LoManaco At The Movies: STAR TREK (Paramount/Bad Robot)

Mike LoManaco

NOTE: Varying degrees of plot discussion and spoilers below.

Just returned home from finally seeing one of the hottest box office launches of the summer season -- one possibly set to break some records if the numbers continue to rise. I have been a rabid fan of the original show and then of the original crew motion pictures (up until The Undiscovered Country) and I was able to tolerate (in small amounts) The Next Generation show and its film versions. However, I could never allow myself to get into the spinoff series like Enterprise or Voyager; to me, these just weren't Trek or Roddenberry's vision in any way, shape or form, and I know original fans will understand what I'm talking about.

And so because it's been awhile -- not since Nemesis have we seen a Trek adventure on the big screen -- I went into this "prequel reboot" by JJ Abrams with some skepticism. The online vibes for this one have been absolutely staggering and border on the insane depending on which fan site you visit and indulge in its excessive blogging. You want to know something? I didn't really care for it, friends -- now before you whip out your hand held phasers and take a shot at me, let me say that I'm sure I may find some better karma for it when it arrives on home video.

I really wanted to like it -- but knowing beforehand that Abrams changed much of the Trek "logic" (;)) and rules of its previous universe created by people like Roddenberry and Nick Meyer just made it more difficult on me to really "accept" this as a reboot for this franchise. Alas, as I feared, this film is really aimed at a demographic that in no way, shape or form was raised on the original series or films -- no matter that familiar characters like Spock, Kirk and McCoy are splashed all over it. But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here...let me break down what I didn't like about it for those reading this as a review before they go see it.

I know the consensus has been that Abrams just nailed the cast perfectly here -- but I disagree. Perhaps Spock was spot-on as a younger Starfleet science officer, but I simply could not believe this was a young James Kirk we were watching. The recklessness of his character was overkill in my opinion, and the whole thing just had too much of a "modern edge" to it in suggesting this was a look back at Starfleet in its "roots." I had the biggest issues with the young McCoy, who in my opinion would have seemed better as the younger Chekov with a Russian accent, and the young Scotty and Uhura -- I just didn't buy either of them. The introduction of engineer Montgomery Scott was goofy in its delivery, and the whole love story between Uhura and Spock was absolutely ridiculous -- but I'll get to that. Also, the sequence where Kirk is ready to give his Tiberius Stiffy to one of those green female aliens we love so much when Uhura walks in and begins undressing down to bra and panties seemed completely and utterly as if Abrams was trying just too damn hard...this is supposed to be the origins of Trek with a buff, muscular Kirk making out with a green chick as modern rock music plays in the background? Do they honestly want us to believe that? It was as if the filmmakers couldn't resist adding some 20-something sex drama lifted right from Alias or any number of shows recently seen on the WB to the "new and improved" Trek for the "i-Pod Generation." Whatever.

To be honest, I didn't even care for the opening title sequence; I felt it was weak and could have been better. Abrams changes the Trek universe at the get-go, setting up a plot that really had nothing to do with the Enterprise origins with Captain Chris Pike based on TV show episodes like "The Menagerie" and "The Cage." The attempt to connect the Pike character with Kirk's beginnings and their relationships with the rest of the well-known crew was there, but it was mingled with a sub-plot involving some vengeful Romulans who travel in a massive ship reminiscent of the vessel from Nemesis and who also create a black hole which changes space and time; somewhere in this mess of a story is the idea that a parallel universe has been created -- one in which Leonard Nimoy returns as an older Spock so he can speak to a young James Kirk and then to a younger version of himself later on. The whole thing was campy and ridiculous to me; it almost seemed as if Abrams was lifting a bunch of themes from different Treks along the way -- the "Nexus" idea from Generations, the alien costuming and battleships from Nemesis, the parallel universe angle from the "Mirror, Mirror" episode of the original show...the comparisons can go on and on.

You know what the biggest problem of this project was? Although this ran for two and a half hours, it just felt rushed -- in no way did we really get to see the true "origins" of Starfleet, or how Kirk went through the Academy in his training; the Kobiashi Maru training test, while interesting, was short and "lacking" -- the fact that Abrams went as far as to include this tidbit for fans was nice, but the sequence itself was unsatisfying. There was an odd feel to the film, as well as an odd pacing in my view; sometimes, the plot got way too modern with a young Kirk speeding in a car in Iowa, barely being able to see over the steering wheel, while the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage" blasts in the background...what? This isn't Star Trek people. The boy is then chased down by a speeding robotic "police officer" (hinting at the fact that we're in a future of some kind) while a futuristic Iowa pulsates in the distance...I don't know; this is not how I envisioned James T. Kirk as a boy on his farm in Iowa when Shatner mentions it so many times during the run of the show and films.

An interesting opening attempt by Abrams, though, gives us a glimpse into the Starfleet world before Kirk was even born -- remember the lead terrorist that takes Robert Downey Jr. hostage in Iron Man? He plays the captain of a ship carrying Kirk's father as an officer. When this mysterious Romulan ship attacks, the captain must board the alien vessel in order to save his crew, but Kirk Sr. ends up commanding for a few moments -- just enough to send his wife and child to safety as he sacrifices himself. The boy, of course, grows up to be the James Tiberius Kirk we know and love, but I am uncertain of how much accuracy is delivered by Abrams here. It seems the material is vague and unreferenced in the fact that according to Starfleet "history" and the basis of the Trek world, is this what really happened to Kirk's father...or is it another "loose interpretation" much like Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight?

From there, we are introduced to a James T. Kirk that has grown up and is the ultimate ladies' man which he grows into during the Shatner years; again, the props here are awkward in that the "bars" Kirk frequents in Iowa just don't look like anything out of Trek. At one of these places, a brawling, cocky Kirk gets man handled by a bunch of Starfleet bad asses, but continues trying to hit on a young, rather sexy Uhura in her red mini dress and go-go boots. Kirk also catches the attention of Captain Christopher Pike, in command of the USS Enterprise, who talks him into joining Starfleet Academy based on his father's devotion to the service. Once again...I just don't know how much of this is "true" or "accurate" according to the initial Trek universe -- sure, you can argue that Abrams is using suspension of disbelief here to take the franchise in an all-new direction and that these things don't matter...but original concept fans would be bothered by some of the inconsistencies and awkward presentation we have here. Yes -- Pike was the original commander of the Enterprise, but according to the original show, Spock served under Pike and Kirk had nothing to do with the situation at that time. I suppose it could be argued that Abrams is simply creating a scenario that could have taken place, in that Kirk was aboard the original Enterprise at the same time Spock and Pike were, and that's how things came to be...but it was a bit off-putting. There was a clever reference, though, to Pike being in a wheelchair at the end of the film, which is a direct acknowledgement of the Pike that was in the chair in "The Menagerie."

REVIEW CONTINUED BELOW...

Mike LoManaco

STAR TREK REVIEW, CONTINUED...

At any rate, Kirk decides to take Pike's suggestion of joining Starfleet and hops aboard the transport taking the cadets to headquarters, where he meets Leonard McCoy, medical officer. The McCoy character, in my opinion, was one of the most out-of-place pieces here; you just can't see this guy growing up to be DeForest Kelley. Meanwhile, in a more interesting segment, we see a young Spock being made fun of by his other Vulcan classmates for being part Human -- something always referenced to. However, again, I don't think they nailed the Sarek or Amanda characters of Spock's parents right at all. I didn't buy Spock's father as gearing up to age into Mark Leonard's role, and the decision to do what they did to Spock's mother (who looked nothing like the character in the show or The Voyage Home) didn't thrill me either. As hinted at in the show and in some of the original films, Spock decides to decline entrance into the Vulcan Science Academy and chooses to go to Starfleet, assigned to USS Enterprise.

The attack by the Romulans on Vulcan forces an emergency that puts Kirk, Spock and McCoy together on the Enterprise under Pike's command; this is where the story went awry for me and I found myself actually wondering how much more time was left to the film -- something I never thought I would have done. In some strange Abrams attempt to yarn a new Trek tale, the Romulans, as I reported, create a black hole (First Contact anyone?) which spits the crew back and forth between the future, past and present -- or so I thought. Somewhere along the way, a young James Kirk is dropped on a planet where he is attacked by huge alien creatures and runs into an old Spock, played by the great Leonard Nimoy, of course. While a clever angle and touch by Abrams to bring some familiarity to the project, Nimoy's deliveries and conversations with the young Kirk and then with himself later on were just silly. Meanwhile, Pike is taken "hostage" by the Romulans on their ship (remind you of First Contact once again?) where a creature is inserted into his body so he may give up the defensive positions of Federation zones (does this sound anything like it was lifted from The Wrath of Khan?).

Somehow, someway, Kirk ends up being "assigned" captain of the Enterprise after Spock takes command when Pike is captured, and then the old Spock tells the young Kirk he must find a way to bring Spock's emotions out of him to the point that he will be in violation of behavior for acting commanding officer...got all this? The young Kirk returns from the planet he ran into Spock on, and revs Spock up to the point that Spock belts him around -- and I mean belts him (this was a direct lift from the original episode "Shore Leave" I believe, where the crew is exposed to "spores" in flowers that affect their minds)...Spock must be relieved of command, so Kirk is placed in the captain's chair -- but the logic behind this is really bizarre. All of a sudden, Scotty's onboard beaming people up, and Chekov, Sulu and Uhura are all calling him "captain" when there was no real advance of command authorized, especially considering the fact that Kirk wasn't even supposed to be on the ship in the first place. It was just too rushed and bizarre to me.

Then there's the issue of the ship itself -- as much as character in the films and shows as the actors themselves, and perhaps more so, the Enterprise has always been a sleek, sexy ship, running rings around designs like the Reliant or Excelsior; NCC-1701 and then all the designs up to NCC-1701-D of The Next Generation were all great looking Starfleet battlecruisers. But I don't know exactly what Abrams did with the ship for this prequel reboot -- it's like a goofy, swollen hybrid of the original TV series Enterprise and the one from the first few film versions. The warp drive effect also didn't impress me, showing ships that warp out into space with no blur of colors or anything. The interior of the ships in this film were also strange...the inside of the Enterprise was randomly pieced together with bits from the bridge of the TV show ship coupled with weird variations of the film series. There were accurate touches by the design team with things such as the little gooseneck lamps above the consoles, as the bridge appeared in the Pike episodes of the original show, but the production design for the interior sets was just plain weird.

Then, there's the animal attraction between Spock and Uhura...when did this ever happen? What's the deal with an emotionless Spock making out with a sexy young Uhura on the turbolift? This was extremely odd. And what was the deal with the ridiculously odd fitting Chekov character? There's no way I would have believed this kid would have grown to be Walter Koenig. The little accurate references to things like Sulu knowing how to fence were nice, but at the end of the day, this whole thing just felt, for lack of a better term, strange. In an ending that simply highlights all the mayhem and rushed pacing that came before it, Kirk returns to Starfleet in San Francisco where he is appointed captain of the Enterprise while a wheelchair-bound Pike congratulates him...but there are a few problems here: What about the creature the Romulans put in Pike's body to control him? And there was no "rite of passage" for Kirk before he becomes captain? He just becomes captain of a starship without any other previous experience in space...and that's it? As I said, there were many rushed, unexplained elements of Abrams' Star Trek, and while it may have been a genuine attempt to tell an origin story and perhaps re-energize this franchise for a new generation, fans of the original concept are left wondering what happened, balking at a motion picture seemingly made for an audience used to ingesting a steady diet of shows like Smallville, Alias, X-Files and all the entrants of a WB network roster.

I would have to see this again at home to determine if it could grow on me, and if I will purchase the Blu-ray Disc.

On a positive note, though, fellas, there's plenty of eye candy here with the female Starfleet officers wearing those mini-dress uniforms shorter than you've ever seen...:eek::eek::eek:

ryanjoachim

My eyes hurt.

I think the main reason that you didn't like the movie is evident in your 2 lengthy posts...
You over-anylize. (and holy crap I think I butchered that word)

Movies are just that...an artistic expression of a story. I'm one of those people who didn't really like the original Trek series, but I loved most of the movies. For me, seeing this movie (when I get to see it) will be more about enjoying the acting/visuals/sounds than it will be about critiquing and condescending the writers/directors.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I'm confused - is your name Mike Lomanaco or Peter Marlove?

http://www.highdefforum.com/movies/94299-marlowe-movies-star-trek-paramount-bad-robot.html

I don't have the time or desire to address all of your points, let's just suffice to say I don't agree

zombie boy 2000

I'm thinking his name is OnkyoFanatic...
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37176

ryanjoachim

Nice catch zombie boy...I smell a ban-dodger!!

Mike LoManaco

ryanjoachim wrote: »

My eyes hurt.

I think the main reason that you didn't like the movie is evident in your 2 lengthy posts...
You over-anylize. (and holy crap I think I butchered that word)

Movies are just that...an artistic expression of a story. I'm one of those people who didn't really like the original Trek series, but I loved most of the movies. For me, seeing this movie (when I get to see it) will be more about enjoying the acting/visuals/sounds than it will be about critiquing and condescending the writers/directors.

I didn't "over analyze," I wrote an in-depth movie review; there is plenty of room for analysis and critiquing given the subject matter, trust me.

And yes, you did indeed butcher that word. :eek:;)

Oh, and BTW, before you begin spewing untruths about someone, I am ABSOLUTELY NOT a "ban dodger"...I made it clear that I write for multiple sites under different aliases for security purposes, as well as for printed publications in the home theater sector. Yes, HDF is one of them.

cnh

Hi Mike,

As I haven't seen the movie yet I did not read more than the beginning of your piece....I am an original fan but I've also watched just about everything 'since'...each series has been a new tweak of sorts. Will respond to your review plus or minus once I see this and can 'actually' read the entire review--can't yet because there are probably spoilers in there....

cnh

Montoya

I am an old Trek fan and I must say from some perspective your right but a rehash was needed and a new generation of fans is created. If the series followed the same old stories and same old bump and grind it would be as Spock would say, "not logical". Let's face it if it had been the same old style of Trek it would have failed miserably.

wingnut4772

I agree with the rushed advancement from Cadet to Captain but this is Star Trek. A little suspension of disbelief is to be expected. I liked all the characters and I think they were cast very well except maybe Chekov. Bones, for me, was awesome. He even spoke like him with the same pacing. You are complaining that it's not real Star Trek then citing all the ways they have referenced real Star Trek episodes. I think it gave Star Trek a new life while still managing to preserve the essence of the original.

When the original came out, Gene Roddenberry was imagining the Star Trek Universe as an extension of our future. He didn't know what our current present would be like to make that relevant for audiences today. I think it's fully believable that a young James Kirk would be blasting Beastie Boys in a stolen Corvette. Why not?

I say Kudos to Abrams for pulling Star Trek out of the Geek Closet and opening it up to a wider audience. I loved it and I will buy it the Tuesday it comes out on Blu Ray.

Jstas

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

...I made it clear that I write for multiple sites under different aliases for security purposes, as well as for printed publications in the home theater sector. Yes, HDF is one of them.

Security purposes? You review movies, how much security could you need? :rolleyes:

dkg999

Jstas wrote: »

Security purposes? You review movies, how much security could you need? :rolleyes:

From the attitude portrayed, he/she might need more security than we think :eek:

Mike LoManaco

Jstas wrote: »

Security purposes? You review movies, how much security could you need? :rolleyes:

That's not what I meant by "Security"...I meant to remain anonymous within these forums because in this field, you are constantly harassed, flamed and threatened -- it has happened to me before multiple times with a simple initial reply to one of the reviews. So initiating an alias is vital in this profession, especially when it's online.

Mike LoManaco

dkg999 wrote: »

From the attitude portrayed, he/she might need more security than we think :eek:

What attitude? I just explained what I meant by "security"; it is more a desire to remain anonymous based on previous experiences.

You're making an assumption about someone you don't even know. :rolleyes: And I'm not a "she."

Mike LoManaco

cnh wrote: »

Hi Mike,

As I haven't seen the movie yet I did not read more than the beginning of your piece....I am an original fan but I've also watched just about everything 'since'...each series has been a new tweak of sorts. Will respond to your review plus or minus once I see this and can 'actually' read the entire review--can't yet because there are probably spoilers in there....

cnh

Hello CNH,

Thank you for the reply! I understand your reasons for not responding right now; I do believe I included a warning about plot spoiler discussions, but if I didn't, I apologize; please let us know what you thought when you see the film!

Mike LoManaco

Montoya wrote: »

I am an old Trek fan and I must say from some perspective your right but a rehash was needed and a new generation of fans is created. If the series followed the same old stories and same old bump and grind it would be as Spock would say, "not logical". Let's face it if it had been the same old style of Trek it would have failed miserably.

Montoya,

Thank you for your thoughts! Indeed, I am not suggesting this should have been the same classic formula to make it a continuation of "Nemesis" or something along those lines, I'm merely arguing that I couldn't believe half of what was going on in the film -- the choices for characters is one thing: I couldn't see this kid growing up to be Kirk, nor could I see half the other characters growing into their adult versions including McCoy and Scotty. The whole film just felt like it was geared towards the Smallville and Alias generation, and it was if we were watching Star Trek meets Lost or something; it was odd IMO.

Mike LoManaco

wingnut4772 wrote: »

I agree with the rushed advancement from Cadet to Captain but this is Star Trek. A little suspension of disbelief is to be expected.

I said that in the review -- the suspension of disbelief element -- but I also cited where I thought too much of this was expected.

I liked all the characters and I think they were cast very well except maybe Chekov. Bones, for me, was awesome. He even spoke like him with the same pacing.

Well, this film comes down to serious fan opinion, and you are entitled to yours like everyone else is; I disagree wholeheartedly and feel McCoy didn't act or behave anything like Kelley would have "grown into" years later; Chekov was absolutely AWFUL and the character acting like a total jackass didn't help this screenplay one bit.

You are complaining that it's not real Star Trek then citing all the ways they have referenced real Star Trek episodes.

You misunderstand what I mean by this -- it seemed to me Abrams was grasping for pieces of episodes and films he may have seen or been exposed to without really logically placing these elements or incorporating them in a believable way; my point was that it seemed the producers simply slapped elements from some episides and films together just because they were Trek materials but without any real cohesiveness. Sure, Pike was included as the first captain, and the wheelchair references was semi-accurate, but how does that fall into line with what happened on Talos IV? That's just an example...

I think it gave Star Trek a new life while still managing to preserve the essence of the original.

Well, as I said, you are entitled to your opinions of course; I disagree but I KNOW I am in the definite minority on this one. Concensus is everyone loved it.

When the original came out, Gene Roddenberry was imagining the Star Trek Universe as an extension of our future. He didn't know what our current present would be like to make that relevant for audiences today. I think it's fully believable that a young James Kirk would be blasting Beastie Boys in a stolen Corvette. Why not?

It just doesn't fit nor make sense IMO...it was like a GAP ad for this current generation; I mean, Kirk blasting the BEASTIE BOYS? No. It was ridiculous IMO.

I say Kudos to Abrams for pulling Star Trek out of the Geek Closet and opening it up to a wider audience. I loved it and I will buy it the Tuesday it comes out on Blu Ray.

Well, that's your choice and you are sure free to make it. As I said, I know I am in the minority in my opinions on this one.

wingnut4772

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

I said that in the review -- the suspension of disbelief element -- but I also cited where I thought too much of this was expected.



Well, this film comes down to serious fan opinion, and you are entitled to yours like everyone else is; I disagree wholeheartedly and feel McCoy didn't act or behave anything like Kelley would have "grown into" years later; Chekov was absolutely AWFUL and the character acting like a total jackass didn't help this screenplay one bit.



You misunderstand what I mean by this -- it seemed to me Abrams was grasping for pieces of episodes and films he may have seen or been exposed to without really logically placing these elements or incorporating them in a believable way; my point was that it seemed the producers simply slapped elements from some episides and films together just because they were Trek materials but without any real cohesiveness. Sure, Pike was included as the first captain, and the wheelchair references was semi-accurate, but how does that fall into line with what happened on Talos IV? That's just an example...



Well, as I said, you are entitled to your opinions of course; I disagree but I KNOW I am in the definite minority on this one. Concensus is everyone loved it.



It just doesn't fit nor make sense IMO...it was like a GAP ad for this current generation; I mean, Kirk blasting the BEASTIE BOYS? No. It was ridiculous IMO.



Well, that's your choice and you are sure free to make it. As I said, I know I am in the minority in my opinions on this one.

That's what makes horse races.:D

Jstas

Wow. :rolleyes:

Mike LoManaco

wingnut4772 wrote: »

That's what makes horse races.:D

Huh???

wingnut4772

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Huh???

If everyone bet on the same horse there would be no race. It's an expression my Mom used to say.

Ron-P

I saw this for a second time the other day, by far the best Star Trek film since Undiscovered County. The casting, the story, the effects....Sci-fi just doesn't get much better.

Mike LoManaco

wingnut4772 wrote: »

If everyone bet on the same horse there would be no race. It's an expression my Mom used to say.

Ahhh...OK. Got ya.