Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Star Trek (2009)

We finally got around to seeing the new Star Trek movie today. I liked it, I really did. I thought all the characters except Chekov were perfectly cast. My favorite may be Urban as Bones, but I loved them all except Yelchin as Chekov. He just didn't even remotely remind me of Koenig's character.

I do have a few questions:
  1. How did the Romulans get hold of those Shadow vessels. Have they been dealing with Mr. Morden?

  2. Why were there so many light flashes on the screen? The frequency of the bright flashes hurt my eyes.

  3. Why were the only women anywhere around defined by their relationship with a main male character? Even Uhura in this one was less important as a crew member and more important as a love interest. As long as we were re-dealing, couldn't we have done better? Besides Uhura we got Kirk's mom in one scene where she gave birth to him, Spock's mom (a cameo role played by a 37 year old. she must have been a child bride) in a couple of scenes with him, and a green-skinned Orion cadet we first saw in bed with Kirk and then in passing one other time. There may have been another woman on the bridge at some point, and there were mini-skirt-clad female cadets at the Academy. Was it too much that I expected a stronger female presence in this film?

I got a bit tired of seeing Kirk struggling to breathe because yet another angry person was choking him. And I got tired of scenes where Kirk was dangling over a precipice holding onto a ledge by his fingers. On the other hand, when you get cast as the red shirt in this film you get to go out in style.


Roger Ebert calls it "fun" but says, "the franchise has become much of a muchness." The New York Times likes it. So does Variety. Moria says, "try and imagine the story as an episode of the original series where you cannot help but feel it would have been unmemorable" and points out
far too much of the story is dependent on convenient plotting devices like ‘trans-warp teleportation’. Not to mention some decidedly credibility-defying pieces – like Kirk seeming to go from an untested recruit with no ship time to being suspended from duty and then second-in-command and a full captain within a matter of about one day.


  1. Anonymous3:21 PM

    I haven't seen it but I really have no desire to see it. Trashing an entire history just so you can have a younger cast, more explosions & more excuses for explosions doesn't sound like a Star Trek movie, it sounds like an action movie that happens to have Star Trek intellectual property.

    Wouldn't it be great if Hollywood did something original like... Doing something original? I'd like to say that I can't wait until 2035 for when the franchise gets re-booted again but, thankfully, by then, I'll be far too old to care (If I'm still around).

  2. Original? I'd love it! I agree completely. I'd much rather have movies with original stories than re-makes of old movies or unending sequels.

    That said, I liked this film much, _much_ better than ST:TNG (whose continuing Picard-as-victim theme annoyed me no end) or Deep Space Nine (which never made sense to me as a Star Trek incarnation) or Voyager (at least it wasn't as bad as Enterprise -or was it...) or worst of all Enterprise. And the movies have been going from bad to worse -I never did see whatever the last one was.

    I feel like I've gotten a bad taste out of my mouth with this bit of summer fluff. I'm actually looking forward to the sequel. (I know, I know) I'm looking forward to all the fuss and bother and reporting over how they'll get Shatner into it. I guess I'm just hopelessly devoted to the original crew. And I'm going to adopt this new crew as Star Trek's legitimate heirs.

    I was beyond thrilled when Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out, though. I had waited so _long_. Hopeless, I tell you. I'm hopeless.