Re-booted Star Trek -- How'd You Like It?

[Bogey]

About to start the animated series (1973) tonight with my kiddos. Some trivia from this run:

One episode of this series revealed that Kirk's middle name is Tiberius.

Walter Koenig (Ensign Pavel Chekov) was the only original "Star Trek" (1966) cast member to never appear on the series.

First time (and only?) Uhura assumes command  of the Enterprise.

Also, according to the liner notes, it is the only time that Kirk says, "Baem us up Scotty."  Beam me up Scotty has never been used.

[DavidW]

I remember watching that when I was a kid Bill, it's pretty cool.  I'm still working my way through the season 2 dvd set.

[Bogey]

I remember watching that when I was a kid Bill, it's pretty cool.  I'm still working my way through the season 2 dvd set.

Obviously the animation is basic compared to today's standards (but there is a charm and a nostalgic level that is a draw for me here), but the two stories we watched last night hold up considering the less than 30 minute format.  If they were to be templated onto the original series with live actors and the 40+ minute block, they would fit in nicely.  Helps that all the original voices are there as well.

[karlhenning]

Also, according to the liner notes, it is the only time that Kirk says, "Baem us up Scotty."  Beam me up Scotty has never been used.

Like "Play it again, Sam":  the most famous line that was never actually spoken in the source 

[Bogey]

Like "Play it again, Sam":  the most famous line that was never actually spoken in the source 

Exactly.

[lisa needs braces]

I wrote a review!

(there a few spoilers)


There was a period in the 90s in which Star Trek spin-offs  were seemingly unmissable. Next Generation had ended its run in 94 and was in heavy syndication, and Voyager and Deep Space Nine were at the height of their run. This is when I first started watching Star Trek regularly. The first glimpse I've ever had of the franchise was when my family was in Kenya and I saw parts of a Next Generation episode on tv. The images were wondrous and exciting, especially to one who hasn't seen much tv before. With basic cable television in America, I had the chance to delve into these shows weekly. In a significant way, these 90s Star Trek series (Next Generation had actually begun its run in 87) had a considerable impact on my taste in television. I wasn't around when Next Generation ended its run (I would have been in the second grade!), but I have seen the majority of that show since and did see Voyager and Deep Space Nine to the end of their runs. Furthermore, in the past six months, I saw many episodes of the classic 60s series on cbs.com. So I approach J.J Abrams Star Trek being well quite familiar with the Star Trek franchise, and there are two questions by which I'll assess the new film: Does it work as a film in and of itself to one who is not necessarily a fan of Star Trek? And is it a film that is a worthy entry into the Star Trek mythos? The answer to the former is "maybe"; to the latter, a resounding no.

For, upon leaving the theater, I did not have any immediate gnawing sense of dissatisfaction. I was diverted for those two hours, and for the crowd that adored Iron Man and X-Men: Wolverine, Abrams Star Trek should be a fun movie. I don't think Iron Man and any of the X:Men films are any good, mind you, but they are the sort of dumb summer fare we've grown accustomed to and Abrams' Star Trek should entertain along those lines. It was only as the hours passed that the film's failure as a Star Trek story became more and more evident to me. First, it is not something that has to do with the film's set-up as an action/adventure fim. All the Next Generation films, as well as most of the TOS films, are action-adventure rombs. The film's failure as a Star Trek entry has to do with its complete and utter disregard for the implications of the film's plot.

First, the makers of the film, as you are no doubt aware, were seeking to effectively reboot the Star Trek franchise. I hear this is a common practice in the comic book industry.  For instance, Spiderman began its run in the 60s, and Marvel rebooted the Spiderman story so that it's told in a way that is fresh and modern and therefore more appealing to today's audiences (after all, Stan Lee's comics do strike us today as horribly retro.) What marvel did is to reboot the Spiderman universe entirely. There's no logical connection to the stories Lee and his writers penned for the series, except that the new series borrows elements and draws inspiration from them. In the movies, recently the 007 franchise was rebooted with 2006's Casino Royale. The same thing was done for the series when Pierce Brosnan took over the role with "Golden Eye" in 1995.  Abrams Star Trek is reboot, but it's a reboot in a fashion that is aggravating, poorly thought out, and ultimately insulting to the Star Trek franchise in general. For the film doesn't just reboot the Star Trek universe–no, it has a plot that erases all the previous shows, movies, characters, and stories of Star Trek from existence! It's like finding out in the last chapter of a novel that everything you've read up to point had been a dream. And worse, it's as if the author had no idea that he had suggested as much!

The plot of the film involves villainous characters traveling back in time from a date that, presumably, immediately postdates the end of Voyager, in order to interfere with Federation history. The plot details are irrelevant: Let's just say that these villainous characters, by the end of the film, succeed marvelously in interfering with Federation history and changing the time-line. This is how Abrams and his writers chose to reboot the franchise–not by starting from scratch, but by logically connecting it to the regular Star Trek canon and using time-travel shenanigans to put the young versions of the original series characters on a new path. In a rather ham-fisted scene, Zachary Quinto's Spock and Zoe Saladan's Uhura explain to the audience that the characters are now on a new path–on an 'alternate time-line'–and that their destinies have been changed. But what about the destinies of, I don't know, the cast of Next Generation, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine? How could all those characters be born–or the stories which they're were involved in occur–given that the villain of the film has successfully interfered with history? In a scene that is perhaps intended to call back to Star Wars: A New Hope, the planet of Vulcan is destroyed. Now if we watch Next Generation or DSN–in which Vulcan still exists–we know we're watching a timeline that doesn't exist and perhaps characters who most likely will never be born.

Apparently it has only recently dawned on Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman–the writers of the film–of the implication of their plot. Orci has been going around claiming that the time-line which bad guys came from (the time-line of all the shows and movies) somehow remains intact, due to quantum mechanics (?!?), and that the universe Abrams film takes place in will now be one that is parallel to that other, regular universe. Except for one problem: no where in Star Trek movies or shows has it been suggested that time travel leads to the creation of a parallel universe. Indeed, in all the Star Trek plots involving time travel, it's never suggested that the good characters need not worry about some bad guy going back in time and meddling with things since it would just create a new time-line that cannot effect the one that the characters are in. Indeed, the time-travel stories always depended on the assumption that there is one time-line which time travel can alter. Since Abrams and his duo of writers (the same brilliant scribes that brought us the recent "Transformers" flicks) unwisely chose to connect themselves with the established canon (via the time-travel story), the same rules as all other Star Trek movies/shows/stories apply–and so, by implication, since the bad guys of the film succeeds in going back in and meddling with things, all the Star Trek stories we are familiar with have effectively been retconned out of existence, nevermind what Robert Orci claims.

If that was deliberate, it would be staggeringly asinine, but since it was apparently not deliberate, it's just despairingly poor writing and staggeringly asinine. The plot of film, by the way, has much else that is wrong with it.  Kirk is jettisoned on a snowy planet on which he randomly happens to run into two characters that are crucial to the plot. In Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, it is mentioned that Kirk, by cheating, happened to have passed in his Starfleet Academcy days the insurmountable Kobayashi Maru tactical test. Abrams film proves that things that are reputed to be legendary about characters are perhaps best left as legends.

The direction of the film isn't much to speak of either. It suggests the work of a director painfully aware of his limitations working hard to dazzle us with the superficialities he is only capable of. The interior of the Enterprise, for god knows why, is distractingly bright. And there is much needless shaky hand-held camera work. Many of the aliens that are shown have faces that look like reflections off fun-house mirrors. There's a scene that involves Kirk making love to a green alien–except she looks entirely like a cheerleader of the Dallas cowboys who has been painted green. Abrams forced kinetic style seems incongruous with the spirit of Star Trek. There is simply no grace.

But in the end, it's the time-travel plot that remains the glaring fault of the film. By implication, it negates all other Star Trek stories. And it is indicative of the cheap plot device that time-travel has in general become in science fiction. It's not an original story but rather something that even the most non-creative movie executive could have thought up to reboot the franchise. Moreover, it actually undermines the purpose of a reboot because it beholds any sequels to the rules and premises established in the regular canon. But should this incompetence surprise us?  After all, over the last months Abrams has been announcing at the top of his lungs that he had not been familiar with Star Trek before being asked to shoot the film. He was sneakily suggesting that as a consequence his approach would be all the more original because of that lack of familiarity. Paramount has chosen to hand the reigns of the series to someone who is  eager to announce his lack of interest in it. What happens when this new franchise inevitably fizzles out? How will they reboot Star Trek then? I don't think we'll care about Star Trek in general by that point to even ask the question.

[lisa needs braces]

"Red matter!" 

[lisa needs braces]

And this is the best review of the film:

http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek-2009.html

[DavidW]

Abe, I think your wording is too strong.  The "quantum mechanics" concept they alluded to is really a scifi take on the many worlds interpretation.  That is to say that for every choice, there is a universe for each consequence.  Thus a sequence of universes is created as we traverse through our actions, our decisions.  What the guys behind the new Trek movie are saying is that changing the past does not eradicate the future, it merely shifts to a different parallel reality that we had abandoned by a course of actions long ago.

It's not novel, and it's certainly not asinine, you may find it in science fiction.  To give a theatrical example: that was precisely the explanation used for changing things in Back to the Future 2.  To give an example in a novel, (in a way, it actually goes both ways on this) try Orson Scott Card's Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus.  I'm sure there are many examples, and perhaps better ones but I'm tired. 

The review you posted as a link from "punkadiddle" is exactly the type that makes me clench my teeth.  Nit picking it's not insightful, it merely sees the trees instead of the forest.  To nitpick one part of that review (yes I realize the hypocrisy in that) the weapon is hanging off a chain because it used to be a drill because IT'S A MINING SHIP!   Is it necessary in the 23rd century?  Who cares, it's metaphorical imagery, something easily lost on the mind of someone so literal as to base a review off a series of nitpicks (talking about "punkadiddle" here).

I still liked your review, and this quote "Abrams forced kinetic style seems incongruous with the spirit of Star Trek. There is simply no grace." is insightful.

[lisa needs braces]

David, I can accept that version of time-travel. The problem is, it is inconsistent with how time-travel was previously portrayed on Star Trek. I know to some the complaint will sound geeky but I think it reveals that the writers didn't really care to take seriously science fiction element of the show. The only reason they went along with this absurd time-travel plot is because they wanted to capitalize on Lenord Nimoy's Spock for marketing reasons, never mind how the contrivances necessary to involve the character would hurt the reboot.

I don't think Star Trek--good Star Trek, anyway--has ever done something as cheap as "red matter." Oh sure, there are "problems" that are fixed with techno-babble, but would in any of the 90s shows some miracle substance like red-matter have been introduced without it being explored in some fashion? And consider that Scotty was able to transport Kirk and himself to the Enterprise after the ship had been traveling at warp for some time. For Kutzman and Orci, any rule in the Star Trek universe can be broken at the service of the plot.

These two are currently the worst writers working in Hollywood. They're the sort of mediocrities that other mediocrities are inspired by. "Wow, if they can succeed, so can I!" Can't help but be too negative about this film.

Have you ever read J.M Stracyznki's proposal for rebooting Star Trek?

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

As he and his partner say,

Over the decades, Star Trek has become so insular, so strictly defined, and placed so many
layers upon itself that some of the essence of what made us love it in the first place has been
lost. The all-too-reasonable desire to protect the franchise may now be the cause of its
stagnation.

This new film makes the same mistake.

[DavidW]

David, I can accept that version of time-travel. The problem is, it is inconsistent with how time-travel was previously portrayed on Star Trek. I know to some the complaint will sound geeky but I think it reveals that the writers didn't really care to take seriously science fiction element of the show. The only reason they went along with this absurd time-travel plot is because they wanted to capitalize on Lenord Nimoy's Spock for marketing reasons, never mind how the contrivances necessary to involve the character would hurt the reboot.

Frankly how time travel was used previously was just AWFUL!  I winced when I found out that the new Star Trek movie used time travel.  But for once they abandoned the shitty style they had before where they fall into paradox like a classical music cd collector does a bargain box set.  The old Star Trek time travel needs to be forgotten, they are not even good.  From TOS to Voyager those are some of the worst episodes I've seen (and what made Enterprise an epic fail was building their show around something so pathetic).

Types of time travel:
(a) impossible to change the future (Terminator 3) (fine by me)
(b) circular loop (Babylon 5) (okay as long as it doesn't invoke technology popping out of nowhere)
(c) complete misunderstanding of time where changes made in the past take time to change, allowing people to make paradoxical changes which make them cease to exist (Star Trek tv series, Back to the Future 1)
(d) creation of parallel worlds allowing (c) without paradox or ceasing to exist (Back to the Future 2) (fine by me)
(e) time travel is policed by higher agents which eliminate or prevent paradox (classic Dr Who) (brilliant!)

Do we need anymore of (c)?  No, really no.

I don't think Star Trek--good Star Trek, anyway--has ever done something as cheap as "red matter." Oh sure, there are "problems" that are fixed with techno-babble, but would in any of the 90s shows some miracle substance like red-matter have been introduced without it being explored in some fashion? And consider that Scotty was able to transport Kirk and himself to the Enterprise after the ship had been traveling at warp for some time. For Kutzman and Orci, any rule in the Star Trek universe can be broken at the service of the plot.

Well actually in next gen episode Best of Both Worlds, they needed to transport at warp when it was previously established that is impossible.  So what did they do?  They decided to bend the rule by saying well it's okay as long as they travel at the same speed.  There is another rule saying that warp 10 can't be physically achieved, yet they managed it anyway in TOS, TNG and Voyager.  In one of the movies it was said to be morally and ethically wrong to relocate a people without their knowledge, yet they did precisely that in an older episode!  And in fact it was using the holodeck to trick them, i.e. the exact same way!  In Star Trek rules are made to be broken.

Miracle technology in the newer series: a transporter that can beam an entire starship (Voyager!) is pretty nuts!  Well actually I don't want to list more silly things (easy to find many things in Voyager though), I just want to point that weapons based on creating black holes are old hat scifi, they have appeared all over the place before.  I don't know why you would consider it absurd when it was the entire premise of Greg Bear's greatest scifi novel.   Anyway I find the red stuff more plausible than transporter tech, which would be nearly impossibly and exhaust the power of an entire sun every time it's used.  When you're fine with stuff like that, drawing a line and saying some other miracle tech is absurd is kind of absurd in itself!

Have you ever read J.M Stracyznki's proposal for rebooting Star Trek?

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

I'll check it out thanks!