focus of attention was the footage immaculately projected in unforgiving digital clarity for curious eyes to behold. Paramount is staking its oldest and most successful TV and movie franchise on Abrams' film, and it's not too big a reach to suggest that Star Trek is dead as a major pop-culture player if this flick tanks when it premieres in May 2009.
The verdict? While four five-minute clips do not a movie make, it's safe to say that Abrams' Trek will be younger, brighter, busier and more frenetically paced than any previous incarnation. The performances are edgier and louder, but not better. The effects are spectacular and executed on a scale never attempted by any Trek film. And, while connected to Gene Roddenberry's creation, this film is deliberately and unquestionably built in its own universe -- constructing its story on the idea that the original Star Trek time line has been destroyed and must be reconstructed as closely as possible.
(Spoiler alert: Plot information follows.)
What can be safely presumed after watching the preview footage? Romulan villain Nero (played by Eric Bana) has deliberately changed the past -- perhaps in an effort to purge history of that bane of all nasty aliens, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine). As a result, Kirk grows up without a dad and develops into a first-class space goof. Still, he finds his way to Starfleet Academy on the encouragement of the fatherly Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood).
Kirk remains a stellar idiot, despite obvious aptitude, and runs afoul of Spock (Zachary Quinto) and everybody else except Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), who sneaks Kirk aboard the Enterprise on its maiden voyage.
If Nero is to be stopped and the Federation, the Planet Vulcan and Kirk's future are to be saved, the Romulans must be foiled and Kirk must find a way to get his butt into the center seat of the Enterprise's frozen-yogurt-shop-style bridge. Fortunately, the older, wiser Spock Classic (Leonard Nimoy) is on hand to aid Kirk and to act as our ambassador to the new time line -- as though telling us to relax and accept that change is inevitable.
As for the look of the new set design, the Enterprise exterior is close enough to the original. But the interior seems overpopulated, disorganized and hyperkinetic. The engineering department looks like the guts of a World War II battleship after being colorized by Ikea. The bridge looks like an old Mac iBook, spreading that milky white "Barbie's Malibu Dreamhouse" feel everywhere. We'll have to see if anyone explains how the altered time line led Starfleet's military designers to look to 21st-century West Hollywood boutiques for their interior decor concepts.
In the end, is it Star Trek?
That depends on how you answer one question: Was Star Trek entertaining because of the exploits and interactions of characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and company, or did you enjoy those characters because of the veteran actors playing them?
If it's the latter, Abrams' kids can't pull off that sort of effortless chemistry and gravitas. They're too busy running around and yelling. If it's the former, Kirk is still a man of action, Spock is still brilliant and McCoy and Scotty are still effective comic relief.
Abrams' vision is as much Star Trek as your eye will let it be.
Star Trek is set for release May 8, 2009.
Time travel has indeed become shopworn in part because the cliche is the villain trying to undo history to destroy the Federation, Kirk, Picard, Spot or whoever. But there was at least one way a time travel story could have worked by putting a twist in the plot: suppose Nero, our nominal villain, actually succeeded in his aim. He undid the founding of the Federation. The world became completely different because there was no more Federation to interfere with Romulus. Only the world he returned to was a hell of a lot worse as the result: no Federation means somehow, someway, the Romulans were extinguished. Now he has to try to reverse that change and bring back the Federation so that the Romulans will exist again —only he's running into opposition from Kirk and co. who figure that Nero is attempting to undo their world, which is quite a bit crappier than the one in which the Federation existed but which is all they know and Nero has to try to convince them that he's trying to restore something better than what they've got now.
