Sign in to follow this  
DaboGirl

5 reasons to be worried about the upcoming Star Trek movie

Recommended Posts

5 reasons to be worried about the upcoming Star Trek movie

Lots of people are really really excited about JJ Abrams' Star Trek movie. But James has some reservations...

by: James Hunt

 

For some reason, everyone except me seems to be looking forward to next year’s Star Trek remake from geek Golden Boy J.J. Abrams. I’m not sure why - I’m much bigger Star Trek fan than most of my friends. Some people still love campy, rickety Doctor Who because they grew up watching it. Other people can’t get enough of those ropey B-movies in the Star Wars series. For better or worse, my indoctrination into true geekery occurred over preachy, philosophical episodes Star Trek. I recognise its flaws, but I love it nonetheless.

 

Perhaps, in fact, it’s those same flaws that make me worried about Abrams’ Star Trek. Bond reboot Casino Royale jettisoned the wise-cracking, smug, gadget-ridden Bond in favour of Daniel Craig’s stripped-down brutalist version, virtually unrecognisable as the same character. Fans of the traditional Bond choked on their muesli while audiences – me included – hailed Craig as a genius, suggesting that Casino Royale had made Bond relevant again.

 

Now Star Trek’s the series getting the reboot, and with that, there’s the fear that I’m going to be the muesli-chomping fan, scoffing at how badly the Star Trek name has been sullied by someone who just doesn’t get it - but maybe there’s more to it. There are a number of elements that are making me worried about the fate of Star Trek – and here they are, as I present my “top 5 reasons to be worried about J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek remake.”

1. It’s made by J.J. Abrams

 

A controversial one to start with, perhaps, but look at the evidence - Abrams’ career has just as many downs as ups. His breakout show Alias started out as a tense, cinematic action thriller, but became a convoluted mess too wrapped up in its own mythology by the time it ended. His follow-up series Lost varies wildly in quality from season to season, and it’s hard to tell, when his involvement waxes and wanes, which he’s responsible for.

 

Far more worryingly, the last time Abrams was called on to re-invent an existing franchise, it was Superman. His proposal famously involved a super-powered Lex Luthor and a Krypton that didn’t explode. Despite all the bluster over Cloverfield (which, let us not forget, Abrams neither directed nor wrote) there’s plenty in his past to make us concerned at what he might personally bring to the Star Trek table. An Enterprise without Warp Drive? No transporters? If that Superman proposal is anything to go by, Abrams has proven that no cow is too sacred for the slaughterhouse.

 

2. It’s been delayed

 

Remember when Star Trek was scheduled for a December 2008 release? In February this year, ten months before release, the film was pushed back until May 2009. Paramount explicitly denied it was anything to do with the writers' strike, instead maintaining that they think more people will see it in May rather than at Christmas - but under any circumstance, pushing back the release date for a film is the universal symbol for panic over quality. Can you think of any other high-profile films that faced major delays? How did they turn out?

 

Well, how about these? The critically-routed Ghost Rider was pushed back a whole YEAR. Richard Kelly followed up Donnie Darko with flop Southland Tales, which faced seemingly endless delays even before audiences got a look and tore it to shreds. Meanwhile, the sequel to the Bond reboot, Quantum of Solace has actually been brought FORWARD. There’s not always a direct correlation between the quality of a film and the direction its release date travels, but there’s certainly enough of one to justify getting antsy about it…

 

3. It’s a prequel

 

It’s well-known that Star Trek is going to feature younger versions of the classic Trek cast. Leaving aside the very simple fact that it’s virtually insane to think you can separate Kirk & Shatner, Spock & Nimoy, or even Bones & Kelley, so synonymous have the characters become with their actors, the idea of a prequel is worrying in itself. The presence of Leonard Nimoy as the older Spock marks it unashamedly as a prequel rather than a reboot, and the last Trek prequel was the occasionally campy, often outright dire Enterprise – and yet the concerns go even wider than that.

 

Consider this: The dictionary defines a prequel as “the stuff that happened before the interesting bit.” We can all name a few sequels that are better than the original, but who among us can think of a movie PREQUEL that can make the same claim. (note: if any of the prequels you’re thinking of involve George Lucas, you’re incorrect.) If you can name more than three, then please leave a comment doing so, because nothing would please me more than to find out that movie prequels do work. So far, though, I think history agrees with me – prequels are a mistake.

 

4. It’s got Simon Pegg playing Scotty

 

Virtually every British geek around will rave for hours, given the chance, about how brilliant Simon Pegg is. In Spaced, in Shaun of the Dead, in Hot Fuzz – the man can write up a storm. Unfortunately, in a seemingly desperate bid to crack the US market as an actor, he’s squandering his almost-unlimited goodwill on tedious rom-coms and David Schwimmer vanity projects. I cringe every time I see him appear in yet another movie that mistakes his natural comic ability for actual jokes – much like that other ubergeek actor, Kevin Smith, the man just needs his own script to work properly.

 

And now he’s been cast in Star Trek as Scotty, presumably to score a few points with the nerdy audience who universally (and not unreasonably) love him. Having a big star like Pegg alongside a cast of virtual unknowns immediately smacks of stunt casting - the next most popular cast member is Zachary Quinto. You know, Sylar. From Heroes. The thing with Hayden Panettiere in. No disrespect to Pegg’s considerable talent, but it’s going to be near-impossible to watch him on screen without waiting for him to crack wise about George Romero or eat a Cornetto. There’s every chance his presence will simply be distracting and make the film look like a Comic Relief mock-up of Star Trek instead of the real thing.

 

5. It’s using the Romulans. Again

 

In a move clearly designed to save the Klingons for the Bigger, Badder Sequel , the main villain in the Abrams Star Trek movie is Nero, a Romulan. Ish. The last time a sort-of Romulan was used as the villain in Star Trek, it was in Star Trek: Nemesis, undeniably one of the poorest Trek films to date. The smart money, then, says to stay away from the Romulans altogether - but Abrams apparently laughs in the face of good sense. Not only is he using the Romulans, the fact that the villain is called “Nero” suggests that he’s going to play up the “we’d rather forget it” Roman aspect of the characters as seen in the original Trek series, wisely abandoned from TNG onwards.

 

In fact, there’s a good reason you can finds hundreds of fanwank explanations (including a story arc on Enterprise) about how the human-looking Klingons of TOS became the bumpy-foreheaded versions we know today, and yet you find NONE to suggest why the Romulans abandoned their bafflingly-accurate Roman stylings. It’s because even us Trek fans know when to tacitly agree that things are better off without it. You only have to look at the plaster falling from the ceiling of Romulan STARSHIPS when they get damaged in TOS to know that.

 

So there we have it. Perhaps I’m being melodramatic, but all of my fears seem wholly rational and reasonable to me. I don’t like judging films before they’ve come out, and I’m not saying it’ll definitely be rubbish – certainly, nothing will please me more than if I’m wrong and it’s a complete masterpiece – but based on what I’ve seen, I can’t help feeling nervous. Between the twin failures of Nemesis and Enterprise, Star Trek as a whole is weaker than it’s been in decades. Another crap film could knock the franchise down for decades to come!

 

What’s worse, even if the film is a huge success and Trek makes it through Abrams’s gambles unscathed, there’s no guarantee it’s going to be recognisable as Star Trek afterwards. Some people say Star Trek has to change or die. All I can say to that is... what was the first option again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My responses:

 

1. Okay, yeah sure maybe Abrams track record can be a little suspect at times but quite frankly, besides Pixar and maybe Spielberg find me someone in Hollywood whose track record isn't. IMO, he has enough successes to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

2. The delay is actually for the exact opposite reason. Paramount was liking what they saw and thought it would play better in the summer. There was a lot of shuffling of movies right after the writer's strike, so while pushing it back sucks, I don't think its a result of poor quality. Star Trek was also moved in the opposite direction of Ghost Rider, in that Ghost Rider was moved from summer to winter while Star Trek was moved from winter to summer. I should also mention that at one point Ghost Rider was moved up from August to July, which could indicate the studio thought it was good quality based on his logic.

 

3. Okay, I will concede that a lot of prequels do in fact suck, but that doesn't mean that they all suck. Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom is a prequel and while it is probably the weakest of those movies, it is still a good movie. Some prequels suck, some sequels suck, and some original films suck. But you have to at least see part of the film before you can make a conclusive judgment. I would also like to point out that the author cycles through all three alternative terms (remake, prequel, and reboot) before calling it a prequel. They're not interchangable, pick one (in this case he did eventually settle on prequel).

 

4. Few people seem to realize how good an actor Simon Pegg really is. He displays considerable acting talent in Spaced, Hot Fuzz, and especially Shaun of the Dead. I also think the author somewhat contradicts himself when he says Pegg is desperate to make it in the U.S. as a comedy actor but is still such a big star that his casting is stunt casting. I think he means he's an international star or at least a star in the UK but that's not what he says. Still, based on what I've seen from the man I have no reason to doubt that Simon Pegg will be a fantastic Scotty and do James Doohan proud.

 

5. This point isn't even remotely relevant. I don't think anyone honestly believes that that Romulans were responsable for the critical and financial failure of Star Trek Nemesis. Plus, think of all the good episodes the Romulans have been in, there is no sort of Romulan curse when anything that features them is bad. It's like saying Star Trek 6 won't be any good because it features Klingons and previous movies that feature Klingons aren't that good (i.e. Star Trek III and V).

 

Overall, this guy may not be entirely wrong but I think he's jumping to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm growing more excited as the time passes about this new movie.

 

It could end up like the Tim Burton 'Planet of the Apes' reboot. :unsure:

Or it could end up like the 'Galactica' reboot, which has been well recieved. :roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm growing more excited as the time passes about this new movie.

 

It could end up like the Tim Burton 'Planet of the Apes' reboot. :unsure:

Or it could end up like the 'Galactica' reboot, which has been well recieved. :roflmao:

I really hope it doesn't end up like either one of them. They both sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm growing more excited as the time passes about this new movie.

 

It could end up like the Tim Burton 'Planet of the Apes' reboot. :laugh:

[Or it could end up like the 'Galactica' reboot, which has been well recieved. :clap:

We actually agree on something. I don't like the end of Planet of the Apes. <_<

 

 

I'm growing more excited as the time passes about this new movie.

 

It could end up like the Tim Burton 'Planet of the Apes' reboot. :spock:

Or it could end up like the 'Galactica' reboot, which has been well recieved. :happydance:

I really hope it doesn't end up like either one of them. They both sucked.

I actually like Galactica reboot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just hope they don't change the base story.

Doesn't look like they will, it's looking more and more like a straight prequel albeit with a more modern look from all accounts (i.e. the uniforms have been described as looking close to that of the original series but are not exact replicas).

 

Of course, with the acknowledged presence of time travel there could be the creation of an alternate timeline in which part of this movie and possible sequels take place. It's pure conjecture but it would explain why the creators refuse to use one of sequel, prequel and reboot/re-imagining to describe the movie. However, they acknowledged that it will adhere to canon and anything that doesn't seem to be in canon will have a canon explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just hope they don't change the base story.

Doesn't look like they will, it's looking more and more like a straight prequel albeit with a more modern look from all accounts (i.e. the uniforms have been described as looking close to that of the original series but are not exact replicas).

 

Of course, with the acknowledged presence of time travel there could be the creation of an alternate timeline in which part of this movie and possible sequels take place. It's pure conjecture but it would explain why the creators refuse to use one of sequel, prequel and reboot/re-imagining to describe the movie. However, they acknowledged that it will adhere to canon and anything that doesn't seem to be in canon will have a canon explanation.

 

Okay, can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this