Monday, May 11, 2009

Star Trek 2009: The Negative Reviews!

Second Star Trek related post in a row? Say it isn't so!
I was going to add this to my previous Star Trek post, but I figured it's too good not to have its own entry.

A friend of mine on Facebook recently called to my attention the fact that a lot of the really hardcore Trekkies hated the new movie. Having spoken to a few Trekkies myself and found out that they loved it, I was puzzled: what could have set them off, that didn't set off my friends?

He sent me a video from The Onion (now you know this post is good, it cites THE ONION), and I saw the light.

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

Oh my God, I... it's true, guys.
The new Star Trek was just too action-packed, too much damn fun!
I mean, listen to the cries of the betrayed fans!

"It lacks the heavy-handed message of tolerance..."
"Where's the stiff acting?"
"I'm just really, really disappointed that the story made sense."


All right, to hop off the sarcasm for a bit, I'm more amused by this than anything else. When a franchise's most devoted fans only have the complaint of the newest movie being too "fun" and "entertaining," you know that, for the most part, Abrams did something right.

But I suppose I can see it from that negative point of view, which, by my observation, is in the minority (all the sources stating Trekkie outrage pull from the same video as above). They missed the charm the old Star Trek had, with its "stiff acting" and long-winded political dialogue. It's just like watching the news, except it's not real. Jose also informed me that they were supposed to be a "peace keeping" mission, and that the Star Trek series were often loaded with a lot of philosophical writing and speculation. That helps me understand some fans' disappointment more; it was pretty much the same with Watchmen—a lot more fun, a lot more action, but not as much commentary, with which it was loaded. It feels like that's the sacrifice, although I wonder if they can inject that into future Star Trek movies while still keeping the action. That would be, pardon my French, quite bitchin'.

And the issue of the action itself was actually addressed by my Trekkie friends—the ones who loved the new movie—they said that it felt removed from the franchise by being so action-packed, but they didn't have any problem with it.

One point of the movie was to update it, to keep it current and attract newcomers to the franchise and fandom. In that respect, it succeeded, because I've been asking around for old Star Trek DVDs fully intending to get into it. Yes, I've been warned that it's not at all action-packed, but I'm sure I can appreciate it on other levels, like the science behind it, and probably the philosophy too. I know that's something I dig.

In the meantime, I'm crossing my fingers for more new Star Trek movies.

1 comment:

1701earlgrey said...

WOW, that was one of the worst movies I ever seen. Kirk was a jerk, Spock was a sociopath, Uhura was a drunkard slut and Sulu was a samurai, Scotty had a little stupid looking sidekick. Every Starfleet cadet acted like jerk. Were was this better future Roddenberry was talking about? Plot had more holes than swiss cheese, humor was vulgar and stupid, science was ludicrous, cinematography was bad: shaky cam, lens flares... This move sucks! It was 'Star Trek for dummies'