The River Green

The first thing I'll always remember about Star Trek is Kirk yelling 'KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!'. I was 6 years old and that was about my first movie theater experience (my first movie was E.T. at the drive-in). Admittedly, Trek didn't sink it's claws into my cerebrum until The Voyage Home (movie #4). That was a classic Kirk/Spock story that really got me into the whole thing. The quote '...I'm from Iowa, I only work in space,' did it.

I've been a faithful Trekkie ever since. I've seen every episode of every series and all of the movies, even as the Enterprise series eked out a slow, painful death and the last movie (Nemesis) killed off a favorite character, to say nothing of the franchise itself.

After that, nothing. For literally the first time in my life, there was no Star Trek.

For at least the last couple years, I knew the new movie was coming and tried not to get obsessed about it. Of course, it was common knowlege that the franchise was being handed off to a whole set of new, fresh talent and that it was going to be a prequel.

My mind had been made up that when it was time for the movie to come out, I would wait to see what everyone said about it and then go see it at the dollar theater if it was any good.

Until December 28, 2008.

That was the day that Tanner and I went to see The Day The Earth Stood Still. The first preview started out with some misfit young boy in a convertible careening through the desert headed straight for a cliff. Suddenly, he jumped out and stopped himself from being pulled over the edge by the inertia at the last minute. A police officer stood in front of him and asked his name. The response was 'James Tiberius Kirk'. I had no idea that this was the preview for Star Trek. Before a single space scene came on the preview, I quickly threw out my previous decision and resolved to see the movie on its opening day. Isn't that something... that a space adventure movie can hook someone without even showing space.



...I digress...

May 9, 2009. I hadn't been overly excited to see this movie until that morning; I didn't want to have my expectations crushed if it were terrible. My mom and I are the Trekkies in our family, so it was only fitting that this was my birthday present from her. We found our seats and became giddy as the lights went down and the opening scene lit up the screen.

From that point until the moment we left the theater, I was stunned. Amazed. Awestruck. This movie grabbed me first by the heart, then by the shoulders and shook me until everything I thought I knew about what to expect from Trek fell out, reformed it, then threw it all back in with a force that made my head spin.

From the standpoint and perspective of a Trekkie, the movie made some pretty unorthodox twists and turns around what I've come to know about Star Trek. I'll admit, I was surprised. That's what made it good. From the perspective of a general audience member, the FX are wicked, the story is riveting and the fight scenes are awesome. That is what made it great.

As far as Trek cannon goes, well, the movie made a noble effort at sticking to as much of it as the story would have allowed. Yes, there were a couple plot twists that came up in the movie which may beg the question, 'WHAT?!'. Vulcan was destroyed and Kirk's father was killed. We've known for the past 40 years that neither of these events took place in Trek's past. Granted.

Perhaps cannon is better left to the Catholic church as far as absolutes are concerned. It was essentially cannon that caused Star Trek to founder. There was no where else it could have gone with what had already been done; the whole concept of Trek was at the mercy of and had become claustrophobic from the cannon closet. Introducing a few new elements is probably just what the franchise needs to allow for a much larger, broader, less confined creative process.

It is possible that cannon is perfectly, perfectly fine anyway. I mean, Kirk's father was the inspiration in his life for joining Starfleet. In this movie, he still is. Every 3rd grader knows that Vulcans have no emotions, so they probably renamed the planet they resettled on Vulcan again- without an emotional attachment to the planet itself, the culture was preserved and they rebuilt their population. It's not that difficult. Humans have managed to double their numbers in 50 short years. And now that Spock from the future is there, he can warn everyone that Romulus is about to be destroyed and can take quicker action to prevent it from happening again.

But... that might keep the events in the movie from occurring, thus not enabling future Spock to travel back in time and warn everyone... ...and maybe it might all happen again? Paradoxes are for the birds.

...I digress...

One of the precepts of Trek cannon is that the books and comics are not part of Trek cannon. Among the elements thrown into the movie is a central plot devise called 'Red Matter'. This is a concept that is taken from one of the comic book series. Other elements of the story, not as central as Red Matter to be sure, come from books and other sources. One of the other precepts of Trek cannon is that only what is shown on the big or small screen is accepted cannon. So that rule, in and of itself, makes the events depicted in the movie cannon, in its strictest sense.

I've made my peace with these issues thusly: contradiction be damned! If Jack Ryan can go from a young Alec Baldwin to an old Harrison Ford to an even younger Ben Affleck, why can't Trek blow up Vulcan?

Abrams did an outstanding job saluting all of Star Trek that came before him with the classic shots, lighting, those indelible lens flares. What a tribute. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman's script expertly transforms our well known heroes into a young group rife with immaturity, love, lust, angst and anger. Doesn't everyone have a past like that? Nods to the Trek pop-culture were great! There was even an unfortunate death involving a red-shirted officer. This team of three laid a perfect foundation upon which the seven main actors were able to build a flawless performance culminating in hands down the best Trek movie ever made.

The box office returns seem to agree with me: the domestic total as of May 11, 2009 is $86,706,315 and it broke the record for an IMAX movie premier.

Maybe the franchise isn't dead after all.

I have this to say to a potential Trek 12: 'You're predecessor was daring in its concept and bold in its delivery. It surpassed the opening weekend of the 10 that came before it and shot the bar up to stratospheric heights. I dare you to do better.'

Labels: movies , Star Trek

In a previous blog post, the 11th Star Trek movie is discussed, which premiered in the US on May 9, 2009. I liked it alot.

My views are not shared with the idiot City Paper movie reviewer Harry Kloman, whose scathing review not only proves that he hasn't seen the movie, but further cements the popular posit that he is no longer capable of writing reviews (none of the movies he has reviewed this year have fallen within his good graces).

He writes: 'There are some, I'm sure, who will argue that the Star Trek we all know (and, if you're reading this, probably love) had nowhere left to go with its original template, and if it were to survive at all, then someone had to erase the disk and begin compiling new data.'

Of course the original template had nowhere to go. That's exactly the reason it hasn't gone anywhere since the last movie. What Captain Obvious fails to recognize in his first paragraph is that the team behind the 11th movie is new to Trek. J.J.Abrams wasn't even a Trek fan until he came on board the project.

Paragraphs 3 and 4:

'But what's wrong with saying something is over? How about a little death with dignity? There may have been one movie left in this graying enterprise, but Star Trek, directed by J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost), isn't that movie. You can't grip an audience by destroying things that we all know still exist. The planet Vulcan -- obliterated? And Romulus -- just gone? Impossible! We've witnessed their futures in myriad detail.

And yet, they are gone, just like that. In fact, that's the concept with which I choose to quarrel. Why create a prequel about the lives of characters we've come to value by starting their lives over? Why not just concoct a snazzy action plot that shows us how they met and how they formed a peerless team?'

Death with dignity? Nemesis was no dignity and this is not death. This is new life. Gene Roddenberry himself once said that he hoped that the future of Trek would include a new generation of writers taking what he left us with and updating it and making it relevant again. That is what has happened here. I'm not going to belabor this point... Marcel does an excellent job of schooling Kloman in his comment to the article. Proof that Kloman did not see this movie? '...And Romulus -- just gone? Impossible! We've witnessed their futures in myriad detail.' Romulus wasn't destroyed in the timeline of the film, but 189 years in the future, after everything we knew about it had already taken place. Idiot.

Yes, Vulcan was obliterated in this movie. Also, Kirk's father died. Both of which we've known for the last 40 years not to have happened in Trek's history. It's called time-travel. Look into it. If the idiot Kloman thinks he knows everything there is to know about time-travel, perhaps he can educate us as to why he thinks M-theory is so asymmetrical. Oh wait. M-theory is supersymmetric, isn't it? Sorry to get all nerd up in here, but when an idiot such as Kloman begins to speak about things they clearly have not the first clue about, it angers me. Just like when people describe something that takes a really long time in terms of light years... I want to smack them. A light year, just so we're clear, is a measure of distance, not time. If one were to say 'that took five light years,' they would be saying that it took 1,825 days... which is five years.

If there is something about this move 'with which to quarrel,' this is not it. If it is, you didn't follow the story and you didn't see the movie, because in fact, a snazzy action plot that showed us how the original crew met and how they formed a peerless team, was what I took away from the movie. Perhaps the idiot Kloman saw a different film and thought it was Star Trek?

Paragraph 8:

'If they make another movie with this cast and its reiterated world, what character stories are there left to tell? The original Star Trek crew boldly went with a sense of wonder and adventure. Their clones are emotionally damaged in ways that make the galaxy a menacing place of perpetual war with no hope of even temporary peace. It's a completely different premise, masquerading as a brand name, and it promises no hope of originality.'

This is the overwhelming proof that Kloman is no longer fit to review films, since he obviously doesn't know a good one when it smacks him square in the face.

'...what character stories are there left to tell?'

How about Spock and Uhura? How about Spock rebuilding his race? How about Scotty becoming chief engineer? How about anything with Sulu, since we know nothing about him other than the fact that he fences. Seriously, is this guy stupid or what?

'...a menacing place of perpetual war with no hope of even temporary peace.'

Star Trek has always, always, always reflected the present. Our time is that of a menacing place of perpetual war with no hope of even temporary peace. What an idiot.

'It's a completely different premise, masquerading as a brand name, and it promises no hope of originality.'

The whole point of this movie IS that it is a completely different premise, you dolt. The whole story was nothing short of original.

To support my point of view, Leonard Nimoy says, 'Star Trek began in a time of great upheaval. There were antiwar demonstrations. There was political turmoil. There was social unrest. The world was a mess. A lot like it is now.'

Kloman needs to stop writing reviews of movies he hasn't seen before. And then he needs to go see this movie and realize just how utterly wrong he was.

Labels: movies , Star Trek