Star Trek

Posted by: Melinda

Tagged in: Movies

Big confession from the person who left Next Gen bitter, tired and disillusioned, and longing for the original Trek.  There were times during those endless, stiff, moralizing episodes on TNG when all of us were longing for Kirk to kiss a girl and slug a bad guy, and Spock to life an eyebrow, and McCoy bluster.


But I digress.  I went to the J.J. Abrams Star Trek with no expectations, and ended up enjoying it very much.  It played to the feel of what made old Trek so appealing.  I especially liked the dialogue which was real and breezy instead of the turgid exchanges we were forced to write.  And there was humor.   Thank god humor has returned to Star Trek.


The cast of virtual unknowns were all very appealing, and it was wonderful to see Leonard Nimoy.  Then there was Simon Pegg as Scotty who just stole my heart.


Flaws -- way, way too many coincidences were required to make the plot move.  As my friend said “the plot creaked dangerously in the middle when Kirk ends up marooned not fifteen minutes from old Spock.  They danced past it by keeping up the energy, charm and humor.


I could have done without having Scotty flushed down a toilet.  A silly, pointless scene.


I also wish we hadn’t ended up with Kirk once more the captain of the Enterprise.  I had really hoped they would have spent time exploring the possibilities of Star Feet Academy.  Years ago I suggested to my bosses that the Academy should be the next series, but there was such hatred of the old show the idea was dismissed.  I tried to do it in a shared world anthology I tried to sell, but space ships aren’t very popular in publishing right now.


There has been an on-going discussion about whether Kirk, in particular, had an “arc”.  Arc is something network and studio suits are always nattering on about.  They don’t actually understand what makes a good story so the grab Syd Fields, and The Hero’s Journey, and start pummeling you with the arc.
Carrie Vaughn made the point that both Kirk and Spock are struggling with expectations in the opening of the film.  Kirk is rejecting them, Spock is trying to embrace them, and twisting himself into something he’s not in the process.
I also don’t have a problem with somebody just being a hero with a capital H in a romance with a capital R.  Indiana Jones in the first movie is that character.  John Carter in the Mars books is that character.  In fact when I was trying to write a film of Princess of Mars for Disney we kept running into the “but John Carter needs an arc” gibberish.  Some of a the earlier writers on the project had made him, in no particular order, an alcoholic, a coward, a nihilist devastated by his experiences in the Civil War.  


Sometimes a project does just fine with just a hero. 

Trackback(0)
Comments (7)Add Comment
0
...
written by rand, May 13, 2009
Excellent to know you enjoyed the film-- great to get an expert take.
The young cast is fantastic (Karl Urban is going to be future gold-- his McCoy is spectacular), but wasn't the plot just a rehash of "The Wrath of Khan" w/ smatterings of "ST: Generations" (& its planet killer & time travel & alternate realities)et al?
What was old Spock doing in that cave, anyway? Did he know young Kirk was coming? How? & what will become of old Spock? Will he be returned to his universe? Or is he now "Obi Wan Vulcan" to dole out wise, logical bon mots?
Don't get me started on the science (Pauli's Exclusion Principle especially)!
0
OK, maybe we DO need another hero
written by Victor Milán, May 13, 2009
Nice, astute observations on then tyranny of "arc," and how it really can be okay just to have a Hero. Refreshing.

I'm always up for your insights on the craft of writing. Big fan.
0
...
written by Laurie Mann, May 13, 2009
I'm in general agreement with you.

I thought we would see a little more of the Academy - it was just something of a plot device. And the Kirk from TOS was an odd combination of brashness and discipline. Kid Kirk was just brash and very, very lucky.

I liked both Karl Urban (who's become a better actor than I expected) and Simon Pegg, but Zachary Quinto turned out to be a much more subtle actor than I'd expected (having only seen him on Heroes).

But the plot and the science. Yuck! You'd think the some of the same people who've been writing Lost, that has some of the best time-travel, would have written better time travel for Star Trek. It was surprisingly bad.
0
Good but for the annoying plot holes
written by Darlene Marshall, May 13, 2009
I did enjoy the new Trek movie and thought it was a great casting job. I could let most of the plot deficiencies slide by, but when Kirk was commissioned at the end as a captain it made me want to howl with outrage. Couldn't they at least pretend their universe works like a real universe with a real navy? I would have been much happier if they'd scrolled "Five years later..." across the bottom. Still a meteoric rise, but at least a touch more plausible.

I do hope there's a sequel in the works. That cast is worth re-uniting.
0
...
written by Melinda M., May 13, 2009
Trust me, I could have gone on at great length about the plot problems. I just lacked the energy and ambition. The ice planet Spock/young Kirk was the most egregious one. Not to mention "red matter" WTF? But at least they didn't make the Next Gen mistake of trying to give us all the technobabble about red matter.

Yes, the script was a rehash. The Academy would really only work as a series, not a movie.

Here's what I think they did right. Unless you're making The Ice Storm, or The Reader (which was a great movie btw) I think our obligation as creators is to offer entertainment value to the reader/viewer. They bet they're money that we are going to take them on an adventure and sweep them out of their lives.

Trek did that by keeping it light, making the characters appealing and letting them play off each other.

I also noticed that the younger people in the audience who didn't grow up on Original Trek seemed to be having a fine old time.
0
...
written by rand, May 13, 2009
Couldn't a hero's arc be that he's/she's a hero?
Jeez! Spare me from Execs! They think everyone is exactly @ their level, only dumber (like that's possible!)

I agree w/ Darlene. If the Nero emergency was 3 years after Kirk's enlistment, why couldn't he earn his command 5 years later? According to their scenario it's probable a cadet @ Annapolis deals w/ a crisis like Pearl Harbor then gets command of an aircraft carrier immediately after. Was there any mention of a lack of commanding officers post crisis?

PS: According to Variety, they've all signed on for @ least 2 more films.
0
...
written by William H Stoddard, May 16, 2009
I just got back from the local IMax, which was a good way to see it, though too loud; two of our party of four had to walk out and get their money because because they were in physical pain.

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with it. The shift to an earlier point in time (even without the plot twist) gave them a wonderful freedom from past character history, which was always a burden to the initial series of movies about the Enterprise. My only real complain about the cinematic style is that it had a bit too much action for my taste; it was as if they felt that if they ever let things slow down we'd lose interest. I could have used a bit less action and a bit more sensawunda.

Other than that, I have a bunch of minor sticking points that didn't really stop me from enjoying the film. I'll mention one: Midway through we saw both Spock and Chekhov go off to take care of problems, leaving their duty stations as commanding officer of a ship under emergency conditions. Isn't that the sort of thing a real navy would frown on?

Write comment

busy