Overhyped: The New Star Trek Film

Let me preface by saying I am not a Trekkie, or Trekker, or whatever the select diction for the hardcore fandom of Star Trek is. I am simply a fan. I own several of the films on DVD, I've been catching up on old episodes on Youtube, and perhaps trespassing on Trekkie ground I write a lot about Star Trek--on Wikipedia and Associated Content, mostly, but I managed to squeeze a Star Trek mention into my English 200 term paper on eugenics (KHAAAAN!!!)

With that said, after watching Star Trek on Saturday, having read all the hype, reviews, cast interviews and production info... I found the film satisfactory. Guarded as I was about the film, I refused to let my excitement ever breach my critical faculties, and so did not have a vested interest in seeing the film succeed. I sure hope to God it does, because the success of this film spells out the only possibility for a television or film resurrection of the franchise, but I was aware after leaving the theater that this was an odd-numbered Star Trek movie that felt pretty close to an even one, a good but not great franchise film.

Before I launch into a recounting of the film's shortcomings and failures which appear (based on the critical reviews I have perused), largely been ignored or glossed over, I should note the positive elements. Without a doubt, the casting was well done. Chris Pine as Kirk, Zach Quinto as Spock, and the rest of the cast did their able best at bringing somewhat cliched and lampooned characters to a lively reality. Kirk had just the teensiest bit of Shatnerian pause in his speech, without coming across as a parody. Spock pulled off both logical calm and emotion under the surface perfectly (even though I totally expected him to slice off the skulls of those pesky Vulcan Science Council chaps, a la Heroes.) Even characters such as Scotty and Chekov, being more campy perhaps in portrayals, never came off as outright lampooning. There's a lot more of Simon Pegg from his films such as Sean of the Dead in Pegg's Scotty, rather than James Doohan, but it never felt like that was a detriment. Likewise, taken out of context and Anton Yelchin's Chekov might be the most annoying character ever with the hammed-up Russian accent--but in the film it fits perfectly with the giddy and overeager boy genius ensign that Yelchin portrays him as. In the final few films, the old Star Trek cast was simply too slow, old and bloated to play their characters with anything else than a jocular tongue-and-cheek "here we go again" spirit; these young actors can take on the roles with new vigor, and for the most part they succeed.

But here I go, interjecting a side point: while I was happy Uhura (played by Zoe Saldana) got more to do this film than Nichelle Nichols ever got to do, her role seemed more like a ploy for capturing the female demographic. How else to explain why she replaced the old-third-man-on-the-film-poster Bones McCoy alongside Kirk and Spock? Making Uhura Spock's love interest (oh, sorry spoilers) didn't feel forced in the film, but it did feel unnecessary. The romance didn't add more to the film than one tender moment and smooches on the transporter pad.

Speaking of transporter pad scenes, though, another postive aspect of the film was the humor. Star Trek and humor have always had the possibility to mix and mix well, but generally the execution hasn't been the best. Only Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) ever managed to really nail the right balance of humor, in part because the humor was allowed to flow believably out of the characters. In the new film, too, the humor is well-executed. In the Kobayashi Maru simulator, Uhura deadpans the stock "ship in danger" scenario that Kirk has dragged the cadet crew to take for the third time; Kirk, however, rather than being afraid of the no-win scenario, munches on an apple and cheerfully tells her to call him "Captain". Later, when Kirk as first officer is lounging in the captain's chair, Spock annoyedly tells him to get out. The humor never manages to overshadow the action or the threat of danger... although that's another point we'll have to come to.

Finally, overall the atmosphere of Trek was retained and updated. In the 1960s, Star Trek successfully predicted cell phones, talking computers and non-lethal weaponry, and later shows were playing revisionist catch-up to keep abreast of the ever-changing technology which made their vision of the future seem obsolete. Here Star Trek excels, modernizing the tweets and pings of the old 1960s bridge and making it feel fresh. The uniforms are very close to the originals, but are more detailed and feel more grounded than bright camp. The whole optimism of Gene Roddenberry's Trek was similarly kept burning brightly. Maybe it was just the '60s sleaze, but the original series had a jocular spirit the other shows didn't sustain. No matter the danger, Kirk always looked so self-assured that he'd be kicking back some saurian brandy and seducing his yeoman in good time. Here the updated Kirk's self-assured and somewhat arrogant personality meshes well.

Of course, for every step forward, there's a step back, and I felt this way especially in the production design. The production designer apparently decided to redress a brewery as the Enterprise and Kelvin's engine rooms, and it never really feels futuristic enough. Likewise, when Kirk and old Spock (who I'll get to) show up on a Delta Vega outpost, a 1980s megaphone posted on the cieling and stock "push to open" door handle detract some the believability of a 23rd century alien outpost. This contrasts to the bridge and corridors, which despite looking like an Apple Store (which probably won't look so futuristic in ten years) pulls off an authentic feel. Director J.J. Abrams definitely took cues from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan's director, Nicholas Meyer, and made sure to keep things busy with naval touches. The camera often takes on a handheld movement, bouncing from one crew member to the next, but it never feels too much like a Cloverfield-esque home movie. Likewise, the man and his cinematographers love lens flares to the point they deliberately pointed mirrors at the camera to create more, but the brain managed to tune them out and they didn't detract from the film (I wouldn't go so far as saying they helped, though.) While the sound design is excellent, it occasionally felt more like Star Wars than Star Trek, but it's a small nitpick overall.

So to sum up, the design, feel, characters and speech feel right, or at least pretty good. Unfortunately the plot stringing all this together feels sadly cobbled. Part of the problem is that the climax never really feels like a climax. The film opens with the evil Nero's attack of the USS Kelvin, and it's so large and epic that it dwarfs the finale of the film. There's not massive battle between Enterprise and Nero's ship, the Narada; most of the evil dudes are dispatched with handheld phasers and then Spock rams his little ship into the big ship, black hole created, heroes almost get sucked in, the end. I never really felt, even with Nero's planet-killing drill device, that the heroes were seriously threatened. A lack of tension permeates the film.

Which brings me to Nero. Eric Bana did a good job on this bipolar villain, who one moment is calm and the next is screaming about bringing down the federation, but the problem is that you don't see enough of him. His motives for killing everyone on Vulcan and trying to do the same to Earth just wasn't strong, or wasn't emphasized as strong as it needed to be. For a film that desperately wanted to be The Wrath of Khan, Nero was no Khan (although he did channel Kirk in his scream of "SPOCK!").

And that brings me to the final issue with the story: Spock and the time-travel bit. Was it necessary? Could you cut out Spock and still have had a good film? Yes, and it probably would have been better. I read Star Trek: Countdown, the prequel comic to the film which explains much of the backstory Spock hastily imparts in the film. But it just feels weak. Time travel stories have only really worked well in Star Trek when they were the central element around which the plot turned; in First Contact, for example, the Borg go back in time to change history and the good guys have to fix the damage they've done. But in Star Trek I was painfully aware that the time travel element was there not to service the story but to get old Spock into the movie and provide a canon explanation for everything being so different. And really, it didn't work from a story perspective. I appreciate the production's attempt to draw in us Trekkies, but the end result wasn't worth the bit of confusion it probably causes the casual viewer. By far the better portion of Star Trek is the first half; once the Cloverfield rip-off monster on the ice planet appears, the movie loses momentum for the second act. Even the ending, with Spock narrating the "Where no man has gone before" monologue, has lost its effectiveness; Leonard Nimoy's delivery doesn't compare to his speech in The Wrath of Khan, and absent the sweeping score of a Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, or even Cliff Eidelman (and composer Michael Giacchino is not in the same league with these composers) the ending falls a little flat.

Hope, however, is a dominant theme in Star Trek, and so then am I hopeful for the future. The dodgy mechanics necessary to justify this new, freshfaced crew is done and done. Kirk is captain of the ship, Spock and the rest of the cast at his side, ready to go on new adventures. My hope is that Star Trek will turn out to be what Batman Begins was--a good introduction to a great sequel. With the next Star Trek film (already in the works) turn out to be a Trekkie's version of The Dark Knight? As Spock says in the closing minutes of the movie, "good luck".