Saturday, May 09, 2009

Star Trek review

The new old generation. Or something.

So, I've been a Trekkie since the original series on tv in the '60s. (Yes, it was in color! Very cool!)


I watched all the spinoffs, although I wasn't religious about Voyager. I went to the first Star Trek movie when it came out and I'm such a loyal fan that I spent money to go to the second movie (Khan!) after enduring the first. Shudder! Thankfully, the second provided redemption for the first. Since then, the movies have been hit and miss but I have remained a fan.


My favorite ST movie? I hafta agree with the cynical reviewer who, after watching Galaxy Quest exclaimed, "At last! A good Star Trek movie." After Galaxy Quest, my fave hasta be 4: The Search for Whales; but then, like Spock, I probably took a little too much LDS in the '60s.


So this latest offering… A new look, a new-ish timeframe, new actors, same bad science – IOW, classic ST. Regarding bad science, I gotta at least give 'em credit for not even trying to make up one of their patented "tech the tech" explanations when they simply referred to "the red stuff." Why try to explain the inexplicable or unscrew the inscrutable? Let's just call it "the red stuff" and have it do what the plot requires. More action sequences coming after these expensive special effects. Let's move it along, now. More to see. Don't worry your pretty little heads about believability. We're banking on a SERIOUS level of "willing suspension of disbelief."

Somebody should write a Dr. Seuss-style physics book for the ST writers of the last coupla decades. Red shift, blue shift, I shift, you shift. The big G, you see, affects you and me. mc^2 equals e and EMP after deltaT gives a field of B. Etc.

Oh well, even the original ST only featured a coupla episodes written by actual s-f writers who knew what the hell they were writing about. Otherwise it was, as the tv companies wanted it to be, "Wagon Train in space."

What can I say about this latest offering?


Expensive special effects. Adequate (meaning average) ST plot. Characters? I have only two significant complaints: Uhuru and Checkov. Everyone else was ok; I accepted them as the new avatars of their antecedents. But Uhuru, no. Couldn't swallow her. And Chekov, completely inaccurate personality depiction. Minor quibble: cutesy alien pal for Scotty. Maybe if they'd explored a xenosexual tension between them, but as it was, nah! Waaaaayyy to damned cutesy.

Speaking of sex. TOS was shown on tv in the '60s. We all understand the restrictions of that medium at that time. This is a movie being shown in 2009. Am I really to believe that Kirk, the horned one, has wild, green-skinned, "Orion slave-girl" sex with a partner who's still wearing a bra-and-panty set less revealing than most bikinis? Bah, humbug!

Grumps aside, it was a fine ST offering. If you're a Trekkie at all, you should enjoy it. Even if you're not, you might find it amusing.

Live long and prosper! Bones seems to have figured out how to do that.

2 comments:

  1. I was going to wait for it to come out on DVD but after this review.....I might still wait!:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a big screen movie. Big and loud in the theater was pretty nice.

    ReplyDelete