Monday, May 11, 2009

Boldly Rebooting

So...
"Star Trek"!!! (light spoilers...duh)
First off, I want to make things clear. As is fairly obvious to all of you, I am a HUGE sci-fi fanatic. The "Star Wars" films shaped my life growing up, and other movies like the "Alien" saga, "Blade Runner," "Terminator," "Back to the Future" or even "12 Monkeys" really developed my love for the genre. I've more-or-less seen every well-known sci-fi film out there, for better or for worse. And I'm also the sort of guy who goes DEEP when it comes to imaginary universes. I'm that annoying guy who can pick out the names and backstories of every character in the Mos Eisley Cantina, or can readily quote exorbitant speeches from "The Lord of the Rings" without missing a beat (yes, it's a fantasy, not sci-fi, but it still proves my point). However, between all the Harry Potters, Losts, and Battlestar Galacticas out there, "Star Trek" never really captured my fancy. Sure, I've seen (most of) the movies, and I've seen many of the episodes from both the original series and The Next Generation that are considered the "best." And I'm familiar with the universe, more so than your average non-nerd. Hell, I even went to a convention in Vegas once just to check it out.
But I've always found Trek lacking...something for the nerdiest of nerds (though not quite as bad as D&D). The characters spend too much time talking and philosophizing, and the so-called "alien situations" they always run into are laughably hokey. And as a guy interested in biology and the biodiversity of nature, I've always wondered, "Why the hell does every alien species evolved on different worlds look exactly the same?" Yes, I've heard one Trekkie point out to me that it WAS explained in that one episode, but you know what? I don't care! It's a cop-out for an opportunity to otherwise showcase some really cool and interesting creatures. Instead we get stupid stuff like a planet full of hippies. And while I'm always one to advocate for story over style, the so-called "space battles" lack the zip, zoom, and cinematic frenzy of, say, "Star Wars" (I did my best to wait until the end of the paragraph to touch on "Star Wars" superiority). Instead, it's usually just a bunch of guys standing on a cheesy looking set, telling the computer to "fire" and discussing how much power is going to the main engines.
So, while some of the "Star Trek" movies are pretty good ("First Contact" and of course, "KHAAAAAN!!!"), most of them are so-so. Trek has always felt to me to be the lesser, weaker, runt of the litter compared to the other sci-fi franchises film has to offer. It's not that I DISLIKE Trek in any way. But I found it silly and could never get into it. I mean, seriously guys...Tribbles? They're pretty lame.
Luckily the new "Trek" really pumps things up a notch, and gives the tired franchise the burst of energy it needed to justify keeping it around at all. I've liked mostly everything J. J. Abrams has done, and this did not disappoint.
In many ways, the new movie does a lot of ballsy things that were big risks in order to pull this off. Recasting the original crew as younger (better-looking?) versions of themselves had many fans in an uproar, but all-in-all they do an excellent job. The real winner for me was Karl Urban (of LOTR!) as Bones McCoy, and I really liked Zachary Quinto as Spock. In many ways, Spock is the most interesting character in the film, and I think this is more his story than Kirk's. I got a pretty big lump in my throat when his mother (Winona Ryder?) disappeared from the teleporter right before his eyes. And I love the fact that the filmmakers had the cojones to destroy both Romulus AND Vulcan. I mean...VULCAN!!! Where one of the most important races in the "Star Trek" universe is from...GONE!!!
AND I love the fact that the movie was able to justify the concept of a reboot better than any other film I've seen. "Reboot" seems to be the new hit word in Hollywood. It's right up there with "content," which is what all the old folks tell us young folks regarding the Internet ("You're talented...give us CONTENT!!!"). In many ways, I'm insulted by the concept of reboots even more than I'm insulted by the concept of countless pointless sequels; "Let's forget adding on MORE pointless stories...let's just pretend the stories everybody has come to love and cherish didn't matter in the first place!" (say the studio heads). However "Trek's" alternate timeline model is done in a way to both respect the old films, and leave things completely open to do them their one way. It's quite ingenious.
On the other hand, a lot of what made "Trek" special HAS disappeared, making one wonder if this is really still a Star Trek movie at all. I think it still is...there is plenty of stuff in here for the die hard fans to recognize while still feeling fresh. If anything, they go a bit overboard on the constant one-liners and in-references ("Look, it's the Kobayashi Maru! Hey...it's a Khan-bug!"). But Star Trek always attempted to be about more than action-adventure space opera. There was often some greater surrounding issue that attempted to probe a few the universe's grander questions; questions that could not be solved by visiting countless planets, but by looking inward, at ourselves. Now, this is a lofty ambition, and more often than not, it worked better in concept than execution (THIS is the reason we got all that boring standing around). But the new film rarely even attempts to say anything more than, "Kirk must defeat the bad guys!"
Plus, I'm always bummed when the central conflict of a film lies on a misunderstanding, and not actual actions by the characters. It made sense for Harry Osbourne to seek revenge on our favorite webslinger because Spider-Man DID kill his father (his father just happened to be a psychopath), but it didn't make sense for Eddie Brock to seek revenge on Spidey, just because he THOUGHT Peter Parker stole his girl and job. In "Star Trek" Spock does his best to save the planet Romulus from a supernova, but is unable to, and Nero goes on a psychotic and unjustified rampage. Things would have worked a lot better if Spock deliberately chose NOT to save Romulus for some other reason.
Allow me to do some fanfic-speculation shit for a second, and say this: I'm pretty sure Romulus and Vulcan are in relatively close proximity to each other in the universe, seeing as the Romulans and Vulcans are supposed to be distantly related or something. What if the supernova was threatening both Vulcan AND Romulus? Old Spock only has the power to save one planet, and so naturally, he chooses his homeworld. Hence Romulus falls by the wayside and is blown to smithereens. THIS would have given Nero plenty of justification to kidnap Old Spock in the alternate timeline and force him to watch as Vulcan IS destroyed, just as Nero was forced to watch his home planet die. See? I should be a screenwriter! Believe me, I'm trying...
And there are other nitpicks too...Kirk's handling of the Kobayashi Maru test, while quite funny, left me wondering, "You didn't even TRY to fool people into thinking you did it?" I mean, the entire program shuts down, glitches, and then restarts, and Kirk is able to smugly defeat the Klingons as easy as possible. So much for subtlety. In fact, the lack of subtlety in the film might have been its biggest failing. I was REALLY stoked when it was revealed Kirk was going to have to take control of the Enterprise by showing Spock as unfit to command due to his emotions. Knowing how clever Kirk can be, I was expecting some elaborate scheme that would ultimately reveal Spock's weakness. Instead, Kirk just waltzes up to Spock, gets right in his face, and says, "You know what? You're a little bitch, Spock. And you're planet is dead. Doesn't that suck? Hard?! What are going to do about it? Cry, pretty boy?!?! What about yo' momma? You gonna cry for her too?" I guess one should always take the simplest route possible, but it seemed a little too easy. And that part with Scotty in the pipes was kinda silly. And I don't remember a Spock/Uhura relationship in the original series, although since this is an "alternate timeline" I guess it works. I suppose the lesson is, "If you want a beautiful girl to fall in love with you, make sure your home gets destroyed."
But despite its flaws, this is still the most kinetic and exciting (though probably not the best) Trek movie I've ever seen. Overall J. J. was able to respect the old films while still bringing his own directorial flair (and lens flare) to the mix. I jokingly like to say that in the middle of the movie Kirk lands on Abrams' version of Hoth, complete with Abrams monsters; first Kirk gets attacked by a "Lost" polar bear, and then by a redder version of the "Cloverfield" creature. And it's nice that in a time when just about every reboot is "darker" and more sinister than its predecessors (mostly thanks to the success of "The Dark Knight"), a big-budget movie like "Star Trek" can still have an air of optimism in the time of a bad economy, shitty jobs, and climate change. It's wonderful to hope that humanity may actually have a future, be able to explore the distant reaches of space, and "boldly go where no man has gone before." Plus, we finally got to see some real aliens!
Ultimately, "Star Trek" is the first movie this year that I DID enjoy that ALSO made a lot of money, which is nice considering how appalled I've been at the idiocy of the moviegoing public lately ("Paul Blart"??? "Obsessed"??? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!). And while I may be suffering a tad from Stockholm Syndrome, since the company I work at did make this nifty trailer, I still think this was a great entry to a franchise that needed a breath of fresh air. I only hope in the next one they work on establishing a bit more depth and drama (but not too much, lest we get that boring standing around again!). Also, I want a large-scale space battle with MANY ships, since the technology exists to do it now (and the opening of this latest movie was AWESOME, and that was only a one-on-one ship fight). The pieces are set...the new cast works great...let's boldly go on to the next one!

Also...
I finally got around to seeing "Frost/Nixon" the other night. What a great film! Frank Langella really deserved the Oscar nom for playing Tricky Dick. He seemed right up there with the best supervillains in the Spider-Man or Batman movies. Yet at the end, you feel really bad for the guy. Nobody likes him. His country hates him. He is completely alone. And yet through the standoff against David Frost, he has pretty much found the only person willing to listen to him; the closest thing he may have to a friend. A very complicated and interesting portrayal of our most-hated president (pre George W. Bush?).
The faux-documentary talking heads took a bit of getting used to (what is this, "The Office"?), and the movie really doesn't start to pick up until the interviews begin an hour through the film (although all that set-up was necessary), but that's fine. I've also heard that certain parts of this film were embellished for the sake of storytelling, but I'm OK with that too. I remember when Tom Hanks spoke at USC a few years ago, and he noted a few sequences in the film "Apollo 13" (also directed by Ron Howard) that were tweaked a bit from reality. Hanks said something along the lines of, "Factual truth and filmic truth are often not the same" and I'm inclined to agree. As long as you're not blatantly making stuff up, but staying true to the emotional beats of the story, I'm all for a bit of exaggeration to get your point across. Complete accuracy is great when you can pull it off (isn't it cool that the ship DOES sink in real-time in "Titanic"?), but you can still be truthful while changing the details. I think I remember Mark Twain saying the same thing.

Also, I'm writing this blog entry on my 23rd birthday! Every birthday, I like to look back to a year ago and see if I've actually made any steps forward. And you know what? I have! I'm more-or-less completely independent from my parents, I'm working in the industry, and I still am still close with all my friends. So things are not perfect. But they're good.
In other unrelated news, Will, myself, and others have put our foot down and we're going to make a feature movie in a few years, if not sooner. So THAT'S exciting!!!

Live long and prosper, fanboys!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home