Star Trek

Mrs. Ardwulf and I went off to see Star Trek as planned last night. We’d intended to make the midnight showing, but as it turned out every theater around here was showing it early – as early as 7 PM in some cases. So we caught an 8:30 show instead. Fear not – I’ll spoil nothing.

I have mixed feelings about the film. On the one hand, it’s visually spectacular, tightly plotted and very engaging. The cast is good, and even though not everybody inhabits their roles right away, by the end they have done so. It seemed to me, though, to be missing something of the spirit of the original Star Trek. In fairness, several of the TV series also lacked that spirit.

The science had me gritting my teeth at several points, something even Armageddon, that paragon of movie sci-fi silliness, didn’t manage, but the science in this case is closer to the center of the story than one normally sees in Star Trek material, I’m likely more sensitive to deviations in tone from the original, and I am even now intending to start studying Astrophysics, so a lot of recent reading in the area has likely made me touchy.

Chris Pine has the most thankless task in the movie, really: trying to capture James T. Kirk without trying to ape the very idiosyncratic acting style of William Shatner, an approach which would have inevitably descended into pardody. Trying to be Shatner’s Kirk would have resulted in something comparable to Belushi’s Kirk. Yet there’s a moment, well into the film, between he and Spock, where, without trying to imitate Shatner’s delivery, he delivers a line that’s utterly Shatnerian, and in that moment Kirk, and the film, both coalesce.

It’s worth seeing on the big screen.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 responses to “Star Trek

  1. Star Trek had finally lived out it’s life after the Next Generation to me. Borg was truly the epitome of the story telling and Star Trek goodness.
    But, I am a JJ Abrams fanatic. This man has an ability that is unrivaled right now for action/sci-fi direction.
    If my wife can sit still for a whole movie (Cloverfield, MI3, even with Tom Cruise) or TV shows (LOST, Fringe, Alias)…then that adds points in my book!

  2. I’m not really a big fan of reboots and recasts, but neither am I necessarily opposed to them. (They just seem too derivative to me, as if Hollywood didn’t already have a problem with that.)

    No, my problems with STXI are in the shameless titillation in the promotional material (how prominent is that in the movie, anyway?) and the danger of bad science as the franchise goes more “mainstream” (and is dumbed down). I’ve heard the comics are particularly incompetent.

    I’ll probably see the movie, but in the dollar theaters… and I’ll probably go home and watch some TNG to recover. *shrug*

  3. There is some cheesecake in one scene in the movie, but it didn’t strike me as over the top. In fact, I’d argue that the scene was neccessary to the establishment of Kirk’s character.

    The shall-we-say “loose” science is a bigger issue, I think, but I try not to read too much into it.

  4. Finally saw it last nite. It worked for me. Loved how you could definately see, without facepalm obviousness, the future Star Trek crew in each of the youthful versions. They reminded me more of life at the fire station with your crew then regimented military, which I really liked.