Abrams Trek review thread *HEAVY SPOILERS*

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Since I didn't want to bother with posting my lenghty review in stealth mode, I decided we need a special spoilery review thread. So enter here all ye who aren't afraid of being spoiled. The rest of you shouldn't have clicked anyway!

My review follows below.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Star Trek by J.J. Abrams
Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley

Having already decided from spoilers that I was not going to like J.J. Abrams's version of Star Trek and that I wasn't about to give him any of my money, I nevertheless caved in and watched the movie this afternoon. In my defence I didn't give him any money, courtesy of the advantages of being a newspaper editor I just flashed my press card and was admitted for free. Still, I'll have to write something up for Monday's paper to justify my subterfuge.

So what did I think of it? In one word I felt it was soulless. Being predisposed not to like it I walked out of the theatre with the same feeling I had before. This wasn't Star Trek, at least not my Star Trek. It was something else masquerading as Star Trek. It might have been an average-to-good sci-fi action flick in its own rights had it not been labelled Star Trek, and had the names and settings been changed. I suppose this it what it will feel to many of the non-Trek fans watching this, today's kids that doesn't have the emotional investment in Star Trek that I have. But is that enough to sustain this new version of the franchise for the coming 40 years? I somehow doubt that. There are a lot of things, sci-fi and otherwise, that competes for attention nowadays and I didn't think this movie stood out that much above the rest. Sure, there might be another movie or two of Trek 2.0, but that will be no different from, say, the Transformers or X-Men movie franchise.

My main gripe with Abrams Trek is the same as it was before I only knew spoilers, and it's that it not just reboots everything, it's that it in the process of doing so completely overwrites and erases all previous Treks (with the ironical exception of Enterprise). 700+ episodes and 10 movies spanning the last 43 years - never happened! Gone from the timeline! I would've accepted a more honest reboot à la Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica, which didn't pretend to exist in the same 'verse as the old Glen A. Larson show from the 1970s. It was just another interpretation of BSG, much like, for example other versions of comic superheroes (Adam West's Batman is not the same as Michael Keaton's or Christian Bale's).

But for whatever reason Abrams decided to tie his Star Trek into the pre-existing Trek by means of the tired time travel formula and Old Spock. Time travel in Star Trek has always been tricky, and frankly much too overused, but in the end the message was that you shouldn't tamper with the timeline lest everything changes. So Edith Keeler had to die, or the Krenim timeship had to be destroyed, or the temporal bugs in Archer's brain had to be eradicated. Even accepting the existence of parallel timelines (like the mirror universe) there was still one "real" continuity in the Trekverse that sustained the five shows and ten films. But no more, with Abrams Trek that proper timeline is gone. It does not even exist as a parallel timeline. It's wiped out along with Vulcan, Amanda Grayson and George Kirk. And this is, in my not so humble opinion, not just a great injustice to Star Trek but an insult to all the fans that has helped and kept this franchise running for longer than I have lived.

One of Star Trek's greatest strengths is its universe, the fact that it spans vast amounts of time and space. It's world-building in a classical sense, and it has, for better and worse, been building for over 40 years. There are details and a shared history coming together to form a mostly coherent whole that in itself is enough to create a sense of wonder. Sure, there are a lot of clunkers, some shows and movies are better than the others, but that's to be expected from something that has over 700 logged hours of screen time. We all have our favourites and pet peeves (I don't particularly like The Next Generation much anymore, or Voyager, but I accept that they're part of the great Trek continuity). It comes with the territory. But now we're supposed to accept that it doesn't matter because J.J. Abrams, a self-professed non-fan, is too lazy to adhere to previously established canon. With this movie he's now free to do whatever he pleases with Trek without being "burdened" with all that went before him. And by destroying Vulcan he sure has hammered that message down. That's not showing respect. That's being an iconoclast for the sake of being an iconoclast. I'm still amazed at the number of Trek fans that still eat this up.

It starts at the very beginning, when the Romulan Nero and his planetkiller ship comes back in time and destroys the very ship Daddy Kirk is onboard right at the time James Kirk is being born, thus changing the way young Kirk is brought up. I didn't see a lot of, if anything, that told me this Jim Kirk had any relation to Shatner's Kirk. But then this is another Kirk, changed by events. It's still a cheat since this Kirk could just as easily have been named something else and the story would've worked anyway, as a self-contained sci-fi adventure. He only has the name in common with the Kirk we know. And that in my mind goes for everyone else as well. I may be prejudiced against them, but I never got the "feel" that this was actually a young Spock, a young Uhura, a young Bones etc.

This is also where Abrams's overwriting fails. If this is supposed to be the original crew as we knew them, only as younger versions in a slightly (by then) changed universe, then there's a disconnect with what's previously established. I'm not just talking about the design aspects, uniforms, vessels and so on, but more seriously the characters. While our Kirk, from the real timeline, was a young starship Captain, he certainly wasn't the same age as his junior officers. He was in his thirties whereas people like Uhura, Sulu and (especially) Chekov was perhaps ten years younger. There's no way they'd be about the same age, attending Starfleet Academy at the same time. In fact, Abrams Kirk has even shorter time in grade and service than the others, and he still ends up commanding the Enterprise. This is not something that Nero could've changed.

In all this I suppose it's a minor nit to pick to point out the silliness of having a bunch of cadets suddenly rise to officer ranks. They haven't even graduated and yet as soon as they come onboard they don officers' uniforms, except Kirk who's on suspension. That doesn't stop him from becoming Captain before everyone else though. I know Pike in a moment of insanity made him the first officer, but it still is much too implausible. And speaking of Pike, from the real Trekverse we know he commanded the Enterprise for many years, with Spock as his science officer, before Kirk succeeded him. This is also nothing Nero could've changed just by destroying the Kelvin 25 years prior.

And the Spock/Uhura romance comes right out of left field. Also nothing that Nero's incursion would've precipitated. But then again, neither Zachary Spock nor Zoe Uhura feels like the Spock and Uhura I know. These are some other persons using their names. I know many have said that Zachary Quinto's Spock is a dead ringer for a young Spock/young Nimoy, but I fail to see it. He's a decent half-Vulcan/half-Human but he's not Spock. And while Zoe Saldana is extremely pleasing to the eye, she's not Uhura. Even Karl Urban's McCoy, another character celebrated as being much in tune with De Kelley's McCoy, didn't feel like the real McCoy to me. And Simon Pegg's Scotty was just reduced to comic relief. He's not the awesome bad-ass miracle worker I've grown to love. Sorry to say, but they all seem like impostors to me. They're decent actors mostly, and had they been called something else in a different setting I wouldn't have any problems. I could even have accepted them all as their Trek characters had Abrams gone the BSG route and just made a different take on them, like I can accept that Starbuck is a cocky female on nBSG. But for all intents and purposes, Abrams would have us believe that these characters are mostly what the younger versions of the real original characters would be like, and it just doesn't jive with me

The tech is also off. The engineering sections on the Starfleet ships are huge and more resembles the bowels of the Titanic, with a lot of steam, pipes, valves and railings, than what one would assume an advanced warp engine would look like. Even the NX-01 looked more advanced than this. And the less said about the iBridge the better, not to mention the Nokia product placement.

The Romulans are way off too. Nero and his band bear little resemblance to the sneaky and devious but sometimes even honourable Romulans we've come to know. These are just bald, tattooed space bikers with a mad grudge. But this is maybe what's left of them after Romulus gets zapped by that galactic-wide superdupernova (another very odd concept, together with the "red matter"). His actions make no sense either. How are destroying Vulcan and the Federation going to help stop that supernova? I discovered another discrepancy regarding the Romulans. Since Balance of Terror hasn't happened (and is now not likely to happen either) they shouldn't know what the Romulans look like and their Vulcan ancestry, but here they seem familiar. Uhura even knows their language - all three dialects.

The thing is, if Abrams did all this is order to lure a new generation of fans, it was completely unnecessary. He could've created a good Star Trek shoot 'em up-flick without destroying everything that went on before. God knows, old Trek has had its fair share of nifty space battles and action. Why the need to erase Trek 1.0 and thus alienating many old-timers? He could've made an action-packed movie still light on canon references as to not scare away the newbies, but kept it within the realm of continuity. And the beautiful thing about Star Trek for new fans is that once they're in, they'll learn that there's a vast universe for them just waiting to be explored. But with Abrams Trek they won't get that because from now on everything is brand new and what went on before doesn't matter.

So this isn't my Trek and never will be. If Abrams Trek does succeed in creating a new fanbase that will enjoy his take on it, I can only hope they enjoy it as much as I have with the previous Star Trek, but I'll bow out. In my mind I'll still consider Trek 1.0 as the real Star Trek and this as just an aberration with no connection to the rest, despite what is being said in the movie. In that I'm helped with the glaring inconsistencies mentioned above that cannot be explained by Nero's interference.

There's little point in me giving this a grade at all. Had it not been called Star Trek, or had it been an honest reboot/re-imagining I might have given it an average grade. But since it isn't... But for the purpose of this review thread not be skewed I give it a 1.

*****

This review can also be read at my website here

[Asso]

KTR, if previously I had some perplexities about "J.J. Abrams's version of Star Trek", now I have no doubt.
Your mind is my mind.

[JadziaKathryn]

I may be prejudiced against them, but I never got the "feel" that this was actually a young Spock, a young Uhura, a young Bones etc.

I do agree with this, although I am more satisfied with the movie generally and it being AU. But still, you raise good points. The most true-to-character aspect was Uhura mainly being there to look good in a short skirt and boots. I felt like her main role was the out-of-left-field romance with Spock. Uhura not having much purpose on her own as a character felt like TOS, as I mentioned elsewhere. And if it weren't trying to be "our" Trek it'd have been a better movie.

Plus, I still want to know where this puts the "real" universe.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Plus, I still want to know where this puts the "real" universe.

Nowhere! It's gone. Dead. Passed on! It is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker!

[Alelou]

I wonder if we're heading into the Great Trek Schism of 2009: fans who liked the Abrams movie vs. fans who despised it before they even saw it and kept despising it even after they had.

Whatever. I was delighted with it. Yeah, KTR makes good points about relative ages and the whole cadet thing, but I'm willing to let it slide. In fact, I think I like it better this way, because really Kirk's hold on his seat is more tenuous and his relationship with the rest of the crew is more equal. He's going to have to work hard to deserve it and even harder to truly feel he deserves it.

I'm not entirely certain how I feel about the Spock/Uhura thing, except that I think it does humanize Spock a bit, and it should definitely cut down on the slash...

I find it almost impossible to watch the old series anymore, even though I have a very profound affection for it. (You wouldn't believe how that transporter sound in the Burger King commercial makes me stop whatever I'm doing all over the house and look up.) I think this one is exciting and new and I can't wait for the next episode.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

I wonder if we're heading into the Great Trek Schism of 2009: fans who liked the Abrams movie vs. fans who despised it before they even saw it and kept despising it even after they had.

Then there's the other group of fans who I've seen on places like TrekBBS who in equal amounts have talked themselves into liking this movie even before they saw it and who are now unlikely to backpedal even if they were disappointed at heart. It goes both ways.

Yeah, KTR makes good points about relative ages and the whole cadet thing, but I'm willing to let it slide. In fact, I think I like it better this way, because really Kirk's hold on his seat is more tenuous and his relationship with the rest of the crew is more equal. He's going to have to work hard to deserve it and even harder to truly feel he deserves it.

But he's supposed to be the Captain! The commanding officer! He's not supposed to be equal with the rest. That's a huge burden and responsibility that was hammered home as far back as TOS The Naked Time. It's not supposed to be a frat party in space.

I'm an unashamed TOS fan and makes no apologies for that, but this movie is not just a violation of the TOS grew up with and love. It erases all the other Treks, ENT excluded, too.

[CX]

The same thing happened with ENT. The same thing happened with episodes of ENT (like *the_abomination*). The same thing happened with the relaunch books. The same thing happened with the Star Wars prequels. The same thing happened with the BSG reboot. And with that I rather ironically say: "all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again."

[anaM]

I have never been more unsure about a movie. I was one of those who wanted to like it and now there are things I like but there are also things I hate.
I like the fact that I see new Star Trek and it is interesting, in fact the beginning was breathtaking. I like the cast. They are good actors and given good stories they could shine. I can accept the alternate timeline, I always liked AU fanfic. I even find Spock and Uhura together ok.
I hate the logical gaps this film has, the stupid coincidences. That there is no Vulcan anymore. That with a little more work on the plot they would have made a really good movie.
So I'll go for a six and hope that there will be a sequel and that it will be better.

[Alelou]

I guess I don't see the other series as erased. I see them as still out there, in their universe.

AU is AU. I thought they actually took great pains in the movie to make the point that this was an alternative universe. Personally, I'm game for it, and I won't pine for Picard or whoever possibly being wiped out, because he's still there, to the extent he ever was. It's not like they are being wiped out of OUR minds. I mean, this is ALL fiction, you know.

I feared this new version would be dorky and stupid or dark and impenetrable and just plain not Star Trek, but to me it still feels like Star Trek -- a kick-ass, gorgeous, intriguingly amped-up version with a whole universe of possible new stories available to it. I think it's very exciting. Not exactly the way I would have done it in every detail, but very exciting.

[Asso]

I will see.
But I think there's a continuous line in Star Trek. If you break it, there's no Star Trek anymore. There's another thing.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

I guess I don't see the other series as erased. I see them as still out there, in their universe.

AU is AU. I thought they actually took great pains in the movie to make the point that this was an alternative universe. Personally, I'm game for it, and I won't pine for Picard or whoever possibly being wiped out, because he's still there, to the extent he ever was.

They did use the words "alternate timeline" or some such. But that doesn't change the fact that the Trek we know has been erased and replaced, just in the same way as it was when crazed McCoy accidentally went through the Guardian of Forever and saved Edith Keeler, which changed everything until Kirk and Spock followed him and corrected things again in City on the Edge of Forever.

That's how Trek has always treated time travelling. Without corrections, the previous continuity is erased. Imagine if Kirk had been down on the Guardian planet and just shrugged "Oh, well, there's another Kirk - in fact a gazillion other Kirks - out there where this didn't happen to, so I'll just go off myself." That'd be pointless.

[justTripn]

Maybe the canon has become so extensive, it's impossible to move in it to write a new story. If we know the entire future from canon, nothing much is ever at stake in any movie about Kirk's time. And Unless you are a Star Trek scholar, there is no way to write a canon-friendly story, so I can see a writer going, "The heck with it, this is a reboot." And I remember that by Voyager and DS9 the writers had already written themselves into some corners by having an all-knowing temporal police supervising everyone from afar. Where's the fun in that? If anyone truely screws up in their responsibiitie, a buracracy from the future will swoop in and patch things up in some inscrutable way. Bleck!

I find it difficult to write Star Trek stories correctly without combing through the archives of Memory Alpha, where I already find plenty of facts impossible to reconcile. The whole thing has gotten too big and unweildy.

I LIKE the reboot of Uhura. Before she had nothing to do. Now she has been Hoshi-fied. Great idea. Now we can take her more seriously. The Spock/Uhura romance was surprising AND surprisingly hot! I see these elements as two good changes for a reboot.

CX is correct that this rewriting of "history" ALWAYS happens with a new movie or series. How could it be otherwise? Enterprise screwed up canon, but I'm glad we had Enterprise.

HECK how many conversations have we had here: "If you were to reboot Enterprise [Voyager/DS9/The Next Generation] how would you do it?" So no one is against rebooting in the abstract. It's just that we didn't get to do it and J. J. Abrams did.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Maybe the canon has become so extensive, it's impossible to move in it to write a new story. If we know the entire future from canon, nothing much is ever at stake in any movie about Kirk's time.

Then why do a movie about Kirk's time? And why does everything has to be so whoopeedee-do at stake at all time? You can have interesting stories without having Earth at risk to being blown up all the time.

There's always the future, post-DS9 to explore if you want to true liberty to shake things up. But personally I'd be fine with a post-ENT, pre-TOS setting. That's an interesting time that could be compelling even if we know that Earth and the Federation will survive. Or some prefer the post-TOS, pre-TNG time.

And Unless you are a Star Trek scholar, there is no way to write a canon-friendly story, so I can see a writer going, "The heck with it, this is a reboot."

And like I wrote in my review, I could've accepted a more honest reboot, one that didn't go to such lengths in erasing the previous continuity, much like Ron Moore's nBSG.

I LIKE the reboot of Uhura. Before she had nothing to do. Now she has been Hoshi-fied. Great idea. Now we can take her more seriously. The Spock/Uhura romance was surprising AND surprisingly hot! I see these elements as two good changes for a reboot.

I kinda liked this Uhura too, but maybe that's because I think Zoe Saldana is incredibly hot. There's no reason to think, however, that Nichelle Nichols's Uhura wasn't a linguist either. For most of the time, even Hoshi was just opening hailing frequencies.

But I definitely didn't like the Spock/Uhura thing. That came out of nowhere and was frankly way out of character for both of them.

Enterprise screwed up canon, but I'm glad we had Enterprise.

Except that it didn't really. Not anymore than the other series did.

Sigh, I almost feel like a lone voice in the wilderness...

[CX]

Maybe the canon has become so extensive, it's impossible to move in it to write a new story.

Wrong. A good storyteller can keep within the bounds of what they have established. If they can't, they shouldn't bother. The problem with Star Trek has not been "canon" as so many have attempted to claim, it's been poor, unoriginal, and formulaic storytelling. The only way continuity has played into it is the apparent inability of B&B and others to be able to keep consistent within it.

If we know the entire future from canon, nothing much is ever at stake in any movie about Kirk's time.

This might be seen as a good reason to not do a movie focusing on Kirk and crew from that era. But to be frank I don't see "knowing the future" as any great handicap, because in the shows and previous movies, everyone knows that they never destroy the ship or kill anyone, but manage to still feel drama as the ship and the crew is put at risk.

And Unless you are a Star Trek scholar, there is no way to write a canon-friendly story,

Well, you could if you hired someone to help you with the continuity aspect, but to be frank this is a good reason why it's generally a good reason to not frak with something you know nothing about. Nick Meyer managed to do a pretty good job though for being a newcomer to Star Trek, which is why I held out some hope when I first heard of JJ Abrams being behind this film.

so I can see a writer going, "The heck with it, this is a reboot."

I would have had more respect for this movie if had been a straight up reboot like BSG. Of course I would still hate it, because every excuse I've seen for doing a reboot can easily be invalidated through logical argument.

And I remember that by Voyager and DS9 the writers had already written themselves into some corners by having an all-knowing temporal police supervising everyone from afar. Where's the fun in that? If anyone truely screws up in their responsibiitie, a buracracy from the future will swoop in and patch things up in some inscrutable way. Bleck!

Not really. DS9 had a bit that sort of made fun of what VOY did, but to be frank nothing ever done in VOY should be used to justify anything, not even breathing.

I find it difficult to write Star Trek stories correctly without combing through the archives of Memory Alpha, where I already find plenty of facts impossible to reconcile. The whole thing has gotten too big and unweildy.

I and plenty of other have no difficulty handling continuity. Frankly I don't understand what people find so difficult about it. And to be even more blunt, if someone can't do it for whatever reason, maybe they should create their own original sci-fi.

I LIKE the reboot of Uhura. Before she had nothing to do.

Yeah, now she's the eye candy. Not an improvement.

Now we can take her more seriously.

I can't. Not only did they make her uniform that much more sexist, but from what I've seen they've turned her into a stereotype.

The Spock/Uhura romance was surprising AND surprisingly hot! I see these elements as two good changes for a reboot.

That pairing makes me cringe. Not only was it out of left field, but the open manner in which its expressed on screen makes me cringe, too.

CX is correct that this rewriting of "history" ALWAYS happens with a new movie or series. How could it be otherwise? Enterprise screwed up canon, but I'm glad we had Enterprise.

Actually I was referring to the divisive nature of the movie, because I've been on the critical side for each of the things I listed, and as such I've been subject to a lot of flaming and trolling from the other side.

HECK how many conversations have we had here: "If you were to reboot Enterprise [Voyager/DS9/The Next Generation] how would you do it?" So no one is against rebooting in the abstract. It's just that we didn't get to do it and J. J. Abrams did.

That's because the majority of us could do a better job.