“Star Trek” might seem an odd topic for the community opinion page, but few other TV shows or films have impacted such a large segment of the population, especially those of us known as “Trekkers.” Hence, I think it warrants comment.
In just two days after its release, “Star Trek 11” approached the miserable overall performance of “Star Trek: Nemesis,” the 10th in the series and the last before the films got a reboot last month.
By Memorial Day it was on track to take the top spot for 2009 grossing nearly $200 million, more, than any previous movie in the series (although not necessarily adjusted for inflation) €“ And for good reason.
And bad.
Whatever you do this week, put “Star Trek” into your schedule. It plays at the Rio through Monday. It’s worth it. If you’re a Trekker, go despite your reservations.
(Consider inserted all self-deprecating geek clichés every writer feels necessary to write at this point €“ I’m not going to because they’re all old and overused after 40 years.)
Trekkers, you’ll hate this movie, but all is not lost. Grit your teeth, and stick with it. Many of you will forget quickly how much you hate it. By the end of it, you’ll be wondering what all your fussing over the nacelles and the secondary hull was about.
For those of you who think Spock is silly but think “Transformers,” “Hancock” and “X-Men” is somehow more acceptable, get down there and watch this one.
You won’t be disappointed, and the problems with this movie won’t bother you in the slightest. For you folks, this should just be a great blockbuster action movie. You don’t have four decades of baggage to cope with. Enjoy. It’s as American as apple pie and baseball.
I’m a Trekker. I have been all my life, although I’ve always been a bit heretical and open to new ideas (except that trash called “Voyager”), and I’ve never put on a uniform or Spock ears. I have to admit I was a Klingon at the Universal Studios “Star Trek Experience,” and I have that memory forever recorded on video.
“Star Trek” was on my TV as far back as I can remember. Now y’all have some idea what’s wrong with me. Anyway, I have friends who watched warily as this latest film was developed. They kept a slightly open mind, but when the ship design came out, they were done. One refuses to watch it at all, though he’s also busy training for deployment to Iraq. Another one will wait for the disc, but I don’t expect him to give it the time of day in the end.
They’re cynics. Their loss. I’m glad I saw this one.
I hated this movie too. It has so many ridiculous coincidences, noticeable only to a Trekker. I think George Lucas must have had a hand in this somewhere €“ Spock, Uhura, Kirk. William Shatner wrote a much better academy and origins tale, one that captured another piece of Captain Kirk’s history on Tarsus IV €“ Very compelling book.
With this movie, the questions abound.
Kirk driving an old ‘Vette as a child? Well, I guess his real problem was a stick shift in “Piece of the Action.”
Vulcan clearly visible from the surface of a planet apparently in another stellar system? A transporter capable of transporting characters from Saturn orbit to earth orbit? Kirk tossed off the Enterprise rather than the brig by Spock?
Perhaps we Trekkers and nitpickers (as if the original series weren’t filled with all kinds of mistakes and self-contradiction) should look to that forced plot device, the alternate timeline and infinite parallel universes thing to explain away all the weirdness and impossibilities. It definitely changed James Tiberius Kirk’s, whose name was written James R. Kirk on a gravestone in the original series episode “Where No Man Has Gone Before.”
Throughout the rest of the series we hear it with a “T” between the James and the Kirk.
Occasionally, the character quirks we know and love in the original series seemed forced, such as McCoy’s crack, “I’m a doctor, not a physicist.” Others were just overly silly and out of character, like Mr. Scott’s ill-timed, “I love this ship. It’s exciting.” The comment was more suited to the actor, Simon Pegg, than Mr. Scott.
All that said, this movie was engrossing, the eye candy, the characters, the story itself. I forgot to keep my teeth gritted.
By the time Starfleet cadets rush off to take their places on starships during an emergency, I quite forgot to notice the absurdity of the notion. Captain Kirk had already defeated the Kobayashi Maru in style and respectful homage to “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn.”
I had to watch this film a second time to note all the things that were supposed to annoy me. I knew they were there. I just missed them the first time around because this movie, for all that I hate it, is a great movie.
Mostly, the actors fill the giant shoes left behind from the original series. Chris Pine delivers a Captain Kirk, crooked smile, determination and all. He does it with his own style, without that famous, if exaggerated, William Shatner pause between every other word; but it’s Captain Kirk.
Zachary Quinto, Sylar of “Heroes,” looks like Spock. He acts like Spock. He is Spock €“ everything except the voice. I kept expecting to hear Leonard Nimoy’s voice when he spoke, but the voice thing isn’t Quinto’s fault.
Despite my earlier comment, Karl Urban was an excellent Dr. McCoy, sarcastic and terrified of modern technological contraptions.
The movie was more action-oriented than the “Star Trek” most of us are used to, a bit like “The Wrath of Kahn.” But the ideas underlying the story were still there, the optimism about the future and the character drama. Captain Kirk and Spock are expertly depicted, and we get our best look ever on screen at their younger years, where they came from.
These people and a good story made it easy to forget that I’m supposed to hate this movie €“ Either that, or as I read somewhere else, nitpickers just need to get a life. Maybe I got one somewhere along the way.
Nah, this was just a wonderfully crafted successor to the “Star Trek” franchise.
Personal note to the old boss: Don’t bother, Alex. You’ll fall asleep.