Featured Photos


Baseball Hall of Fame - 8/23/11

Featured Video


Avery's QuEST Project - It's Healthy!

House Construction


The Completed Home Renovation


Home Renovation - Complete!


Our House Construction Photoblog

RSS Feed


« | Main | »

ISBS Movie Review: Star Trek

By Brian | May 31, 2009 | Share on Facebook

I realize I’m a little late to this party, having finally acquired a babysitter and convinced my wife to go, but I just returned from seeing the Star Trek movie. My first order of business (aside from paying the babysitter) was to finally read both Ilya’s review and Jason’s pre-review, review, and post-review, all of which I’ve been saving for this moment.

We’ll start with my thoughts on the movie, and then move on to my thoughts on my friends’ thoughts. Before I even begin, though, I can see how this will take a while, so I offer a page-fold for those who don’t have the time nor the interest to go further.

And oh yes, there are spoilers. Lots and lots of ’em. Trust me – if you haven’t seen the movie yet, just move along.

All things considered, this was an excellent film. Despite the huge shadow hanging over it, it boldly (sorry, I’ll try not to use that word again, I promise) established its own back-story, developed its own characters, established its own plot, and concluded its own story in a satisfying way. Lo, if only the folks who made the Matrix and the

Topics: Movie Talk | 17 Comments »

17 Responses to “ISBS Movie Review: Star Trek”

  1. jason says at May 31st, 2009 at 2:38 am :
    Hey, Brian, since you’ve thrown down the gauntlet over at my place… :)

    First off, I’m glad you had such a good time with the movie. Recognizing the difficulty my friends-with-children have in getting out and the cost of movies these days (especially on the east coast, which is, from what I understand, significantly more than what I pay here in flyover country), it must be a real drag when the evening’s entertainment disappoints.

    Second, don’t worry about having offended me. You haven’t at all. I accepted weeks ago that I was going to approach this movie from a significantly different perspective than most people, assuming the film wasn’t such a complete disaster that there wasn’t any argument to be had. Which it wasn’t. As I’ve stated several times over at my blog, I did enjoy it, in spite of my complaints.

    Regarding your idea that my love for the old Star Trek interferes with my ability to unreservedly enjoy the new movie, you’re absolutely right, of course. That’s the crux of the matter whenever you’re discussing any remake with fans of the original property. Comparisons are inevitable, and for those to whom the original means something more than just a pleasant way to kill a couple of hours, it’s very, very difficult to accept that the thing you personally find so valuable is being supplanted by a younger, flashier model. Or that somebody thinks it needs to be supplanted. That’s the thing that really hurts. At least in this case, I haven’t heard anyone trashing the original Trek in order to praise the new version.

    As for your contention that at the most basic level, the things that made this film enjoyable are the very same things that made them

  2. Brian says at May 31st, 2009 at 10:22 am :
    Second, don

  3. Jeff Porten says at May 31st, 2009 at 10:39 pm :
    I’ll be glad to match my Trek geek cred with Jason’s any day, so my thinking:

    1. The timeline change was sheer brilliance for creating a reboot without throwing out the old series. I’m in agreement with Jason about the results of this choice: Trek canon implies that when the timeline is messed with, all other timelines cease to exist — which would mean every TV show and movie except Enterprise. Spock Prime’s insouciance implies a “many worlds” theory instead; “it’s all still there, I’m just not a part of it any more.” That’s a big change, and it’ll be interesting to see if they return to this in the next movies.

    That said, if they don’t, I’m happy to accept “many worlds” and just enjoy the new series.

    2. Yeah, getting Kirk in the captain’s chair made absolutely no sense. The only explanation was Pike’s comment that “we need more of you in Starfleet”, implying that there were many strings pulled behind the scenes. An extra scene about this wouldn’t have been a bad thing, and probably could have been done in a reasonably dramatic way.

    3. Jason made the point asking why Starfleet didn’t have the technology to cut the big rope holding up the planet driller. As filmed, there was an easy explanation: future Romulan technology was shielded from “present” Starfleet technology, so only Spock Prime’s ship had the firepower to take it down. Unfortunately, no one took the time to say or show this.

    4. It’s established canon that starships are built in space, and Voyager is the first Starfleet ship capable of atmospheric operation. The Enterprise should not have been built in Iowa. But it looked pretty, so there you go.

    5. I loved the bazillion references to not only Trek lore, but also Star Wars and every JJ Abrams vehicle ever made. Monster #2 sure looked like the descendent of the Cloverfield monster, and monster #1 looked like he was on vacation from Hoth. The big red ball comes from Alias. And of course Kirk sleeps with a green woman. (Who, in a deleted scene, apparently is the programmer who gets him access to the Kobayashi Maru scenario.)

    6. To both Jason and Brian: The Wrath of Khan is a Star Trek movie. The Wrath of Kahn is what happens when her son dates a shiksa.

    7. According to an NPR interview with Abrams, they wanted Shatner in the film; the final Spock/Spock Prime scene was written for Nimoy to give Quinto a holograph of Shatner wishing Spock a happy birthday. Shatner refused to be in the film if he didn’t get a bigger role.

    8. Finally, my generic take on Star Trek movies: sorry, one of the things I love about the Trek universe is the ability to get new stories about it on a weekly basis. I’m glad to have a movie, but I don’t want to wait two years between installments. There are now two centuries of storylines to choose from: Paramount, pick an era, hire some great writers, and put Trek back where it belongs. You want to make movies in addition? That’s great.

  4. Ilya says at June 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm :
    Both you and Jason do a much better job of reviewing movies, Brian, so I suppose I should be honored that you actually decided to address my superficial impressions here :-)

    I don’t at all agree with your sleuth of hand in dismissing my “cadets in Iowa” nitpick. I wasn’t referring to the Enterprise being built in Iowa; I was talking about the physical presence of a couple of major characters there. I don’t know what the reason for a future crew members of an under-construction vessel – full three years ahead of its maiden trip, when they surely could not have been billeted there yet – might be. A field trip?

  5. Ilya says at June 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm :
    The Wrath of Khan is a Star Trek movie. The Wrath of Kahn is what happens when her son dates a shiksa.

    The most eloquent way of pointing out a mistake that I could ever imagine. Bravo, Jeff!

  6. Brian says at June 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 pm :
    @Ilya: Fair enough. NASA & the space shuttle program don’t have the equivalent of cadets, so my analogy breaks down. I guess to dismiss the point, you’d have to believe that Starfleet put a cadet training facility in Iowa, in addition to San Francisco (and perhaps elsewhere?). Also, the “spread the tax money around” theory breaks down too, since in Star Trek reality, money is an outdated concept and everyone works solely for the betterment of mankind.

    All of this leaves me dangerously close to that point where I no longer care enough to keep thinking, so I’ll willingly conceed the point and call it a plot flaw…

  7. Jeff Porten says at June 6th, 2009 at 1:53 am :
    Not true, what you said about Star Trek money. It still exists. The theory is that after the invention of replicators and transporters, economic scarcity no longer exists as we know it, so there is less need for money in large swaths of the population. No Earthling who boards the Enterprise thinks, “Jeez, how much did this cost?”, because the society no longer necessarily uses economics as the lens by which they view things. But a Ferengi certainly would, as would someone from a colony or independent world which uses an economic system like ours.

    Likewise, you make a mistake when you say “everyone works for the betterment of mankind”. You’re falling into the trap of “if they got rid of money, they must be socialist or communist.” Star Trek doesn’t depict a socialist future, it depicts a technological utopian future — and then makes certain assumptions about what the effects of that would be.

  8. Brian says at June 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pm :
    When I said money is outdated, I meant on Earth. It’s perfectly consistent to suggest that other worlds would proceed at different paces (and on different paths), but none of the series or movies ever refer to money with regard to humans. So not only does no one wonder what the Enterprise costs, they also aren’t worried about how much they’re paid.

    As for “betterment of human kind,” I’m not going to take your bait and turn this into a political discussion. I’ll maintain, though, that the “technological utopia” you describe is one in which people work for the betterment of mankind, not for any other, external reward. “To boldy go where no one has gone before” and the like…

  9. jason says at June 9th, 2009 at 12:40 am :
    Hey, Brian, sorry to drop out of the discussion (which has gone to some interesting places in my absence!). Last week was really hectic and I kept putting off my response…

    Anyhow, I wanted to address the whole “supplanting” issue. You said …the original Star Trek series is alive and well. As is The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, and all ten of the other movies. I know I

  10. Jeff Porten says at June 11th, 2009 at 12:06 pm :
    @Jason: Unfortunately, I think you’re tilting at windmills here. One of two things will happen to the Wonder Twins: either they’re going to remain a bit of cultural arcana remembered only by people over 35, or they’ll be retconned with a new storyline, probably with animation, writing, and superpowers that no longer suck. It’s the nature of cultural artifacts to either be forgotten or revised; I’ll take the latter.

    Keep in mind that the 1932 Superman could “leap an 1/8th of a mile”. Think our version is better?

    @Brian: Agreed that the Star Trek definition of money is sometimes a bit… fluid. Behind the scenes, there’s a difference between Roddenberry control of the scripts — and his sometimes heavy-handed use of message stories — and post-Roddenberry Trek.

    But keep in mind that Starfleet is proposed as the pinnacle of human achievement — yes, the Enterprise will boldly go violate the Prime Directive any time that Kirk thinks a society needs some retrofitting. (And such meddling is very much out of vogue by the time Picard comes around 90 years later.) But it’s generally presumed that most Earthlings and Federation members do not do such things on a day-to-day basis.

    Here’s why this is important: utopian visions that are based on wholesale changes to human nature are pretty much doomed to fail. Star Trek’s importance is that this is not presumed; rather, the idea is that if you give people a better society, then they’re going to naturally act better because it’s no longer in their best interests to act poorly. So we’re not talking about a future where everyone is altruistic and self-sacrificing; we’re postulating a future where more people (and their careers) can be altruistic because it is no longer a self-sacrificing act to do so in an economy that’s not based on scarcity.

    In other words, in Trek, you can spend your entire life in a Holodeck playing World of Warcraft XXVII, and your basic needs are still provided because it costs society nothing to feed and house you. The premise is that while many people might act in precisely this manner, most don’t.

    IMO, you miss the biggest point of the Trek universe: being human is no better or worse than being another species, and living on Earth is theoretically no better or worse than living on another Federation world — cultural differences abound, but individuals can move to the society that suits them best. Considering how we live today, I still think that’s a powerful message — and the crucial thing about Trek is that it postulates an historical direction we can take there, which is not predicated on everyone becoming all hearts and bunnies about each other.

  11. Brian says at June 11th, 2009 at 9:40 pm :
    I see your point about doing what we want vs. doing what we have to – I had not thought of it that way, and I think you’re right on the money (no pun intended).

    As to Earth/humans being equal to other planets/species, I will cautiously disagree with you (as I’m not a Trekkie of any sort). Earth is the Federation home world. All of the starships are built on earth. The federation’s government is on earth. When the Borg are ripping the universe to shreds, the big concern is “will they reach Earth?” And there’s one movie where Kirk uses the term “mankind,” and someone (a Klingon?) calls the term racist.

    I think it’s the same movie where he says, “To truly appreciate Shakespeare, you have to read him in the original Klingon.” (Jason is now tripping over his keyboard to tell me what movie that was, who said it, etc.). The reason I love that line is that I see it as Rodenberry’s nod to the fact that “spin” still exists in the 24th century (we are, I believe, to assume that Shakespeare’s humanity is an easily provable fact, and yet Klingons are brought up to believe the he was Klingon – much like we’ve all been implicitly taught that Jesus was a white male, or that the founding fathers were saints on earth…

  12. jason says at June 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm :
    Well, Brian, since you explicitly called me out… :)

    The “original Klingon” reference was in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. While it’s pretty neat to think an alien culture would see universal themes in our great literature, I’m wouldn’t say the Klingons actually believe Shakespeare was one of their own. I’ve always taken the line as General Chang (the Klingon who said it) trying to get under Kirk’s skin by appropriating one of Earth’s cultural icons during a game of one-upsmanship played during a tense diplomatic dinner.

    As for Earth being the center of the Federation and Starfleet, I think I recall some “in-universe” discussion of Earth having been the main driving force behind the founding of the Fed (i.e., we talked everybody else into it); Starfleet was originally Earth’s exploratory force and was much-better developed than the fleets of the other worlds, so it became the de facto navy for the new allied government. But I’m not sure where I got those ideas and could be wrong (i.e, they may have come from fanboy discussions or a “non-canon” source).

    The real-world explanation, of course, is that viewers — especially non-Trekkie viewers — will have a much bigger emotional response to Earth being in danger than some imaginary planet we’ve never heard of until episode 37 or whatever. Another factor: the concepts of the Federation and Starfleet weren’t very well developed in the original series — in the very earliest episodes, in fact, the Enterprise was specifically identified as an Earth ship, and the show was about Earth people, not citizens of a vast galactic civilization. Later spin-offs have tried to rationalize and work with precedents set by TOS, even when they don’t entirely work, so Earth remained at the center of things. That line in ST VI about Kirk’s racism was actually a brilliant critique of what the franchise says vs. what it actually shows.

    Jeff: I take your point about the choice between being forgotten or revised, but I reject the comparison to the Wonder Twins because the original Star Trek did not (and still does not, IMO) suck. The Wonder Twins always sucked, even when we were kids, and I haven’t met anyone yet who would say otherwise unless they being deliberately ironic.

    As for the comparison to the underpowered 1930s Superman, I again get what you’re saying, but I don’t see any future revision of Trek becoming any “better” than the original, at least not in my eyes. Next Gen wasn’t, and Abrams’ Trek isn’t. They’re flashier, sure, but ultimately they’re just not as meaningful. To continue with the Superman comparison, think of Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns. Can you honestly tell me that SR is a better movie, or a better take on the iconic character, than S:TM?

    (Incidentally, I grant that we’re now getting into matters of taste, and also the somewhat uncomfortable — for me — factor of age. I’ve had some fascinating and frustrating discussions with a friend of my father’s who insists George Reeves’ Superman is better than Christopher Reeve’s, and we both know the biggest disconnect between our opinions is which one we each grew up with. Same thing going on with me and Star Trek, to a certain extent. But my criticisms of the new film — and continuing respect for TOS — are not entirely based in nostalgia.)

  13. Brian says at June 13th, 2009 at 8:24 am :
    Again, speaking as a non-Trekkie, casual observer of the films and TV series, why would Earth’s exploratory force be much better developed than the fleets of other worlds? In the First Contact movie (was that the name? The one with James Cromwell…), we learn that it was the Vulcans that discovered us, right? So, wouldn’t the Vulcans be light years ahead of us (pun intended, I guess…) in terms of exploration? Or were they just lucky enough to discover a species who would ultimately surpass them in exploratory capabilities?

    Oh, and as for the two Supermen – Christopher Reeve had the decency to be in color. Issue resolved. :-)

  14. jason says at June 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am :
    …why would Earth

  15. Jeff Porten says at June 17th, 2009 at 10:24 pm :
    Brian said: As to Earth/humans being equal to other planets/species, I will cautiously disagree with you (as I

  16. jason says at June 19th, 2009 at 12:50 am :
    Not to be argumentative, but…

    …the Federation was extremely well developed in the show bible of TOS

    I can’t speak about the show bible, but I know the term “Federation” wasn’t uttered on-air until at least halfway through the first season of TOS, and neither was “Starfleet.” I recall references to Spacefleet Command and UESPA (the United Earth Space Probe Agency), and several times Kirk identifies the Enterprise as a “United Earth Ship.” In “Balance of Terror,” we learn of the Earth-Romulan War, not the Federation-Romulan War. Klingons refer to humans throughout TOS as “Earthers.” And many of the worlds they visit are identified as “Earth colonies” (which doesn’t preclude the existence of the Federation, but it doesn’t support it either).

    The terminology was all sorted out by the end of the first season, and there’s never been any question of the Cold War/US vs. the Russians and Chinese metaphor. But aside from the stand-out episode “Journey to Babel,” I still maintain we learned very little about the Federation in the three seasons of TOS, aside from the fact that its bureaucrats were almost inevitably putzes who gave our dashing captain heartburn. The Federation Council, the President, the details of the economic system (what few we actually know about)… these concepts all came from the movies and the various spin-off series.

    If you thought the Wonder Twins sucked, and you

  17. Jeff Porten says at June 20th, 2009 at 3:08 am :
    First off, and most importantly — didn’t mean to offend you in any way. Check out my arguments with Brian elsewhere — for me, saying “you’re batshit crazy” is a term of endearment. It’s just my rhetorical style, and agreed that it works better with Brian, whom I’ve known for 20 years, than with friends-of-Brian. So apologies are offered.

    I can