i saw star trek last night. or rather… my mother, my sister, her husband, my brother, my partner, my daughter… and i saw star trek last night.
like my picture? click it!
i've been a fan of star trek all my conscious life. i've seen TOS countless times in reruns. i bought paraphernalia -- magazines, books, concordances, models and blueprints.
when you're a kid, things are imprinted deeply into your memory -- but it's always selective. for me, star trek was never mainly about the science. it also was not only about the starships, battles, aliens,languages, costumes and details. that is all extremely cool but i'm not a star trek trivia buff -- if you quiz me, i'll fail.
for me, star trek is important because:
1. it had characters so well developed, i feel i know them as close friends.
2. it projected of a humanitarian world view and social commentary and helped shape me into the person i am today.
the bad astronomer, phil plait, has a wonderful write up of the existing -- or non-existing -- science in the movie. it's a pleasure to read his comments, as well as the comments from his readers below. i read it before and after seeing the movie -- and it helped, both times. if you haven't already, go read it. it's fun and enlightening.
the special effects were exceptional. i find myself hard-pressed to imagine how they could be any better, at least in a two-dimensional screen.
the very best, and highly memorable scene in the special effects department, is, by far, the enterprise emerging from the clouds on titan, with saturn and its rings in the background. we have carolyn porco, star trek's science advisor, to thank for this imagery. it was a moment i was expecting as i knew about it beforehand, but still i gasped as i saw it, audibly, as i did several times through this film.
yes, the bridge looks like an applestore but i don't mind. i don't understand why engineering had to look like a brewery (what's with all the pipes) but again, i don't mind. TOS sets had a minimalism that was popular in the 60's, but aesthetics change and i have no qualms with the designs being in tune with the tastes of 2009.
now…
why i liked star trek: the characters and the acting
as i said, star trek's characters are my virtual childhood friends. i know them well. i know how they feel and how they react. i know their little tics and quirks. i know how their bodies stand and move and i catch the tiniest movements in facial muscles that tell me that they are who are.
star trek was not a cast of imposters. i am stunned, awed and humbled by the work these people have done. for me, it's the best part of this movie.
a lot has been written about zachary quinto's wonderful performance, and the great collaboration he had with nimoy to get to the spirit of the character. quinto did such an exceptional job, that i mostly forgot i was seeing a new spock and just thought i was seeing spock. spock.
quinto brought new elements to the character, but blended them seamlessly into this most familiar persona. i had to sometimes forcefully remind myself that it was quinto, and i was successful in doing so only because of the minor differences in facial features between quinto and nimoy.
in contrast, little has been written about chris pine's outstanding performance -- and much has been written about how only shatner can truly be kirk. i adore william shatner's work and captain kirk was very much his creation, but i don't know if people realize what an amazing work pine has done in playing kirk. maybe it's because I wasn't expecting it, but pine's rendition of kirk blew me away.
i don't think pine and shatner collaborated at all on this -- if not, pine has not only done his homework, he's completed a phd. he must have watched and rewatched and rewatched kirk's scenes -- 'arena', 'amok time', the dramatic and especially the comic moments -- everything -- because, many times, i was convinced he was shatner. no, he did not do the shatner talk but he did the shatner walk, stance, smile, smirk, and polishing-the-floor-during-a-beating. in the final scene, when he walked in and, after looking around, exclaimed 'bones!', smiled, glanced momentarily down and bounced his head from side to side, as shatner did in happy end-of-episode scenes, i gasped, loudly.
chris pine succeeded in transferring the essence of the original kirk into a character with new elements, as quinto has, seamlessly. chris pine is not shatner, but he is kirk.
pine will never read this, but: congratulations, mr. pine.
karl urban looked and sounded like mccoy. zoe saldana was a brilliant uhura -- one that both paid homage to nichelle nichols work but updated the character to our contemporary views on women. scotty was a brilliant scot but didn't have innate pride that doohan had breathed into the character. anton yelchin was a true russian, struggling over his pronunciation of B's and breaking away from the much-loved monkees' davy jones look created for walter koenig. john cho was a great sulu but his role was not as revealing as i would have wished.
i found eric bana's nero indifferent. winona ryder evoked very little much-needed emotion. ben cross was a fine sarek.
and leonard nimoy is nothing short of legendary.
why i didn't like star trek : the (un)content
the movie's plot served one purpose: to reboot star trek. it was devised to transfer the original star trek universe into a new, malleable timeline. a group of people travel back in time, and change events, creating an alternate universe where everything is the same and everything is different. the characters we know intimately now have to deal with a tweaked set of circumstances -- spock has lost his home and mother, and is a hot lover. kirk has lost his father and knows how to drive. that was fine and necessary. this is an alternate star trek universe giving writers the freedom to create interesting stories unshackled by TOS events.
the value in the outstanding episodes of TOS is that they are true science fiction: they are all about exploring the human condition by creating extreme conditions to make a point. ' the city on the edge of forever' and 'a taste of armageddon', commented on war, and 'a private little war' on the vietnam war, in particular. 'let that be your last battlefield' commented on racism and 'plato's stepchildren' featured the first interracial kiss on american television. 'the mark of gideon' explored the problem of overpopulation. these episodes were not about things we don't have to really know about that happened in a galaxy far, far away -- they were about humanity's collective experience.
gene roddenberry's star trek universe was optimistic: humanity had grown out of its primitive childhood, solved the properties that enslave it and was on its way to realizing great potential for discovery and creation. some people complained that it was so optimistic, it was downright bland.
the present plot was indifferent and could have been applied to just about any space opera of today. roddenberry's vision is conspicuously missing, and it's a disservice to audiences. films can be art as they have the potential to spread messages and to inspire. the makers of star trek have made business decisions and not artistic or moral ones. their problem was how to satisfy die-hard trekkies who have derived and invested large chunks of thought with star trek while, at the same time, draw in new fans among younger people who know very little about and are, for the most part, indifferent to anything trek. i suppose that, judging by the first weekend's response, they've been successful.
still, i've been wondering if all of the references on the internet to president obama's being a vulcan express a deep need for people to again find direction and to pursue a peaceful and creative coexistence of humanity based on mutual respect and reason.
racism is not as generally prevalent, but it's there. intolerance has not disappeared... pick a group, any group. war, hate, insanity -- we still got it. i'd love it if these issues were addressed. for me, the problem is not to create a newfangled trek to draw in younger paying audiences, but to find a way to excite young people with the original humanitarian principles of star trek, the quality that i suspect was the main the reason for its spectacular success and fan loyalty.
while i had mixed thoughts and feelings while i was viewing the film, in the final scene, i experienced a swelling of emotion i didn't expect. i found myself crying like an idiot. i felt as if i had just met up again with much loved, long-lost friends.
star trek was -- and seems to still be -- a product of its times. i'm hoping that, despite our present difficulties, we'll find the strength to pull ourselves, our messages and our art, towards the original, positive, humanitarian principles that conceived it.
i want to keep loving star trek.
note: i plan to perhaps tweak or edit this post, or perhaps add thoughts at the end. i don't consider it completely finished.
