Star Trek

May 23, 2009 ~ 12:18pm

I saw the new Star Trek movie over a week ago, but I was too busy to post a review (or rant).

The movie by itself was an entertaining movie. It opened with a really well-done amazing epic scene and from there it flowed smoothly and didn't have too many dull points or lags in the story. I think as a science fiction movie, it was definitely above average, and in that you had semi-decent actors with countless cheesy lines, massive special effects, plot that almost kinda makes sense and of course a perfect setting for sequels. Perfect for a summer action flick.

Now, as a "Trekkie", who has watched every show and movie since the mid-80's, I was greatly disappointed. Anyone who has watched as much as I have is completely knowledgeable that none of the history really makes sense. Each show and movie was made in such different times that none of the time lines really make any sense and there are countless inconsistencies about how the "future" is supposed to play out. So in all fairness anyone trying to make such a movie would run in to these problems. So I ask: "Why bother?" Can we please stop with the prequels?

The story itself from the "Star Trek" universe essentially is a "fork" from the original story. So basically employing the most over used technique: time travel, a new "time line" was created, thus allowing the writers to do what ever they wanted. For 2 basic reasons: 1. bring in a new generation of fans and 2. make it more sexy. Or maybe they want sexy new fans? Hmmm, I don't know but in any event, I think this is the perfect formula for failure.

So what happens in the movie? I don't want to spoil it, but I will spoil one thing: my impression of the main characters.

  • Sulu - had no real role, a Japanese character played by a Chinese actor? ("Harold" nonetheless)
  • Checkov - what a terribly annoying fake accent and goofy acting as well, also did I mention the bad accent?
  • Uhura - the slight romantic subplot was quite disconcerting
  • Scotty - quite entertaining and great comic relief, but I don't see how he could end up to be our loveable "Mr. Scott"
  • McCoy - well done and really fit nicely

Which brings us to our final two: Kirk and Spock. I personally think Spock was the most annoying role. There was a bit too much emphasis on him and the acting was so flat and his wannabe Vulcan Voice was very vexing to my ears. And our man Kirk. I must admit he was the only redeeming aspect. He was totally refreshing and still completely believable. I liked his dynamic with probably everyone except Spock. Overall mixed casting for the whole crew, but I guess acceptable.

Anyways, I think I was a bit more satisfied with my older Star Trek, warps and all (laugh its a joke). I don't have very positive view of seeing "Star Trek Action Figures" or "Star Trek Happy Meals" at McDonald's. If this is the resurrection of the Star Trek franchise, I think I might just check out here. When the obvious sequels come out, I don't think I will care to watch them. ... Unless maybe, just maybe, if someone forces me into a theater and pays for my ticket.

Re: Star Trek

by: nisha on: June 1, 2009 ~ 10:32pm

I've never been much of a "trekkie" fan...but for some reason I thought this one was quite alright... I guess that's the difference between a hardcore "trekkie" and one that's just "dropping-by"....to my surprise, I quite liked Spock! ;-)

Re: Star Trek

by: Xi on: June 25, 2009 ~ 12:25pm

I believe Sulu/Harold/John Cho is Korean... I know we all look alike ;)

Reply to:

Title (required)

Name (required)

Email (required)

URL/Homepage

Your Comment (required)