Star Trek

J.J. Abrams directed one of my favorite feature-length action/adventure dramas of all time: the Pilot episode of Lost. Aside from that, there's an awful lot of credit being given to the man, in my opinion, who has been attached, only in name, to a lot of great things. He is not responsible for any of the creative aspect of Lost, nor is he liable for Cloverfield, really. I address these things not because I dislike him, but only because I want it to be clear I did not go to see Star Trek as a J.J. fan, despite what many have assumed. I like Star Trek. I am not a Trekker (proper) but I have seen several of the films, in theaters, watched a good portion of the latter series, and have even been to the Star Trek: Experience in Las Vegas. I consider myself a middle ground. Though in anticipation of the new film, and after seeing it I hardly consider myself a target audience member.

Appealing to the masses is always a gamble. But still an interesting exercise in convincing people of what they want. I haven't heard more people excited to see a movie that is representative of (forgive me for saying it this way) Nerd Culture since Watchmen, and before that Lord Of The Rings. People have been talking about it non-stop for the last few months, as if they have, ever in their lives, considered Star Trek a series worthy investing time in. The iconography speaks for itself, so, I suppose, it has that going for it: Sure, everyone knows Kirk, Spock, and the phrase "live long and prosper," but it suggested to me, a sort of a leap of faith to expect anyone to care. But, somehow they did. "Finally, a Star Trek for everyone!" applaud several critics. I guess they are right. I guess that's where Star Trek succeeds beyond Watchmen in making it's own identity in the face of expectations.

But I didn't realize it until I was browsing past trailers for Star Trek movies, how smart Star Trek actually is. It's a really really clever series, that tackles an impressive amount of scientific theory, and philosophy and makes it entertaining. The movies, albeit hit or miss, were always attempting to procure a feeling of worthiness of the stories being told on the big screen. There were some duds, and lots of camp, but to me never was there was a problem with it's exclusivity.

This movie? It was good. It was probably the best Star Trek, but only in execution of a promise, not in story or grandeur. It was kinetic, and loud, and vivid, and evenly paced, and the cast was attractive, and it was funny, and it made all the right subtle acknowledgments to the classic series (red shirts) and most importantly it made me excited for a sequel... but... something was missing.

I can't say what, but I feel it has to do with it's pandering. As a middle of the road Star Trek fan I felt somewhat above the shallow revenge plot, and although they did approach some iconography with subtlety I felt somewhat belittled by some of the constant nudging: "all I have left are my BONES" and being sure we knew that Chekov had a funny accent, even as a youth. As an origin story it was fleeting, and as a new adventure it was episodic at best. There's a lot that can be achieved in a origin story. Take time, establish your characters, even the ones that already exist, as real complex beings beyond their catch phrases... This should not have been a problem considering the plot of this movie.

I feel bad complaining at all. This movie wasn't really for me, but maybe that's the problem. And it really was almost perfect, but I can't help but feel like something substantial was lost in the compromise. Here's hoping the sequel will knock it out of the park now that it's established that these characters can be loved and adored by a new generation.