4 More Months (till Star Trek)

It's January, and if we had our way we would already have watched the new Star Trek film by now; alas, Paramount pushed the film's release from December to May, leaving Trek fans with nothing to do but pore over every screenshot, every frame, and every scrap of news from the studio.

The basic premise of the plot has pretty much been spelled out. A Romulan named Nero travels back in time to the 23rd century, altering the timeline. At this point in time in Star Trek lore, the captain of the USS Enterprise is Christopher Pike, and McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and company are all young Starfleet officers. For whatever reasons Nero tries to destroy Vulcan with some sort of drilling device, and the crew of the Enterprise has to stop this from happening. Also thrown in there somehow is the old Spock (Leonard Nimoy), who travels back in time as well.

As this is a reboot, it's important for a fan like me, even if I don't fall into the hardcore category, to accept this isn't made for pleasing me. It's for attracting new fans to a franchise that has always held a bit of an uncool taint compared to, say, Star Wars. But that doesn't mean I can't gripe about it. So, for fans or people just interested in seeing the movie, I present my view on what looks good (and doesn't) about the upcoming film.

TIME TRAVEL = GOOD

Historically, Star Trek episodes and films that have involved time travel ("The City on the Edge of Forever", The Voyage Home, and First Contact, to name some off the cuff) have been better-than-average or great movies/episodes. Thus, the time travel aspect gives me hope right off the bat; it seems that historically, the writers can pull off a good Trek time travel yarn, so why not this time?

LEONARD NIMOY = ?

I'm hesitant about Nimoy's appearance. It's a bone thrown to us fans, as well as a way to pass the torch from old cast to new, which I respect. But much hinges on whether Old Spock (as he's known on the web to differentiate himself from Zachary Quinto's younger version) actually fufills a necessary role in the plot, or he's shoehorned in. If it feels gimmicky, than it will not satisfy the fans and alienate newcomers. I can go either way on this one.

THE NEW ENTERPRISE = BAD

I understand that you have to modernize the clunky Enterprise of the television show. But they might have gone too far. ScreenRant has an excellent article about the redesign here, back before it was actually unveiled. Compare the two Enterprises seen there to this one. While the nacells and saucer aren't bad, they've essentially shifted the secondary hull forward, giving it not enough prominence in the back and sort of overloading the front. In short: they've made it worse-looking, not updated.

The interior isn't much better, looking for all the world like a Apple Store circa 2010. Once again, you've got to revamp and redesign the old, but throwing out the entire look serves little. I mean, what's the point of making the interior super sleek, and then have the women running around in go-go boots and short skirts? That was a bad element of the 60s you shouldn't have replicated...

OVERALL = WHO KNOWS?

Frankly, all the previews and trailers in the world won't tell you as much as the final project. Considering what a big investment has been sunk into this movie, I will do my part and try and save Star Trek, if not this movie itself. But overall, it's intriguing--I just hope we don't see the go-go boots in the future.