A Nitpicker's Guide to the New Star Trek

I won't tell you the movie isn't enjoyable, isn't exciting, or isn't a slick, well-produced film.

I will, however, say the screenwriters should have their credentials revoked--then be hamstrung, drawn, and quartered. And the same repeated for the entire production chain who vetted and signed off on the screenplay.

For credulity's sake, how exactly did Kirk get promoted as a third-year cadet all the way to Captain? He skipped his fourth year (vaguely possible, I suppose, and something he did vow to Captain Pike he'd accomplish), skipped Ensign, Lieutenant (junior grade), Lieutenant, Lt. Commander, Commander ... all the way to Captain. None of the rest of the crew received a single grade promotion, mind you, yet Kirk got bumped up seven grades counting his final cadet year.

Besides the incredibility of that mega-promotion, Kirk is now deprived some of his most formative experiences. Recall that his backstory previously included a tour of duty on the U.S.S. Farragut, where as the weapons officer he felt he failed to prevent the death of his captain when the ship was attacked by a cosmic vampire cloud. Recall the death of his brother (who apparently doesn't exist in this alternate reality) at the hand of the plastic-dog-vomit parasites. Recall his many old flames (which is not to say his sexual escapades as Captain won't still happen, of course), including the one leading to the birth of his son. No friendship with Gary Mitchell and witnessing Mitchell's dehumanizing encounter with god-like powers. None of these things will have had happened. Instead, we get brash, even-younger-than-ever Kirk in charge from the get-go, without the tempering influence of the those experiences.

For the uber-nitpickers out there, I've also added a list of my first impressions of continuity violations which, though not critical to the story or characters so much, do deserve mention:

1. The planet Delta Vega (where Kirk conveniently encounters elder Spock) was previously featured in the retooled original Star Trek pilot episode, with a small, automated dilithium (er, lithium--the writers hadn't invented "dilithium" yet!) cracking station. A desolate world, yes, but not the Hoth we're given in the new film... and a planet near the edge of the galaxy, not so close to Vulcan that it must be a planet in the same star system!
   
2. Checkov had previously been significantly younger than Kirk and had idolized his captain; now, he's of a similar age and graduated from the academy ahead of Kirk.
3. "Transwarp" previously referred to the next generation of warp drive systems (recall the Excelsior in The Search for Spock); now, it refers to the ability to transport people through vast distances of space and onto ships in warp drive.
4. Spock had served with Captain Pike on the Enterprise for several years before Kirk became captain. Though they're introducing some aspects of the early Spock-Kirk friction in the new film, Kirk having "inherited" the aloof alien first officer he doesn't know how to deal with was something of a key point of the prior series.

I'll be back to this post in the future to put in a few more serious nitpicks.

Time Travel, Again?!: Or, Letting Blockbusterphilia Ruin Another Hollywood Retread

I watched the new, J. J. Abrams Star Trek reboot recently, and let me just say: wow. Now, that's not a good "wow," mind you, but rather a jaw-dropping, "What the heck were they thinking?!" sort of "wow." Though I mostly enjoyed the movie for its well-cast actors and slick production values, the story has to be one of the worst I've seen--and that's saying something for a franchise which had a long-lost brother of Spock searching for God in the center of the galaxy (thanks, Bill Shatner; we won't be needing your services as screenwriter again...)

In the interest of full disclosure, although I came to the theater with as open a mind as I could manage, I must admit to approaching it with misgivings.

Here's the thing: a lot of fans of the film are dismissing the Hostel-treatment of Star Trek continuity with the excuse that the film represents a "reboot," a leaping off point into a parallel universe where the franchise can go in new directions using the same beloved characters of the past (this is, mind you, a favorite tactic both of comic books and Hollywood retreads). That's all fine and dandy, in my book... but why resort to the cliche-even-for-Star-Trek plot device of time travel to do so? Of the eleven Star Trek feature films, this is the fourth time they've resorted to time travel in some form as a central plot device. Honestly, are they making Star Trek or Dr. Who here?

You didn't see mega-blockbuster film franchises like X-Men or Spiderman resorting to time travel or alternate universes to explain their departure from prior incarnations of their millieu; no, they simply presented the stories and said: "Here are the characters you (mostly) know, with a story you (mostly) know, done a new way." The James Bond franchise reboot has a few nitpicks, but they didn't try to claim 007 somehow caught the time tunnel to the future (wouldn't that be Austin Powers, perhaps?)

Removing the time travel plot device from Star Trek would have made for a far better film--not in the least through the ability to create a better, more convincing villain, rather than a retread of Malcolm McDowell's disappointing Star Trek: Generations baddie. A baddie, mind you, who when finding himself back in time prior to the destruction of his homeworld and the loss of his family, the very events that lead to his rampage for vengeance, and in possession of the very material (red matter) needed to prevent said destruction, wastes his time getting killed on stupid vengeance for which there's no need? Come ON, J. J.; give us a break. Surely one of the guy's subordinates might have said, "Hey, Nero, uh, maybe we ought to go prevent Romulus from being destroyed, eh?"

And what the heck is "red matter?" Please, I know Star Trek has always been more about the "social" sciences than about hard physics, but "red matter?" Get rid of the time travel aspect, and you can dispense with the ridiculous McGuffin of "red matter," too.

So yes, Trek fans: bash me all you like. But take a moment to ask yourself: had Abrams the intellectual honesty and regard for the fans enough to simply state, "Hey, guys, you'll recognize these characters, but keep in mind, we're starting over here," instead of dragging in a hackneyed time travel galactic Swiss cheese of a plot element, wouldn't it have been a better film? Wouldn't it have been far better to simply say, "Hey, here's Kirk's first mission, and how he meets the rest of his crew in our new take on the franchise?" Seems they could have come up with a far better story to tell, kept the blockbuster special effects and production values, and have come up with something other than refried summer movie mush.