Monday, December 28, 2015

J.J. Abrams Haters of Star Trek show their Youthful Inexperience


Donald Trump, the NRA and Two Broke Girls – a lot of the things make me angry. But the hate some Trekkies have for the J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek, and my genesis wave cascades in fury. But I think I’ve found a reason on some counts for their lapse in logic.

Wondering if these kids can steer, I’m going with youthful in experience. They are simply late to the party and missed their elder’s evolution on Star Trek visionary storytelling versus adventure and its penchant for frivolous fun.

Let me begin with new movies.  I’m not really crazy about the two storylines that Abrams came up with. I mean if Nero can time travel to implode Vulcan, why not take the black hole back to Romulus’ pre-nova sun and inject the red matter.  Problem solved, Ahab averted and timeline preserved.

On Into Darkness, as the needs of the many began to reveal themselves, I could not contain my agitated mumblings to the dismay of the audience around me. “I think I’ve seen this movie before,” wrung true as 72 souls in stasis were revealed.

The remake in place, the three dimension strategic thinking that made Kirk roar was severely lacking here.  Was superior intellect really necessary to figure out that Spock was sending torpedoes rather than the expected cryogenics? Apparently this Khan was too smart for his own good.

But the inconsistencies expected in all science fiction movies aside, I love how J.J. Abrams has filled in the backstory that has long been a given and established the comedic baseline that is one of the key backbones of the franchise.  “I like this ship,” the new Scotty says it well.

Of course, the forward thinking and thought provoking vision is pretty much lacking. No kidding.

Probably seeing the movies at too early an age, your generation was simply too young to realize that saving the whales or passing on the end of history did not represent some sort of grand epiphany into the exploration of humanity.  For us in on it from the 70s or before, the movies frustrated us as frivolous romps that substituted Roddenberry’s vision for finding a wider audience on a bigger screen.

Reluctantly accepting the wildly entertaining II and IV, only Star Trek : The Motion Picture is original to the “Human Adventure.”  We know because most of the “action” takes place on the bridge, and the exploration reaches into the soul instead of bursting off the screen.

The 80th episode of the original series in my estimation, dusting off the franchise came up short at the box office, and economics forced the new paradigm.  Fortunately we got Star Trek : The Next Generation and the mission was on again.


So we of the rerun generation have just long accepted that the movies are for the expanse and the series are reserved for the introspection.  Star Trek Beyond and streaming on CBS, I cannot wait to round out my Trek.

1 comment:

CellarSinger said...

I think Abrams Star Trek was technically very good & an enjoyable movie BUT while Into Darkness was technically just as good I felt big chunks of the story line (esp Kirk's death & resurrection) was decidedly lacking in originality. Sulu's warning from the command chair was excellent & I loved McCoy's response.