I saw the film and thought it was great. The pacing was the typical non-stop action editing style that's so indicative of films that has its predecessors in films like "Die Hard." The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, was writing morality plays but set in the future.
It's a film that's typical of the film industry's reboot trend of various "franchises" and Star Trek got the reboot treatment and like Batman, J.J. Abrams has done an admirable job of reinterpreting Star Trek for the times. Unfortunately, in his interviews, he never acknowledges Star Trek films but only refers to the TV series. Revenge is the motivation for the film and it seems as if Abrams lifted that theme from "The Wrath of Khan," which I believe was the best Star Trek film. It referenced one of Star Trek's tv episodes and uses it as the basis for a movie and it's brilliant. You would expect that Captain Kirk's vanquishing of so many villians would come back and haunt him one day and it does. A fifty-ish Kirk finds out that he had a son who's now an adult. Again, "Khan" references one of Kirk's propensity for being a ladies' man. Well, what happens if he does gets someone knocked up and finds out years later, one of his old flames has his son? Except Kirk doesn't know.
Now, what about the movie? Oh, right. The screenwriters and Abrams don't do a prequel like Lucas did with his Star Wars series while faithfully trying to keep the timeline logic consistent. Abrams uses the prequel convention to investigate what was Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhuru, Scotty, and Sulu were like when they were younger? Abrams doesn't stick to strict timeline or Star Trek's fictional history. He doesn't just use the reboot concept of ignoring prior film precedessors to clean the slate. He actually postulates an alternate universe where Kirk doesn't follow his father into Star Fleet but using the stereotypical reluctant hero model, a young Kirk is aimless albeit highly intelligent and winds up accepting the challenge presented to him. He goes on a great adventure when he's called into action. Abrams and screenwriters take a convention used in the TV series of alternate time line/reality and uses it to ignore parts of Star Trek history to present a rather conventional hackneyed hero iconography that was used in "Die Hard," which Abrams I think referenced in a tv interview.
That's a shame. Why not have a Kirk who has an accomplished father in Star Fleet and has to perhaps feel he has to equal or surpass his father's accomplishments? That could of been the motivation for his rebelliousness and lack of interest in following his father's footsteps. How's this? His father dies faithfully carrying out his duty exactly like the way Abrams presents Kirk's dad's demise in his reboot. That motivates him to enter Star Fleet to perhaps to avenge his father's death or it allows him to understand how his father was killed.
There's so much to mine since Star Trek had some great episodes written by rather prominent writers. Star Trek also had not only interesting characters but how contrasting personalities can be great friends such as Captain Kirk and his faithful First Officer, Mr Spock. I found it interesting how the actors chose to channel or how close they were interested in impersonating the original characters. Kirk? Chris Pine doesn't try to imitate Shatner's quirks. Spock? McCoy? Scotty? The actors were rather faithful in trying to recreate a younger version of the original cast which is rather interesting and fun to watch.
Dave Itzkoff has an interesting analysis of the themes and comparisons of the times that the TV series was surrounded by (e.g. Kennedy & Dr. King's assassination, Vietnam War) and how Abrams version perhaps reflect our last decade with the great defining event of 9/11.
The Two Sides of ‘Star Trek’
By DAVE ITZKOFF
Published: May 9, 2009
Then there's the ship. The Enterprise.
Click on the picture to see it in all its glory. It's cool seeing it being built like a ship in a shipyard ready to set sail to explore The Final Frontier.
0 comments:
Post a Comment