Star Trek by J.J. AbramsReviewed 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