Related Sections: Movies Reviews Top Stories
Review: J.J. Abrams brings the fun back to Star Trek
[Update: We first posted this review on April 27, with the permission of Paramount. We are reposting it to coincide with today's first public screenings of the movie, starting at 7 p.m.; the movie officially opens on Friday in conventional theaters and IMAX.]
It's no secret that Star Trek has been off mission for a long time. On May 8, Paramount will jump-start its most valuable franchise with a new movie titled simply Star Trek, from director J.J. Abrams, abetted by his longtime collaborators and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.
They have boldly gone and remade Trek for a new century, and on balance it's a souped-up, streamlined, energized version of the old clunker, full of wit and speed and action and heart. And it works more often than it doesn't.
(Spoilers ahead!)
The story, both a sequel and a prequel, begins when the Romulan villain, Nero (Eric Bana), brings his massive ship the Narada back in time to 2233 from the 24th century, attacking the hapless Federation starship the U.S.S. Kelvin. While the stalwart if ill-fated Capt. Robau (Faran Tahir) beams over, the ship is left in the hands of George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth), whose very pregnant wife, Winona (Jennifer Morrison), is about to give birth. Their son, James Tiberius Kirk, is born as a massive battle rages.
Flash forward as the narrative splits between Kirk's childhood and that of Spock (played as a boy by Jacob Kogan), the tormented half-human child of Vulcan.
At Starfleet Academy, young adult Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) find themselves at odds when an emergency arises: Vulcan is in danger. As the Federation rushes to deal with the trouble, Kirk finds himself on board the newly commissioned Enterprise alongside Spock, Capt. Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and the rest of the crew. What they encounter forces each to deal with his or her innermost fears while finding the courage to overcome them, the wisdom to reach out to each other and the hope to forge ahead.
There are two ways to consider Abrams' Trek: As a Star Trek movie and as a work of cinema.
On the first point, I think Abrams et al. have made a movie that feels like Star Trek in its broad strokes and at its heart, even if many of the details have been changed. The interactions of the key characters—particularly Kirk, Spock and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban)—feel true, even if it takes the entire movie to get them where they're supposed to be.
Similarly, the movie finds what is essential in each of the supporting characters of Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho), Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and Scotty (Simon Pegg), while depicting them realistically as the competent, brilliant scientists they are meant to be.
Mostly, Abrams' Trek understands that the original series was only nominally about space adventure and social commentary: It is really a story of hope and humanity and the comradeship among people we ultimately wish we could become. In this, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have captured the spirit of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek.
The only thing missing is some kind of larger social message, one of the hallmarks of earlier Trek films: I expect that shortcoming will be redressed in future installments. This film necessarily deals with personal arcs: the becoming, so to speak, of the main characters into the people we recognize.
Fans will no doubt quibble about the film's wholesale revision of canon (explained in part by the plot device of the time incursion), including a particularly surprising new romantic relationship (!) and Abrams' 23rd-century version of Earth, which looks a heck of a lot more like ours and not so much like Roddenberry's utopia (they even use Nokia cell phones and drink Budweiser. And when was the last time the Beastie Boys appeared on a Star Trek soundtrack?) And there's no reset button: We are in completely uncharted territory by the film's end.
Of bigger concern is the movie's architecture, which brings us to an evaluation of Star Trek as a work of cinema.
Here, the movie has definite problems. The storyline is built on a series of coincidences and improbable events (why did Nero's ship appear right near the Kelvin? How does Kirk find Spock on Delta Vega?), unexplained situations (where has Nero been for 25 years? Why is his mining ship so advanced?) and implausible circumstances (why is cadet Kirk so quickly promoted to first officer when there's an entire ship full of junior officers around?).
Another shortcoming: Nero is not a particularly interesting villain, with a barely-touched-on backstory and a crew of inexplicably devoted and interchangeable acolytes. He is motivated by simple revenge, but we never feel his anguish or his wrath, Bana's quirky performance notwithstanding. And without a strong, charismatic villain, there's not much for our heroes to play off of.
But those issues aside, Abrams shows a much surer hand with the material than he did in his first feature film, Mission: Impossible III, which often played more like an expanded episode of his Alias than a big, epic movie.
Not so this time. Star Trek is big, epic and sweeping: not just the biggest Trek movie ever, but as huge as any popcorn extravaganza. The film's pacing is brilliant, the action staged imaginatively and with great verve, the visual effects thrilling (with a clear debt to the shaky-cam stylings of Firefly and Battlestar Galactica). It's every bit the blockbuster adventure ride Star Trek should be, as much Star Wars in its visual energy as old-school Trek. Did we mention fun? Something Trek lost sight of a while back.
A word about the performances: Pine manages the task of inhabiting the character of Kirk without doing a William Shatner impersonation, though a mannerism or two act as an homage, such as when he swaggers onto the bridge, pauses, then utters "Bones" before taking his seat in the captain's chair. He nevertheless finds the core of the character: the charismatic, fearless man of action with the heart and soul of a philosopher.
Urban nails McCoy from his first utterance, and his performance is one of the delights of the film.
It takes a while to see Quinto as Spock, an issue having to do more with the long emotional (yes, emotional) journey he has to travel and less with Quinto's measured performance. It still works, aided by Quinto's uncanny resemblance to Leonard Nimoy, who has a small but key role as "Spock Prime." Nimoy's welcome presence links old and new Trek. The rest of the cast, particularly Saldana and Cho, are terrific.
As the ads say, this isn't your father's Star Trek. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's great.
By LimemonkeyX3 at 9:17 PM ON 04/27/09
Good movie or bad JJ has succeeded in MAKING ME EXCITED about a NEW STAR TREK movie. I'm a long time TREK fan who gave up on the series once DS9 ended it's run (I never even saw the last NEXT GEN flick).
So in my opinion, all this fanboy quibbling about the ship being built on Earth, etc. is missing the point. The point is: STAR TREK is back, and it's going to be bigger than ever.
By Jason B. at 9:21 PM ON 04/27/09
You know, I agree very much with the statement that this movie seems to have so much more energy that the recent movies. And that's what's been missing I think. That energy and action. I look forward to seeing this in the theater. It gives some life to the characters backstories that have so often been discussed, but never put in canon. I will have issue though with all the terribly coincidental type of stuff.
By Fitzy Of Sydney at 10:12 PM ON 04/27/09
Well I saw a special advanced screening last night. I am a Trekkie, and general lover of all that is Sci Fi.
It was BRILLIANT AWESOME......... FRAKING AWESOME!!!!!!!!
Well done JJ and Co.
By Jimmy at 10:54 PM ON 04/27/09
Some of the changes to canon annoy me, but if this movie re-energizes the Star Trek franchise then I'll be happy. For a long time I thought the disastrous series Enterprise would be the nail in Star Trek's coffin. I'm glad to see I was wrong.
By I am Spock at 11:16 PM ON 04/27/09
Hopefully this review will make the nay-sayers who haunt this site shut their fool yaps.
By wolf2112 at 11:22 PM ON 04/27/09
As a fan from the time when Shatner's hair was real, I'm looking forward to this reboot.
By Captain Zacary R Wildstar Captain SSD Dexterous at 11:24 PM ON 04/27/09
Today Boys And Girls we are going to do a film comparison. In 1969 the 6th James bond film came out It was called ‘On Her Majesty's Secret Service’ Box office wise it tanked. Almost killing the franchise until what happened? Anyone, Anyone, that’s right they brought Sean Connery back. In fact most James bond fans today refer to it as ‘the one with the guy I cant remember his name.’ Why Because they changed bond and the movie tanked. Just Like some Star Trek Fans Refer To ST: The final frontier as the one Shatner directed. I’ve been reading and commenting on all scifi wire overabundance of stories on the film. And If you average up the comment 53% of star Trek Fans aren’t in favor of this film. And with that percentage not even Bela Oxmyx could survive a hit. If JJ would have Eased in a rebooting instead is “This is My Star Trek” Slap in the fans face he might have had a better chance. But even the story (slowly Reviled on SciFi Wire over the last here month ) and then outing it today is lame A Romulan back from the future to destroy kirk in an alternate universe? Who Cares? My star Trek is safe and sound in the 23-24 century. Nothing in this film effects them. It’s a burp from the Guardian of Forever. And it was built to take care of inconsistent time anomalies like this film. So I say go Se it if you want to But Remember and this is the important part. No Matter what Paramount, JJ Abrams or the poorly designed poster call it ain’t Trek.
By Muldfeld at 11:38 PM ON 04/27/09
Action surrounds us in the cinemas. We don't need more of J.J. and his crappy Transformers' writers notion of "action". This movie obviously has no political insight or intelligent, psychologically realistic behavior. It's just obvious, cocky Americana. Just like "Iron Man". No thanks. Star Trek died with the end of DS9; BSG and The 4400 were more like Star Trek: DS9 than this superficial tripe.
Long live Ira Steven Behr.
By gday at 11:47 PM ON 04/27/09
i have a rule. never trust someone's opinion about a movie if they haven't seen it. i think it's a very wise rule.
By Gunslinger at 12:00 AM ON 04/28/09
As one of the "Cannon" balls I will still say that energizing a changed canon is fine, as long as everyone knows that canon has been changed. But don't say "it's ok because it's more energetic and re-energizes things. Moses parted the Red Sea. If you say it was the Black Sea, but it's more energetic and the Bible is Back, it's not the Bible, it's a new book. This may not be your Dad's Star Trek, so don't expect him to enjoy it.
By dakalmog at 12:55 AM ON 04/28/09
I was also lucky enough to see a preview screening last night, and I think this review is pretty much spot on. It was a very entertaining, very enjoyable film. The performances by Pine, Quinto and Urban were all perfect. The humor and in-jokes are outstanding.
One of the key issues not mentioned by this review, however, is that Star Trek as we knew it has now been wiped out by the events of this film. That's a pretty big ask for many fans, and I can understand why many people will not want to accept that change - it is a big change.
Not everything worked. Some of the casting is weak, the plot issues are obvious, and I really did not like a lot of the non-bridge interior shots of the Enterprise, which are very industrial-looking. But for mine, it was a very well-executed, extremely entertaining film that may win a lot of new fans. I'm already looking forward to seeing it again, and I'll be paying for my ticket next time around.
By j-dub at 1:19 AM ON 04/28/09
I CANNOT wait to see this movie! I wish the next week and a half would fly by!
By t-dog at 2:03 AM ON 04/28/09
Seriously! All you wannabe Star Trek fans need to grow up and move out of your mom and dad's homes. It is time that you gave up on what you think Star Trek is all about and allowed someone to reboot Star Trek from what it had become. Dumb and obvious.
I was Trekkie and loyal minion of the show for over 20 years. But like everything Rick Berman touched, he destroyed. All you nay sayers can call it what you want. But the fact of the matter is that is time for Star Trek to change and become what it was meant to be. Entertainment. I know alot of you loyal Trekkies will go crazy over that comment and go off on me. But you know what they say. The truth hurts.
I am excited by what I see and hear. I am going to see this movie with an open mind. If you are close minded when you go see the movie that is what you will get in return.
All of you that have made negative comments about the casting, special effects, technology and the script need to put up or shut up. Where were you two years ago when Enterprise was tanking the franchise? That's right, you were all sitting at home wearing uniforms that didn't fit and cursing the writers. But change never came. Wanna know why? Because much like all Star Trek fans you are all bark and no bite.
Just go see the show with an open mind and like it for what it is. Entertainment. Anything else is just a waste of time and all you nay sayers should be ashamed. Thank you JJ for bringing life back to the franchise. I hope to see more after this movie breaks the box office charts.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 2:49 AM ON 04/28/09
gday said "never trust someone's opinion about a movie if they haven't seen it."
But that's just it. This isn't your father's moviemaking. This is just the first edition. You can't trust any opinions until the Cinema Lover's Collector's Edition Special Edition Director's Cut Anniversary 3-D IMAX Final Edition Remastered Blu-ray with remixed 10.3 Surround Mix and 10th Generation New-Improved Special Effects Disc is viewed!
And what about the people who make a movie? They always get to see it before everyone else. Do you still trust their opinion because they've seen it even though they have a vested self-interest and possibly turn a blind eye to its flaws?
Is this just as valid reasoning: "never trust someone's opinion about a movie if they haven't seen ISHTAR."
Which reminds me, I wish Mr. Abrams would say which venue he filmed and edited this in his mind's eye? Because it seems all these reviews are not of the IMAX release.
By IGPNicki at 3:27 AM ON 04/28/09
You know, energizing is one thing, even making a few small changes to canon to fit your plot is okay, but this movie looks like Mission Implausible. And while Abrams pats himself on the back for not beinga Trek fan and thus being able to see the series' flaws, I wonder if that doesn't translate to a lack of passion in the material that can't be hidden for all the car chases and other FX in the world. Also, there's a big difference between Firefly shakey cam and BSG shakey cam, and I really hope he steers towards the less obvious Firefly shakey cam.
http://www.igp-scifi.com/jj-abrams.html
By xdeathknightx at 4:11 AM ON 04/28/09
Sorry Son Of Maui but you are just grasping at straws big time. The reasoning is correct, you have tons of people here saying it sucked without even seeing the movie going on a few tidbits they read and a few things they saw in a trailer.
Now had these people seen the movie and said: "Well I'm sorry but I don't like it for this and this reason" I would be more than ready to believe that the movie was just not for them.
Plus the fact that they have no problem speaking for other people, we've had a few people here that saw it and liked it or are enthousiastic while if you have to believe the naysayers they all hate it.
Next to that the IMAX release might have a few more extra scenes but that will never change the feel of the movie, it's just a little extra for the fans. I've seen the dark knight extra scenes and they aren't that movie changing. So if someone sees it in a regular cinema they have seen the movie and they can either praise it, say it didn't do much for them or hate it.
It's better than star trek "fans" desperately trying to bash this movie without seeing the movie and going in defensive mode when someone points this out.
By xdeathknightx at 4:16 AM ON 04/28/09
Oh and as for your question: Yes I would much rather hear from someone with a vested interest in the movie what he or she feels about it after seeing it and how much fun they had making it than hearing from jaded fanboys going off on a trailer. At least their comments will be made after seeing the actual movie.
By Nid at 4:34 AM ON 04/28/09
Oh! a SciFI Original Movie Review! Now I don't have to see the movie. I have spoiler scat all about me!
Thinking about a New Star Trek Movie makes me mad about the other nine movies. I always hear about how the actors had to watch out or they would tear their uniforms and there was no budget. Clearly in both the TV show and the Movies there could have been MORE special effects. Paramount sure knows how to feed a cash cow.
I hope this Star Trek has lots of space action. I always wanted to see the Enterprise fly around and kick ass. Thanks to Trailers and SciFI Original Spoilers it looks like the Kelvin flies around pretty good.
Reading these blogs and listening to everyone's opinion reminds me of how hard it must be to create a good story or mine one from a book or TV show and convey its ultimate image into movie form. It is a big feat and it is admirable. There are 100 percent great examples like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and then you have the Phantom Menace Trilogy!. The verdict will always be out on these movies and as long as movie theatres sell popcorn I will be on line to see them.
P.S. When will Josh Whedon make a Firefly Sequel? Quick before Morena Bacarin gets all wrinkly!
By Bird at 4:53 AM ON 04/28/09
Right! I've been reading through all these Star Trek comments for ages, time to pitch in. Once upon a time Star Trek wad DEAD. Even Roddenberry had given up on it. So I've always had a soft spot for Star Trek evangelists, after all, if it wasn't for Star Trek's passionate fan base we'd never have got any of the movies, the Next Gens or the spin-offs. Now some might say that would have been a good thing given the output. I mean, as a lover of the original series I have to say I hated the new vision. I went from watching every re-run of the OST and collecting the DVDs back when Eps were $25 a pair, to the point where I just gave up on it. All those dreary shows and the mismatched casting, bland-badly fitting uniforms, plastic foreheads, mezzanine bridge designs, Pinnochio storylines, MIini Mouse captains; it all bored me to death and, with the odd exception, or rather the 'even' exception, the movies just got progressively worse to the point where I didn't even bother. Sad when I recall all the petitions I signed, letters I wrote and discussions I had back in the day, trying to convince the network to bring the SHAT-PACK back. However, were it not for that continuation, we wouldn't have a new movie to wet our appetites, or get our teeth gnashing.
These days however, I have to say that some of the evangelistic zeal with which some of these 'Trekkies' are attacking JJ's production before they've even seen it, has raised more than a single raised eyebrow. They've been doing it since the production was announced. "NOOOO! `Kirk would never do this, or that! If that happens, how's he going to fall in love with Joan Collins or discover his brother grew a moustache on Bull S**T Prime???" RECAST SPOCK???
Well, STAR TREK: NEW YOYAGES/PHASE ll have been doing it for years and I have to say it's a lot more FUN than any of those dull Sci-Fi soap operas. CANON? if it was down to me I'd assemble all those ST miseries on the Paramount back-lot and fire them out of one.
Star Trek was on its arse. For the first time in years it went from having two or three shows running simultaneously to ZERO and no foreseeable future. My sense from all the interesting articles I've read here (Thanks SCI-FI) and elsewhere, from the clips and the interviews, is that everyone involved
a: LOVED aspects of the original show and tried to do it justice and
b: had a great time doing it. You know, as opposed to having leading characters walking around looking like they'd had medical tricorders rammed up their rectums and
c: sorted out the curse of the wobbly sets.
They even brought back versions of the original uniforms and I LIKE girls in short skirts damn it!!
I'm very excited and optimistic for the New Trek. I can't wait to see this and I hope that Star Trek re-establishes the global audience the original concept deserves
By markus at 5:05 AM ON 04/28/09
some of you people need to get out of your parents basements, kiss a girl, get a life and accept Star Trek is now for the masses and not just for a bunch of computer science geeks.
TNG/DS9/VOYAGER all sucked - boring, vanilla TV for computer science graduates and 40 year old virgins. Everyone in it was ugly and old - just like alot of your guys.
Trek is now, action, speed, excitement, intense, attractive and cool. Being that, who gives a dam whether the nerd trekkies like it.
By I Am Not Spock at 5:06 AM ON 04/28/09
Bird, has said something I've been thinking but I couldn't find the words. I love the phrase "evangelistic zeal". That episode of "Futurama"was right, some fans treat Star Trek like a religion. Well it's not a religion, it's a TV and movie franchise with 40 years of baggage and it's time for it to lose some of that baggage or be left in the dustbin of history. I know that's mixed metaphor , so don't bother pointing it out.
By Sigh at 5:10 AM ON 04/28/09
Firstly, the seeming ambiguities about the plot are made clear if you read the 4-part "Countdown" comics. They lead into the movie.
Secondly, this is an alternate timeline folks. Canon doesn't really apply here.
HINT: Nimoy is credited as Spock PRIME, not Old Spock.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 7:08 AM ON 04/28/09
xdeathknightx,
Doesn't yours and gday's philosophy, in order to stay logically consistent, require you to also ignore all the comments from people who haven't seen the movie and praise it effusively?
By Spaceman Spiff at 7:22 AM ON 04/28/09
“Old clunker?” He lost any credibility with me right there.
Personally I thought Insurrection was a very fun movie.
markus; If your going to be insulting, you could at least try to be original.
Sigh; I should not have to read a comic to understand what is happening in a movie.
By xdeathknightx at 8:57 AM ON 04/28/09
@Son of a Maui: Yes and I will ignore those people until they state they have seen the movie. The reviewer of this movie has seen it, and one person in the comments claimed to have seen and loved it. Most other people just state that they want people to give the movie a chance and that they are interested in seeing it.
That being said I haven't seen people praising it without seeing it.
You have the "The movie sucks based on the trailer and because it isn't a carbon copy of the canon"
And you have the "Give the movie a chance it might be good, let go of the frigging canon for once. I at least am interested to see what Abrams did" people commenting.
One part is bashing the movie without ever seeing it, the other part is willing to give it a chance and form an opinion for themselves after seeing the full movie.
By Shaun at 9:01 AM ON 04/28/09
"No Matter what Paramount, JJ Abrams or the poorly designed poster call it ain’t Trek."
actually...it is. you can choose to ignore it. but there are many fans, myself included, who welcome the opportunity to see star trek again. i choose to be an optimist, and welcome new ideas and a fresh take on the franchise i have enjoyed for many years. and in the end, it is just a movie. real life will continue to move forward.
By Informed Misery at 9:14 AM ON 04/28/09
I'm really tired of movies set in the future but look almost identical to today. Beastie Boys and Budweiser... yeah, that's what I want in the 23rd century.
By Giavs at 9:22 AM ON 04/28/09
I know, I know, if it bugs me don't read the article....but enough already. This is not building excitment it's fostering annoyment.
By hebramleigh at 9:26 AM ON 04/28/09
Star Trek was a product of the 1960's, with 1960's TV effects, a limited budget, and heavily censored. Compare TNG with the original, and many people can say TNG is NOT Star Trek.
The series much change with the times or it will die and stay dead. Doesn't anyone remember how bad the first 2 seasons of TNG was? It barely remained on the air because many of those first episodes were too similar to the original scripts from the '60s. It was only when TNG expanded and "modernized" that it became truly popular. Give this movie a chance; you might be surprised.
And Munfeld, can you not write a SINGLE post without whining about the evils of America? Go to Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or any of the other nations you love to tout and write an internet blog critical of those governments. You'll be in jail and beaten by the end of the week.
Get educated on other cultures before you knock Americas. You are only showing your own ignorance and bigotry.
By Snowkestrel at 9:47 AM ON 04/28/09
@ hebramleigh: "Americana" is not "America".
For all that Star Trek maintains multi-cultural casts and tries to portray a world where nationalism has been replaced with a view of Earth as one big happy planet, The attitude and philosophy of Trek has always been distinctly American. Whether you see that as good or ill is your opinion. As an American, it suits me fine, most of the time.
But I do mean 'most' of the time, not all of the time. There have been many times throughout the history of the Trek franchise(s) that I have watched what went on and felt that the aspects of Americana in the show or movie were too prevalent in comparison to the world as it had been described to us before. That's not America bashing. That's bashing the writing.
BTW_ I completely agree with you on Trek as a product of the 60’s. I look forward to the modernization. Hopefully, the balance between 21st century modern and Trek future will be right.
For anyone who is interested, Tor.com is doing a “Star Trek Rewatch”- all of the Original series episodes, in broadcast order, reviewed and posted and up for comments. The two reviewers seem pretty sharp, and reading their take on the episodes is much fun. You should check it out!
@ Informed Misery: You go to the right radio station, or the right places, and you can hear music that's 50, 100, 300 years old or more. When I have a beer out, I tend to drink Guinness, which was established (according to its labels) in 1759, which makes it 250 years old. While I personally would not have chosen Beastie Boys or Budweiser as examples of things that last into the 23rd century, they and classic/reproduction corvettes (or even Nokia phones) are not really that much of a stretch.
Personally, I would enjoy a discussion about what we would expect to see as having survived from today into the 23rd century. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
By Hyperwraith7 at 9:53 AM ON 04/28/09
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this judging by this review and some of the fanboy comments I've seen lately.
I honestly don't understand why people seem to think that Star Trek had been losing its way. Sure, it was evolving into something a little different than Gene Roddenberry might have intended, but that's part of human nature right there. We evolve. We change. And yes, I admit that Nemesis probably needed to go through one or two more drafts in the screenplay phase before they decided to shoot it, but I liked the idea behind that film. I liked the idea behind Star Trek Enterprise too, and I personally think that was the best of the five shows. Mainly because it had the most interesting story to tell. This wasn't just another ship out there exploring. It was the FIRST ship. There was no Federation yet. No one knew who humans were out in the Galaxy. They were on their own, and even their closest allies the Vulcans didn't fully trust them yet. I found that very interesting. And THAT was uncharted territory for Star Trek too (just like Kirk and Spock's first meeting). We never knew exactly how the Federation came to be, which was the story Enterprise ultimately told. And it was told well (for the most part). But we don't give that show any credit for boldly going where virgin fanboys who've memorized and worshiped every episode of the original series would cringe to see them go. And we have no problem giving all that credit to JJ Abrams now simply because he brought Spock back. What about Rick Berman and Brannon Braga? Let's demonize those two a little bit for their efforts to destroy Gene's creation, fanboys.
Don't get me wrong. I'm looking forward to this movie too, but I always appreciated the other shows and their casts (especially Enterprise, DS9, and Voyager) for daring to go places that the series before them didn't, even if it meant showing the darker side of humanity along the way. Because, let's face it, no matter how much of utopia we manage to create by the 23rd or any century, we're never going to get rid of that part of our collective psyche. And Star Trek is the better for accepting that fact instead of denying it.
By Snowkestrel at 9:56 AM ON 04/28/09
...and speaking of surviving brands- from the look of the iBridge, I would guess that Apple is still around. I wonder how dated THIS bridge will seem in 10 years.
How about it Sci-Fi Wire? Got any info on current brands or products that show up in the new Star Trek movie? Give us an article on that. It woudl be a nice change fromreading another rehash of what JJ was thinking while he filmed this, and I think it would be fun to watch for them when seeing the new movie.
By hebramleigh at 10:29 AM ON 04/28/09
Snowkestrel:
My shot over Muldfeld's bow stems from months of reading his comments on Sci-fi sites. He has to reference his hatred of America at every opportunity. I, for one, am tired of it. His comments show remarkable ignorance of history and facts at the best, and a willingness to out-right lie at the worst.
I realize this is supposed to be a site on science fiction, but as long as Sci Fi Wire allows him to post his political views, I fully intend to counter them.
As for your statement that Star Trek has always been heavy on "Americana," it is correct. But Star Trek was developed for an American audience dispite it's "international" flare. Of course it will be heavily influenced by American culture.
As of now, like it or not, American culture is one of the dominant culture in the world. Our tv programs and movies are shown world-wide; students come from every corner of the earth to study at our universities; the images of the lone cowboy, Coke, and McDonalds are recognized in even the most remote corners fo the world. It only makes sense that in the future many elements of "Americana" would still exist.
Remember, I didn't say American culture is superior; I just said dominant.
By dakalmog at 10:40 AM ON 04/28/09
One of the things I should have mentioned was that at the screening I went to, there were a large number of Star Trek fans. Some wore costumes, spanning all eras of the TV series and movies, and there were Klingons and Vulcans in the mix. You could tell there was a lot of love for Trek in the theater.
This made the screening an enjoyable experience. The audience really responded to all the humor, the important character moments, the action and the drama. At times there was spontaneous applause. As the end credits rolled, everyone clapped.
The love for Star Trek had not left. It had been reignited.
I'm a big fan of TOS, TNG, DS9 (my favorite series) and I really enjoyed much of the last season of Enterprise. I could have happily had another Next Gen film to try to erase the memory of Nemesis, but it wasn't to be. This new film succeeds on many levels. It has its flaws - many of them - but it's definitely worth seeing. It's shiny and new, but it *is* Star Trek.
I hope those people who are concerned about this movie go along and see it for themselves. You never know, you might enjoy it - just like those Klingons, Vulcans and members of Starfleet in our audience did.
By Sylver at 1:55 PM ON 04/28/09
Despite a keen hatred of Hollywood remakes I'm rooting for this one and do not expect to be disappointed. Of course you will get old school Trek fans moaning simply because it isn't 100% faithful just the same as we had to suffer with the anti Ron Moore Battlestar 'fans'. Nevermind the fact the new BG p*ssed on the camp original from a great height! As I am always keen to point out if you don't like something don't buy the movie ticket or rewatch the original but some your b*tching already!
By Planet_Earth at 2:00 PM ON 04/28/09
Anyone that doesn't think this movie is going to be a smash hit and make a ton of money is clearly living on a different planet.
We will be talking about the sequel this time next year. Mark it down haters.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 2:06 PM ON 04/28/09
Paramount's new "alternate timeline/parallel universe" mantra could be an interesting marketing decision.
Now, EVERYTHING is canon.
Trek novel doesn't fit? - alternate timeline
Comic Book says Warp Drive uses Bi-lithium batteries? - alternate timeline
But this could backfire on them too:
Paramount tries to maintain print Trek is NOT canon? - the fans point out: But it is in AN ALTERNATE TIMELINE!
Maybe Warner can lend them a hand before Paramount has a CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS.
Somehow I don't think Paramount's going to be happy with alternate timeline fans?
By jpnoir at 2:43 PM ON 04/28/09
Wow, those folks who shot down the film before it come out, that's not the spirit of Star trek at all. i say full speed ahead and see what's out there in this new era of Star trek univerese. its big enough for all eras and more. judgements have no place in this univerese unless your a old fashioned klingons! make it so!
By Jpnoir at 3:09 PM ON 04/28/09
I also recalled when before TNG came out on TV, there were lot of hate from the trekkies. the cycle repeats. "if you like it, you do. if you dont then you boo!" - JRR toilken
By old Trek rules at 4:07 PM ON 04/28/09
soon as you called old Trek "a clunker I bailed on your review. See why this site sucks?
By ctmm at 5:18 PM ON 04/28/09
a couple of your blogs Bash the series Enterprise, but if you remember back they were bashing the hell out of the startrek movies and The next generation series and movies . DS9 and Voyager were the reason I quit watching. They are the cause of the fall
of the franchise NOT ENTERPRISE serise.
By smegforbrain at 7:12 PM ON 04/28/09
"some of you people need to get out of your parents basements, kiss a girl, get a life "
Some of you need to find a new routine. Your pitiful bleating was old years and years ago.
But I find it f*cking hilarious that us "geeks" who have followed Trek for years and decades are now being pushed aside by a bunch of geek-wannabes who now think they get to step up and claim Trek as their own after crapping on it all this time.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 7:23 PM ON 04/28/09
jpnoir said "...that's not the spirit of Star trek at all."
What are you talking about? Mr. Roddenberry shot down stories and scripts all the time. Just ask Harlan Ellison.
By teatyme1 at 7:42 PM ON 04/28/09
Now I know I'm just a youngin' to most of you seasoned TREK lovers, but I have to say that all this naysaying regarding a movie you have not seen yet is really not needed. As Chancellor Gorkon's daughter said, let us come to the point: This movie will be good.. Paramount has shown that it really, once again, believes in the value of Star Trek, and they are standing behind thier product. Now, JJ Abrams & Co. will never be able to please EVERYONE with thier movie, but they have done something that hasn't been seen since 1979, which is make Trek viable again. To all of you who are upset with everything, from the marketing campain to the special effects to the SIZE and scope of the Enterprise, even right down to the colors of the uniforms....really people, Star Trek lives again, shouldn't that be enough? Because where there's a movie, if this does wel, there will be a series...it's been a while let's make Majel and Gene proud
By smegforbrain at 8:12 PM ON 04/28/09
"shouldn't that be enough?"
No.
Because I don't want a prequel that reboots into an alternative universe. Because I don't care for half the casting. Because I think time travel is completely overused in Trek. Because using Romulans again after the disaster that was Nemesis was lazy.
And the more I hear about this film and what occurs (with Vulcan, with the creation of an alternate timeline, the fact that Nero is just another forgettable villain, and so on), the more I want this film to fail.
As a 'vision' of Trek, I think this is a terrible one. And I don't need much beyond the trainers and TV spots, with it's Budweiser ads and Godzilla-wannabe monster, to tell me that. Simply put: Star Trek 90210 isn't for everybody.
By rkf at 12:09 AM ON 04/29/09
Then don't go see it.
By Captain Jack Harkness at 7:18 AM ON 04/29/09
Don't worry. I won't go see it.
By STARTREK_IS_STARTREK at 7:51 PM ON 04/29/09
I'm a huge star trek fan. I collect the merchandise, I watch and respect ALL of the series, I watch and respect ALL of the movies.. As a fan of Star Trek in general, I don't care what "alternate timeline" its from. I don't care if it is a coincidence how they got where they got, I just enjoy Star Trek. I don't expect everyone to do the same, I just can't believe that there are so many people preaching this way or that. To me, all that matters is that we're getting another Star Trek adventure.. more of the Enterprise, more phasers, and photon torpedoes, more Playmates toys (ok.. maybe that's not as great as it should be), and finally another movie to add to my collection. I'm overjoyed for this to come out, and I will support it with as much enthusiasm as I did the controversial scene where they killed Kirk in Generations.
Thanks,
Jay
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 12:28 PM ON 04/30/09
Jay,
At first blink, it would seem to be a great deal for the fans, i.e. opening up canon so that alternate timelines are official for Trek. After years of being told that print Trek is not canon, now J.J. hands us the mantra that makes it so: "alternate timeline". And it's a genii, that no matter how hard Paramount tries, is darn near impossible to put back in the bottle.
And at first blink for Paramount, they might think it is a marketing bonanza, because whereas before they might have had to carefully weigh what merchandise they license to slap on the brand Star Trek - now the sky's the limit no matter how seemingly absurd. If the fans object the press release explains "alternate timeline 3468.7459". Just imagine the kind of money Paramount could have flooding through their coffers for "Star Trek" brand nuclear missiles.
I think it is readily apparent that once they drag Trek onto this slippery slope it loses its boundaries. Where once it was a shining beacon on the hill guiding us towards our dreams - it now becomes a diffuse amorphous blob of background radiation pointing in all directions and leading to nowhere.
Because of these choices, now an Enterprise captained by Darth Vader and crewed by Luke, Han, Chewbacca and Leia is just as valid and canon as this new movie.
In fact, some will say that is exactly what the Abrams camp has done: made the best STAR WARS movie since Episode 6. Disagree? Its just a SW alternate timeline.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 3:56 AM ON 05/07/09
Even though I resent some of their tactics, I have to admit it is refreshing to see Paramount actually back a Trek release. They invested as much in marketing it as it cost to make the thing.
I wouldn't be surprised that if impressive lines form on The East Coast for their 7PM that they'll free the West Coast theaters to start at 4pm.
By Muldfeld at 1:22 PM ON 05/07/09
This is the same old Paramount, Son of a Maui Portagee. Paramount was the ones who backed Berman/Braga's more ratings-driven approach to Trek in the films and Voyager and Enterprise.
The company didn't care about DS9, so it prospered. Paramount is the problem with Trek, plainly and simply.
By jbs780 at 2:29 PM ON 05/07/09
"By Captain Zacary R Wildstar Captain SSD Dexterous at 11:24 PM ON 04/27/09
Today Boys And Girls we are going to do a film comparison. In 1969 the 6th James bond film came out It was called ‘On Her Majesty's Secret Service’ Box office wise it tanked...."
OK, this is the second time you have posted this exact copy. Zac...Connery only came back for one more Bond flick...DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER... after that he DID play the part one more time, years later in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, which was a remake of THUNDERBALL, and is not considered part of the Bond franchise...the term which is used for film series, so franchise is the correct term used in reference to both Bond and Trekby the way...after DAF Roger Moore took over the role. And it was George Lazenby who played Bond in OHMSS.
And again with the 53 % tomfoolery! Prove that! Grabbing a figure out of thin air doesn't make it true. Maybe .53%...just as provable, and also grabbed out of thin air as 53%, is just as likely accurate.
Also, I think it has been established tha Nero IS NOTseeking Kirk...but rather...some one else, and The Guardian of Forever is not involved in the story. Of coarse those of us who actually go see the flick will find out for sure in a day or so, and them what don't see it will have no more call to complain than the fellow who did not vote but does not like the guy who got elected.
Post attempt 1-FAILED
Post attemt 2-
By Grammarian at 2:57 PM ON 05/07/09
The best part about it, jbs780, is that he failed to use a simple grammar and spelling check each time.
I guess those programs don't come installed on the Super Star Destroyer Dexterous. A good captain would have requisitioned them by now. ;-)
By Jaames at 3:56 PM ON 05/07/09
Some of the backstory and coincidences are explained in the 4 part prequel comic "Star Trek: Countdown". You can pick up the trade paperback (all 4 issues in one graphic novel) on Amazon for aroud $10.
By I Am Not Spock at 4:11 PM ON 05/07/09
I know the psychos like Captain Wildstar probably won't be moved by this but Leonard Nimoy wept when he saw the completed movie because it was so true to the original. There was a great article about it at Space.com. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090507/sc_space/leonardnimoycriedwatchingnewstartrekmovie
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 5:27 PM ON 05/07/09
Muldfeld,
You are preaching to the choir about Paramount, the BBgun, and DS9.
Still, I never felt that Paramount ever had the courage of their previous wrongheaded convictions to back them as much financially as they did this one. It's refreshing even though I think they put their marker on the wrong pony, once again, i.e. the central driving plot which revolves around a weak science premise and an even more weakly developed villain.
Don't get me wrong. As merely a movie I think it delivers acting from all involved (even the weakly written) that we should demand for our ticket dollars. And as a director Abrams is competent enough. But if the script wants to thrust Kirk prematurely into the captaincy that demands that it be forged by a confrontation with an adversary at least on the caliber of Khan. The special effects are more of a challenge to the Kirk character than Nero.
And the way Nero's developed, he's just not up to it. He's more of a Khan wannabe. He definitely lacks Khan's intellect. But I'll go into that spoilage after more have seen the flick.
My verdict is still another enjoyable Nimoy B SF movie in his repertoire but NOT the Moses that many Trek prophets have been proclaiming this movie to be.
This script is just not going to earn an Oscar nomination.
By Captain Jack Harkness at 5:41 PM ON 05/07/09
Others have said this before, but it needs repeating: You shouldn't have to read a comic book to understand a movie. Get it? Got it? Good.
By Cokeisit at 8:53 PM ON 05/07/09
Wildstar, I'm sorry about your health problems but it is your endless ranting and raving that got you labeled a psycho. No you are just trying to get some sympathy. You are the one who needs to "Man Up".
By Captain Zacary R Wildstar Captain SSD Dexterous at 9:21 PM ON 05/07/09
thank you very much i realy feel the love that star trek fans are known for. ever hear the story of how Geordi La Forge noot his name. Herbert!
By Zaphod at 1:11 AM ON 05/08/09
Just got back from seeing the movie and I loved it. I think they managed to get all the important stuff that makes Trek "Trek" right. Plus, it was a lot of fun. You can't ask for any more than that.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 4:42 AM ON 05/08/09
Captain Jack Harkness,
You are being too kind. That one has to read not one but FOUR comic books is a strong indication that a script has problems. Maybe it can all be blamed on the strike? And that may well have been the problem, but the end result just doesn't deliver on the so-called besting of all the stale old storytelling of the previous movies as promised.
I do suppose I should acknowledge that Paramount surprised me. After NEMESIS, I was thoroughly pessimistic that whatever it was in their culture there that caused them to back progressively worse Trek scripts after FIRST CONTACT would ever be shaken. This is perhaps faint praise but this STAR TREK script is better than NEMESIS.
By KZ at 10:38 PM ON 05/08/09
After actually seeing the movie I have a few thoughts to add to the discussion.
Those of you who love to nitpick will find much fodder for your proclivity. It really does screw with the so-called Canon more than I felt necessary. I won’t blather on about all the things that are illogical or inconsistent.
That being said, the only thing that bothered me was the alternate timeline thing. As we all know, this plot device has been used ad nauseum over the life of Star Trek. In every other instance our intrepid crew found a way to return to their own universe by the time things were wrapped up. Not so this time, and there are enough major differences that pretty much all of Starfleet’s future history, that upon which has all previous Trek (except Enterprise) has been based, is negated. Seems like quite a hole they’ve dug for themselves, what with no more Vulcan nor Romulus. I felt the story of the genesis of this command staff could have been told without resort to such an extreme measure. In fact, it would have been best to eschew the whole time travel thing altogether and just tell the story straight.
But it was a fun movie, I enjoyed it. The casting worked out far better than I’d expected, and as noted elsewhere Karl Urban knocked the McCoy character right out of the ballpark. Sulu? Not so much.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 4:59 AM ON 05/09/09
KZ,
Pon Farr's gonna be darn near impossible unless Spock Prime can give them some Romulan pointers on how to deal with it.
By Nomad at 6:33 PM ON 05/10/09
Now, if only J.J. Abrams would do a "reboot" of Wolverine, X-Men Origins...
By dude at 11:21 AM ON 05/25/09
This movie was just amazing. JJ is my hero!
By eddieever at 12:23 AM ON 06/04/09
Some genius used On Her Majesty's Secret Service to make a point about, well who can say. What he missed is that OHMSS is the BEST Bond movie (pre-millennium) and Bond fanatics know it. Try watching it again Horshack.
By HOWARD HARTZELL at 1:33 PM ON 09/25/09
I ama Terkker.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
HOWARD HARTZELL:
I ama Terkker....More »