I intended to go to see the new "Star Trek" movie a second time, so that I could refresh my memory of some things and maybe see some things I hadn't the first time, before I made further comments on the "Star Trek" movie. However, I have not yet had the chance to do so, and I think seeing "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" and "Terminator Salvation" within about a week of each other pushed me over the edge. The dreadful "Terminator" actually surpassed "Wolverine" as the most pointless extension of a movie franchise yet... and that's not an easy thing to do.
It's quite possible that, having only seen the film once, I missed or misperceived some details. If so, I will be happy to admit I am wrong.
So here are some more critical thoughts on the new "Star Trek" movie. Before I get into it, I do want to say one positive thing about the movie -- I was never bored while watching it. I was frequently appalled and saddened, but not bored.
CAUTION!!! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!! RED ALERT!!! SHIELDS UP!!!
In the original series, and in all of the other "Star Trek" series (even, I think, "Enterprise", which took place in an earlier time period when the technology was not as advanced) and "Star Trek" movies, the transporter was regularly used in concert with a starship's sensors to scan, "lock on", and beam people and/or things from one place to another. Those places were often in motion relative to each other. Some were traveling at very high speeds -- there was often beaming done between spaceships, between spaceships and planets, and so forth.
In this new movie, there is a whole scene devoted to setting up the goofy idea (to be used -- VERY lamely -- in a later scene) that for some reason, the transporter has a hard time locking onto and transporting two humanoids free-falling through Vulcan's atmosphere. Now, think about this... the Enterprise has computers that can simultaneously operate all the myriad functions of a gigantic starship, including the almost unimaginable complexity of keeping track of the mind-bogglingly gigantic number of bits as a person's body is converted into energy and reassembled into matter (correctly!) at a distant location... and yet we're expected to believe that this incredibly powerful computer can't calculate simple Newtonian-type physics? That is simply, to coin a phrase, highly illogical.
And it all seems to be just a set up for the incredibly silly scene later in the movie when Spock's mother perishes because, during the destruction of Vulcan, when the rest of her group (including Spock's father) is being beamed up to the Enterprise successfully, she is lost... BECAUSE SHE FALLS OFF A ROCK DURING BEAMING. I'm not kidding.
So we go from a scene where the Enterprise computer controlling the transporter can't handle transporting two guys falling miles through Vulcan's atmosphere, to another scene where the same computer can't even handle transporting someone who JUST FELL OFF A ROCK.
I can't stand it. Who vetted this stuff?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure if the ship Kirk sees being constructed (or repaired, it's never quite clear... or at least it wasn't to me at the time) on the ground on Earth is Enterprise, or some other ship, or not even a real starship at all but some kind of full-size training environment. But unless I have missed something in the realm of theoretical starship construction, building your deep space vessel at the bottom of a gravity well on the surface of a planet is a VERY dopey idea. Again, highly illogical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scenes in this movie where Spock and Uhura kiss and embrace in a fashion clearly meant to indicate that they have some kind of romantic/sexual relationship are simply bizarre. Not only do they add nothing to the story, but they completely go against the nature of Spock (and Uhura, for that matter) as established over forty years of "Star Trek" history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most annoyingly overused cliches is "jaw dropping". Even so, there are times when it applies, and I had several "jaw-dropping" moments while watching this new "Star Trek" film. I think the first one may have been when there is a scene set (I think) in Enterprise's engineering section... and it's clearly been filmed in some lightly redressed 21st century factory, with clunky pipes and flanges and valves and wheels, looking for all the world like a scene in some cheap, cheesy Sci-Fi Channel movie, where an apartment boiler room can fill in for a nuclear power plant or something. I came into this movie having heard that this was the one which would FINALLY show the true grandeur of the "Star Trek" environments -- they had the budget, and they were going to do it RIGHT!
I expected that this would mean money being lavished on large, carefully detailed sets... or maybe some amazing CGI set extensions like George Lucas used to great effect in the "Star Wars" prequels. I was certainly not expecting this "amateur hour" approach. Literally, my jaw was hanging open when I saw this. I just couldn't believe my eyes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who have seen this new film and the second Star Trek film ("The Wrath of Khan") have pointed out that the villainous Nero's motivation is eerily similar to (the less charitable would say "ripped off from") that of the character of Khan in "Wrath of Khan" -- i.e., each one had lost a beloved spouse, and wanted revenge on one of our heroes for said loss.
There are two key differences which make -- in terms of drama and emotional content and believability -- "Wrath of Khan" seem like high art compared to this new "Star Trek."
The first thing has to do with the original series -- you know, the one the non-Trek fans who love this new glitzy new Trek movie deride for its primitive effects, cheap sets, and so forth. That series had an episode -- "Space Seed" -- which introduced the genetically-engineered Khan (played by Ricardo Montalban) and his group of fellow "supermen", and showed how they tried to take over the Enterprise. They failed, and Kirk exiled them on an uninhabited planet, where it was felt that they might be able to create a life for themselves. (Not necessarily the most logical choice for Kirk, but that was the story.) It was an excellent set up for the "Wrath of Khan" movie -- it gave emotional weight to the reappearance of the character of Khan (again played, brilliantly, by Ricardo Montalban), and his rage at Kirk for the death of his wife during their exile on this planet.
This new movie has nothing like that, though it TRIES to get mileage out of a very similar idea. It's just that Eric Bana (as much as I admire him as an actor) is no Ricardo Montalban, and Nero is no Khan. And DOING something to someone (Kirk deciding to strand Khan and his wife on that planet) is ALWAYS gong to be far more dramatic that simply LETTING something happen (old Spock somehow letting Nero's wife die by not doing something -- I can't even remember what it was, it was so poorly dramatized).
The second thing is SCALE. In "Wrath of Khan", you could really buy Khan's anger at Kirk and his burning desire to hurt Kirk as deeply as he possibly could, including by killing him. It was personal. It was believable.
In the new "Star Trek", Nero doesn't just want to hurt Spock -- he wants to KILL THE ENTIRE PLANET OF VULCAN! And all because Spock failed to prevent Nero's wife's death. This is so over the top that it turns Nero into a true "cartoon villain", in the worst sense of that phrase. His plan is so extreme that it no longer means anything. It is, I think, one of the sad things about modern movies -- the idea that bigger is always better. Clearly, it's not.
(And I confess that, for some reason, I kept thinking of that scene in the movie "Diner", where some of the main characters are sharing a jail cell with some drunken bums, who keep harassing them... until one of those characters turns to one of the bums and says something to the effect that "I'm going to hit you so hard it'll kill your whole family!")
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that actually brings me to another point -- WHY DESTROY THE PLANET VULCAN???!!!??? This seemed to me to be such a ludicrously unnecessary bit of spectacle which pointlessly removed one of the coolest things in the "Star Trek" universe... and for WHAT?! So that Spock can say that dimwitted "I'm now an endangered species" line?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And don't even get me started on "red matter".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This one just occurred to me -- if Nero's ship has the ability to travel through time, why doesn't he use that ability to go back in time and SAVE HIS WIFE?!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the original series, the Enterprise had a brig (essentially a group of jail cells). In fact, on all of the "Star Trek" series, Starfleet vessels all had brigs. Brigs are where you put troublemakers, if you have any on your starship. This is where young Spock should have -- LOGICALLY -- put young Kirk when Kirk starts making a pain in the ass of himself.
But no... for the sake of the shakily-constructed story, it is ESSENTIAL that Spock do something to Kirk which, in a way, is tantamount to attempted murder -- he has him put in some kind of "escape pod" (which appears to be not much larger than a coffin) and shot off into space. It's ESSENTIAL because Kirk has to -- in a coincidence so staggering that it beggars belief -- run into old Spock on the dangerous ice planet to which young Spock has condemned him for no apparent reason (at least, none that I can see).
Apparently old Spock has also been marooned here on this planet, by Nero, so that as Spock's punishment for not doing something that might have saved Nero's wife, Spock has a "front row seat" to the destruction of Vulcan. Old Spock is so marooned, in fact, that when Kirk arrives, old Spock says "There's a Starfleet installation on this planet", and the two of them apparently WALK to it in short order. There they find Montgomery Scott, who promptly (with old Spock's help) figures out a way to beam them off the planet and onto the Enterprise. Guess they weren't so marooned after all.
One wonders -- if old Spock knew about this Starfleet installation, WHY DIDN'T HE IMMEDIATELY GO THERE WHEN NERO PLUNKED HIM DOWN ON THE PLANET? Why did he wait until Kirk got there? Oh, that's right -- if he HADN'T waited, he wouldn't have been able to spew all that expository dialogue to explain the dopey plot of the movie to Kirk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FInally (at least for this post), I have to mention the bit near the end of the movie where old Spock meets young Spock. Let's set aside the fact that, earlier in the movie, old Spock makes a big deal out of how Kirk can't tell young Spock that old Spock has imparted the key plot information to Kirk... it would mess up the timeline or something. Okay, fine... but then we're at the end of the move, and old Spock just casually walks up to young Spock and starts chatting with him. WTF??!!!
But the bit that I really wanted to mention is the line that, on first viewing, sounded kind of clever -- it's when old Spock takes his leave of young Spock and says something like "I would say goodbye with my usual salutation, but that would seem self-serving, so I will simply say... "Good luck"."
As we all know, Spock's "usual salutation" is "Live long and prosper." Okay... now will somebody explain to me how wishing yourself good luck is any less self-serving than wishing yourself long life and prosperity? Doesn't a wish for "good luck" INCLUDE things like long life and prosperity, if not more?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it for now. Hopefully, I have not remembered the pertinent details of the new "Trek" movie incorrectly in my comments here. But I'm sure that if I have, I will be informed. -- PL