So, the good Peter and myself were able to see that presentation on the new Trek film that’s been doing the rounds. It consisted of a brief intro by a chap from Paramount (who admitted ruefully to have presided over the release of all of the other Trek films), then about 35-odd minutes of footage in four scenes, each introduced by the ever-personable onscreen mug of director JJ Abrams. The whole affair seemed at heart to be a marketing tool to get folks like us to voluntarily become part of the hype machine surrounding the film, and… well, I do believe it worked.
If I had to distill into a single phrase what we saw – it rocked.
Visually, it’s the shit – the actors are all hot young things, the sets, virtual and practical, look fantastic, the effects are spectacular (and not used just for their own sake, it seems) and, judging by the scene where a bunch of our heroes parachute from orbit onto some kind of weapony platformy thing and then get into fights with bad guys, it’s what Abrams does best; expertly-executed, visceral, exciting action. It was – dare I use phrases so hackneyed? – adrenaline-fuelled, edge-of-the seat stuff.
Well – that’ll be points towards gainful employment writing copy for DVD covers.
Great.
And the characters? Well, they seem carefully-realised young versions of the old stalwarts, except full of beans and new energy. Kirk swaggers his way around like the world owes him someth-, uh, everything, Spock is constructed entirely of logic and wry eyebrow-moves, Bones is all gruff practicality. Pegg is charming and funny as Scottie, Chekov seems to be on board primarily for gags about his accent. They’re goofy gags, sure – but when did Trek have anything but goofy gags?
When I reported this to two friends of mine who are big fans of the Shatner original (one of whom is also a friend of the show), however, they expressed a different sentiment. I love the old series, or at least I thought I did until my enthusiasm was torn apart as though by a <planet>-ian <fictious monster>-onax with teeth and claws of <impossibly strong>-ium. Their feelings were in the “I don’t want to see a great show made into an empty modern action-flick that’s all about spectacle and devoid of any merit outside of being made into a ride at Warner Brothers Movie World” sort of area.
They didn’t buy my “It’s not a WB film” protestations. As great big fanboys, I would’ve thought accuracy was something they’d care about. Sheesh.
So, a word of caution amongst my admittedly easy-to-provoke enthusiasm – indications are that diehard fans might have trouble with this new iteration. My friends could very easily be right, if recent cinematic history is anything to go by. It could be, as they justifiably point out, a big pile of soulless nonsense with a cheap Trek paintjob. I kinda hope that, instead, it’s the real and authentic soul of Trek, just given new life in a new body.
Ultimately, perhaps Star Trek was just never meant to rock… but I say bring it on.
Great review. It actually made me want to see it… whereas before I would go just because it is ST, but now – I WANT to go.
Cheers
Taez
Good work Justin. Now I’m hanging out for it to be released.
I just hope it’s not a disappointing pile of badly edited crap, like Quantum of Solace was.
Great review Justin. I can’t wait!
Dom.
Great review Gibbo.
If only I could see past what my eyes and brain tell me when viewing the trailer, and buy what they’re selling me like you do, I’d agree that I like the look of this movie, ahem… ’s very exciting!
Speaking of Pegg, whose killer scene from the trailer I quoted at the end of the last paragraph in case you missed it, and who is notably the only actor that you mention in your review (before trying to tar ME with the fanboy brush?), can you please never again refer to him as a “hot young thing”. While usually happy to work with your hero worship… I don’t need the visual I get from that.
So… yes, Star Trek. Can’t wait. I was dubious at first, but the moment I saw 10 year old Anakin (no, wait, Kirk… sorry) drive his priceless antique sports car off the edge of the Grand Canyon while being chased by robocop, I breathed a sigh of relief. Abrams had found the soul of Trek, and he’d nailed it. Nailed it up outside the gates of Trektown for the crows to eat, sure, but nailed none the less.
Yeah, and the scene where they dive from orbit. Man, that’s a kick-arse piece of action there. I can imagine the snappy editing and sense of unsurvivable, yet somehow totally survivable, danger already! That headfirst freefall into a fight scene hero thing is so unexpected from a Trek movie. More what you’d expect from a Mission Impossible movie or something I reckon. Heh, go figure.
I am on the edge of my seat already.
That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
And I don’t really disagree on any particular point of your incandescent fanboy rage – I just don’t see these things as the crimes you do.
The orbital drop does push the boundaries a little, but I once saw Indy slide under a moving truck and punch the shit out of Nazis straight after because his spinal column was mysteriously unexposed to the elements. The Kirk bit does look a little Anakin, and I really hope it doesn’t play that way, but I’ve also seen Captain Kirk travel in time to 20thC Earth save the fucking whales.
LOL!
I’ve seen Indy jump inside a lead lined fridge to survive a nuclear weapon test. That is the kind of boundary pushing that I’m talking about, so enough of you trying to compare this with your favourite Indy scene ever. You cheap arse fool.
And, yes, Kirk went back in time to save the whales. I grant you, this movie is practically guaranteed to be better than that one. But what you’re saying by bringing this up is… you are happy for any kind of liberty to be taken with the Trek franchise because it has been shit in the past? Pfft.
A little bit Anakin? Shiit… when the one scene they decide to show you in full in their trailer is one fucking MASSIVE flashing warning sign, man, and you still maintain your enthusiasm regardless… and you call ME a fanboy… well let me tell you this…
I am gonna have you on your knees, shaking and crying in despair after we see this movie. You will beg almighty Shatner for his blessed forgiveness for what your kind have done to his shining legacy. But it will never come.
In these troubling times….
…it’s the safe bet to dismiss unreleased films as crap, because the odds are generally with you… so sure, there’s every chance I’ll be walking out of this next year with head hung low and a catalogue of disappointments to rant about on the podcast. If that happens, I’ll buy us both drunk and we can talk about it.
My point in invoking Raiders is that in the very best films, a very fine and difficult balance is maintained between heroics and plausiblity. I totally agree that this simple understanding seems to have broadly vanished beneath a wave of Michael Bay wannabes, but JJ Abrams is one of the small number that have a really good feel for how to walk that tightrope, and that’s what I saw in the orbital parachuting scene… physics-bending heroics that were just believable enough.
I invoked bad Trek in the hope that somewhere in that Shatner worship machine you call a brain there remains enough capacity for introspection that you might ask yourself what exactly it is you’re being so precious about. I love old Trek too, and I do share your apprehensions, I just think that there’s nothing left there to covet. What does it say that the Save the Whales movie was actually one of the more entertaining ones? Shatner and Picard are on the mantelpiece, gathering dust as increasingly irrelevant kitschy curios, but Trek itself doesn’t have to stay there with them.
“I am gonna have you on your knees, shaking and crying in despair after we see this movie.”
Justin, you might want to take some mouthwash with you when you go see this film.
The thing is, my friend, take the Trek out of this movie and I would still have the same opinion of it looking like a piece of worthless garbage, like most of the soul deficient derivitive rubbish we get these days.
I see the 10 year old narrowly escaping death as he pulls an awesome handbrake fishtail skid turn thing and leaps in slow motion from his car and I think “Wow, looks like another movie that’s filled the substance gaps with spectacle. How typical. How disappointing.”
If you think of Raiders and all good movies, it knows when action and spectacle is appropriate and when it is better to use considered story telling. Kirk’s back story would seem to me better placed in the latter camp if we’re looking for a good movie.
I think if this was a trailer for some movie that was not Trek, if this was Charlie’s Angels 5 and all the content was essentially identical (as far as it could be), you would be far less excited about it. So when we are throwing around the Trek fanboy blinded by his idolisation bit, I think it fits better on you sir.
Shatner is more God than man, and certainly more man than you’ll ever know (even if your sweaty-sheet Pegg dreams ever do come true).
My brain may be wholly devoted to the blind worship of the greatest man to ever live, but it remains better employed than the hype-monkey slop that fills your cranium.
What does it say that Save the Whales was one of the more entertaining ones? It says that the affliction that eats at your brain is further progresssed than I imagined. At least I know what to get you for Christmas…
You changed your tune a bit in this review Justin.
I remember in the unofficial version you gave us, you said that Kirk seemed like a generic, unremarkable hero type. You left that out here though.
I think you could afford to be a bit less blindly optimistic and a bit more objective. The movie may not all be bad, but I think we have some very valid criticisms of it, and your review would be better to give them the weight they deserve rather than dismiss them as the ravings of inconsolable trek fanatics.
As we have pointed out many times to you before – if hollywood wants to revisit TOS then the only reason to do so is to take what is good from it and combine it with modern production values and special effects.
If they do not take what is good from TOS (the compelling characterizations of Kirk, Spock and Bones – especially Kirk), then they might as well have based the movie on a cast of entirely new and forgettable characters, rather than stripping the souls from the classic Kirk, Spock and Bones.
Unfortunately it appears that although you acknowledge the likelihood of the film being a disappointment, your overall tone of incomprehensible enthusiasm has infected others (the first few posts). You will be the one to blame when they too are left wiping the brown fluid from their chins after they have been forced to digest this movie.
Ha! Awesome response.
I agree with you on the car bit – it seems over-the-top and a little hamfisted to me. I agree that spectacle is not the way to introduce characters. But we haven’t seen that scene in context (you’re wrong to think you’ve seen the full scene), and even if it’s crap, it doesn’t need to be a dealbreaker.
The idea that you can separate Trek from this is lazy thinking at best, and straightforwardly disingenuous at worst. No man who calls Shatner more God than man is going to be objective about this. I think you’d be indifferent to this film if it wasn’t Trek.
And I do think I’d be exciited.about it if it wasn’t. Now, let’s be clear – this couldn’t conceivably have been Charlie’s Angels 5 and ‘essentially identical’, that’s a nonsense statement. But it could’ve been be a generic sci-fi adventure thing, and I’d be totally into that. It’s like Pete and I said on the podcast – we’ve been waiting for a new kickarse space-opera since Star Wars, and this could be it. All the better that it’s Trek, with characters that I already like being re-invented and re-explored. If it tramples a few fanboy dreams along the way, then I’m not bothered by that.
Bring it on!
Sorry….
My previous post was directed at Twahn. But, Eggheart – I’m optimistic, but not blindly so. As you note, I fully admit the possiblity, even the likelihood, that it will be no good. But the footage I saw was excellent, Abrams is a good director… the indications are positive.
Even a cursory reading of my post shows that I don’t dismiss objections as ‘inconsolable ravings of trek fanatics”. And I’ve said multiple times in these comments that I share these misgivings. As for Kirk – I haven’t seen enough to be convinced about anything. Character, like plot and story, isn’t the kind of thing that’s easy to assess based on four disconnected scenes… all I can say is that ‘they seem carefully-realised”. I think that’s cautious assessment, not glowing endorsement or condemnation.
Much like saying that Kirk also seems like a generic hero-type – and that “the jury’s still out.”
Eggheart and Twahn, welcome to the site! This is far and away the greatest nerd fight i have seen here, and i thank you both for it.
For 99% of the above discussion, I was with ya Gibs.
Including a scene where a young Kirk acts like a pretentious prat may be a bad idea. I think it’s pretty narrow minded, however, to state “a piece of worthless garbage” based on that one scene! There’s a little bit of room between Gib’s view of “the action shines with the power of ten thousand awesomes!” and Twan’s “worthless garbage”
I was with ya Gibs, while I may feel your enthusiasm may be a little … err … extreme? I basically agreed with most of what you were saying.
Until I read this:
“we’ve been waiting for a new kickarse space-opera since Star Wars, and this could be it.”
and that’s where you lost me. If you truely think that the new Trek will somehow compare to the “Wars” then you are going to be sadly disappointed.
I’m not suggesting that dethroning Star Wars is impossible, in fact I think it will certainly happen. But it aint gonna be JJ and it certainly aint gonna be Trek.