JJ Abrams doesn't really love James Tiberius Kirk. He just keeps him hangin' on.
I'll tell you what I mean by that in a minute. But it bears noting that Motown's auto industry could learn a lot about making old models newly relevant from the way Abrams has taken Star Trek the Original Series and retooled it for an entirely new generation. And he did it without most of the usual cheap clip-on concepts that most screenwriters and directors have used this past couple decades:
- Hip-Hop music
- Characters who were originally boring now infused with dance funktasticness
- Anyone on a skateboard or skateboard-like appliance
- Background characters who look like cartoon characters or Muppets
- Fart jokes, poop jokes, bathroom humor
- Lots of swearing
- Characters who originally ignored each other now sexually involved
- Sassy characters who exude Jerry-Springer-audience-member attitude
- Well-known comedians performing some version of their own schtick
Actually, Abrams does use one of the devices listed above, and it's a bit painful. I'm letting it slide for now; decide for yourself if it works.It's almost, but not quite, as if Abrams had taken Roddenberry's development concept from the 1960's 'as is' and executed it using tons more cash -- the early Star Trek episodes filmed for $80,000 each, if I recall correctly from David Gerrold's book The Trouble with Tribbles -- and using early 21st-century cinema culture, referring now to cinematography and special effects in particular. And it's even more than that. Star Trek the Original Series was developed at the end of the Modernist narrative, when great technological progress was mated with a strong faith in the ability of humankind to improve itself. The idea was, more or less, that we'd become better people as our technologies eradicated disease, starvation and war. There was a Utopian gleam, if not really a Utopian ambition, to the Modernist project. And The Original Series is a pure expression of that. This is a galaxy united in peace, with warring factions who still haven't picked up on the enlightenment making things difficult from time to time. Well, Abrams literally blows away one of the supposedly most enlightened symbols of that Modernist world in Act I. It was quite unexpected for me, and I'm not going to blow it for you. At any rate, in doing so, Abrams hurled the entire Star Trek premise deep into the much more skeptical 21st century. And in my view he made the Star Trek premise his own. The cast he's chosen is quite strong. Chris Pine does a convincing job owning the Kirk role, and he does it confidently enough to fling a few Shatnerisms along the way. Zach Quinto's Spock is just plain eerie in its semblance to the young Nimoy's version. I particularly enjoyed John Cho's Sulu; he pulls that role off with a seriousness that not only makes me buy into it completely, but really adds a lot to the atmosphere of the bridge. He's got military gravitas down. Karl Urban seems sometimes to be acting by the skin of his teeth as McCoy, and I'd almost fault the writing at those points where it gets too thin. And for my money Abrams plays the "I'm a doctor, not a _______" line a bit too much, reaching almost beyond the boundary of pastiche's Neutral Zone.I have only two serious grips with the casting:
My first gripe would be with the vocal tones of key cast members. Yeah, sounds trivial. But Pine's voice has a bit of a boozed-out quality to it. Fine, he's depicted as a heavy drinker early on, but it takes the edge off of some lines in a way that I wish it wouldn't, because over all the writing's pretty good. I want to hear a more Shatnerian sonorousness. And he's always so dead-certain, too -- perhaps as would be the manner of a young hotshot, I suppose, but for me it peels away the illusion just a little bit.
Quinto's voice is just too high for Spock, in my opinion. Even when young, Nimoy's Spock got a lot of mileage out of vocal tone, or monotone. It's just a bit tough to hear excellent Spock lines from a voice that could have come out of any given member of an 80's boy band. And my second gripe with the casting is that Abrams unknowingly touched the third rail of legitimate Star Trek productions. This law needs to be written in bold type at the top of every script he directs: In the Star Trek universe
there is no Winona Ryder.While I like the script a lot in its general thrust and in many of its particulars, things in my view got a bit out of control in several areas:- I'm seeing too much of Leonard Nimoy as the old Spock. The script's reasoning on this is fine. But Abrams flings him around a bit too much at the end for my taste. I'd have allowed his presence here to be a bit more enigmatic, a bit more ghostly. Also there are some pretty big plot holes surrounding the manner in which Nimoy first appears.
- There are at least 3 times that we see Jim Kirk hanging on to the edge of an incredible drop. OK, we get it: "Kirk lives life on the edge." Move on.
- The premise surrounding the bad guy character is pretty thin, in my view, although Eric Bana plays him quite effectively.
Kudos to make-up and special effects. It's the usual Star Trek Mardi Gras xenomorphology -- various combinations of wacky head on human body -- and while that always annoyed me from the point of view of realistic expectations, nowadays I consider it to be part of the brand.
It'll be interesting to see where Abrams takes the property now. Over all this was a very satisfying night at the flicks. So long as he can stay away from HoloDecks, Sherlock Holmes, Baseball, and all the crap that infested TNG -- and so long as Kirk never wears a baseball cap backwards, Spock stays off the skateboards and McCoy doesn't lay down any freestyle raps -- I should think this new iteration of Star Trek will play out well.
Sphere: Related Content