Did you see "Into Darkness" this weekend?Hey everybody. Michael C. here.
When the Trekkies complain that the JJ Abrams reboot had abandoned the spirit of the franchise, I understand their point. I am certainly no Trekkie (or do they prefer Trekker? See, I have no idea.) But I was raised on Star Trek: TNG, and while that show was never a gateway drug to the larger Trek universe, it did instill a respect for what the brand could be at its best. Its combination of exploration adventure, an optimistic portrait of the future, and Bradbury-esque ethical conundrums is a potent mix when it’s firing on all cylinders.
So I sympathize when the die-hard fans accuse Abrams of gutting the heart out of the franchise and stuffing the shell with streamlined, box office friendly action. Sure the ship is still the Enterprise, and Kirk and Spock are still at the helm, but is it still Star Trek?
At the same time, as a movie fan first and foremost, I also felt the thing to do is judge the movie on its own terms. Should I deny I had a good time at a film because it didn’t meet my preconceived notions of what constitutes a Star Trek movie?
Now that Star Trek: Into Darkness has delivered more of the same hyper-charged fun and kicked off the debate again (Headline from Vulture: Prepare to be Bombarded Into Happiness) I think it’s about time I resolved the issue. Just how upset should I be about the dumbing down of Star Trek?
One cannot dismiss the displeasure at the reboot as the whining of unpleasable fanboys.
The films really have jettisoned the series’ spirit of philosophical exploration like it was so much useless ballast. Even the most action heavy installments of the original incarnation had thoughtful underpinnings. For all its histrionics, Wrath of Khan was about Captain Kirk’s grappling with middle age and the no win situation he spent his life avoiding. You could make a case the reboot is about teamwork or fulfilling your destiny or something like that, but I’m not buying. Abrams’ Star Trek is all about shiny surfaces, and unrelenting heart-attack levels of excitement and bad guys screaming “Kill them all!” I doubt Gene Roddenberry would recognize little of his original creation beyond the character names.
So that’s on the one hand. On the other hand: Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!
the first movie opened 34 years ago... into a different cinematic landscapeI can judge Abrams guilty of every charge I just outlined but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend I’m not entertained by his glossed up take on the material. The new Trek gets so much right that I criticize other action movies for getting wrong, I feel obligated to takes its side. Sure, these films would benefit by taking a cue from the original Trek, and mixing some substance into the nonsensical action clothesline the Trek reboots call a plot. The thoughtful blockbuster isn't impossible yet. District 9 pulled it off, to name just one recent example. Still, for all the good points the purists make about the shortcomings of these movies I just can’t muster any outrage. Getting angry at Abrams’ Star Trek is like getting angry at cotton candy. Yes it dissipates instantly, but it hit the spot while it lasted.
Trekkies should acknowledge that the brand that was pretty much dead by the time Abrams got to it, and the 2009 reboot amounted to a cinematic adrenaline needle to the heart. Now that Trek’s blood is pumping again the proper place for the intellectually engaging Trek that the fans long for is back on its original home, television. If a studio tried to release a film as slow paced and cerebral as Star Trek: The Motion Picture it would premiere at Sundance alongside the likes of Moon and Primer before opening on 2 screens in New York and LA. Meanwhile, intelligence and patience is the watchword of this golden age of TV drama. A new refurbished Trek would be so happy alongside the likes of Dr. Who and Game of Thrones.
So I guess in the final tally I give the new films a pass. What about you? Does the new slick Trek leave you feeling empty or do you apprectiate the thrill ride?
Previous Burning Questions
You can follow Michael C. on Twitter at @SeriousFilm. Or read his blog Serious Film