Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts

Saturday, November 20, 2010

The Nerdy News Blog - November 20th, 2010

Forgive me, folks, for failing to write up last week's Nerdy News, so here we go for what happened this week.

FOX Announces That Fringe Will Be Moved to Fridays
 Normally, I wouldn't find a change of day and time for a show to be anything remotely newsworthy. But let's take a look at the facts here. Fact: Fringe is a science fiction show on FOX with critical acclaim that's currently on Thursday nights. Fact: Starting on January 28th, it will be on Fridays. Fact: Firefly was a science fiction show on FOX with critical acclaim that aired on Fridays and was quickly canceled. Fact: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was a science fiction show that aired on FOX that was moved to Fridays in its second season and was quickly canceled.
Opinion: Oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crapohcrapohcrapohcrapohcrapohcapOHCRAP!
FOX might as well have put out a press release that said we're thinking about canceling another awesome show because we're a bunch of morons.

Cryptic Studios and CBS Will Let The Fans Design The Next Enterprise

I realize I'm probably the only person you know who plays Star Trek Online, and hell, I don't even play it as much anymore. But I think this next bit is pretty cool. The game's developer, Cryptic Studios, along with Star Trek license holder CBS Studios and Intel have announced a contest that asks for fans to design the next starship Enterprise. I'm assuming it will be the Enterprise-F, since, according to the game's timeline, the Enterprise-E had a significantly longer life span than some of the other ships in its line. The grand prize is kind of lame, though - an Alienware laptop, the collector's edition of Star Trek Online along with a lifetime membership, the new Enterprise will appear in STO and you'll get a replica of your design. Personally, I'd rather have the replica and royalties for the use of my design. Oh well. The contest starts on December 9th. Check here for details.

 Darren Aronofsky To Direct The Wolverine
 That's right. The guy who directed head trips and arftsy flicks like Requiem for a Dream, Pi, The Fountain, and The Wrestler, is directing the sequel to the abysmal X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Aronofsky has worked with big screen Wolvie Hugh Jackman on The Fountain and it would seem that it was Jackman himself that got him the job. One of the things Aronofsky has done already is to change the title from something that probably would have been awful, like X-Men Kinda Origins: Wolverine Goes To Hollywood, to the simple title, The Wolverine. Supposedly, Aronofsky is looking to really separate his film from the Gavin Hood-directed nightmare that gave us magic adamantium memory-erasing bullets and the horribly realized Wade Wilson/Deadpool. He's called it a "stand alone" film, that "isn't connected" to its predecessor. Frankly, I don't see how that's possible since you still have Hugh Jackman playing Logan (though I actually still think he's great in the role). But combine this with the fact that they're rebooting Wade Wilson's origins for Deadpool, which should film soon if Ryan Reynolds' schedule ever frees up, and the craziness that seems to be involved with X-Men: First Class, and it's pretty obvious that FOX doesn't give a rat's ass about maintaining continuity in its X-Men film universe.


Oh, and for your amusement here's an image from a mid-90's Star Trek/X-Men crossover comic. I actually own a copy of it.
Yeah, that's Spock owning Wolverine with a Vulcan Nerve Pinch.
Win.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The Nerdy News Blog - October 21st

So where shall we start? Oh yes, the thing I just read a few minutes ago.

Martin Freeman Confirmed as Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit

Unfortunately, Bilbo's not a pirate. But this picture makes me wish he was.

Holy hell, holy hell, holy hell! It's always awesome when you're top choice for a role in a movie you've been waiting for is exactly the guy you want! No, but seriously. Whenever I'd thought about The Hobbit, I saw Martin Freeman. He's short. I've only seen him in roles where he seems generally bewildered. And best of all, he has an actually English accent! Unlike Elijah Wood. They also announced who was playing the eight dwarfs who, along with Gandalf (Ian McKellan will be reprising the role for the two movies that make up The Hobbit), whisk Bilbo away. But honestly, who gives a crap about the dwarves? I can't remember their names even. Plus I didn't recognize a single one of the actors' names who play them. So whatever.

The Hulk is Coming to TV... Again

 The Hulk's first job as a go-go dancer didn't end happily. One drunken night with Thor can ruin everything.

Part of Disney's purchase of Marvel Comics has led the two companies to work on taking some of Marvel's properties to ABC. Amongst the possible series the companies were considering was The Punisher, The Eternals and, the one I wish would get made - Moon Knight. But ultimately, two shows were decided on. One involving young heroes Cloak and Dagger, that will be called, go figure, Cloak and Dagger, to be aired on ABC Family. The Hulk was previously the subject of a quite successful TV series in the 1980's, and Disney/Marvel is hoping to create another hit. This will make the fourth actor to play Bruce Banner in less than ten years, including Eric Bana, Edward Norton and Mark Ruffalo (who will appear in The Avengers in 2012). Everybody ready for some more ripped purple shorts?

Screenwriters Finally Begin Writing the Script for the Next Star Trek

Yaaaaaaaay!
Do I need to say anything else? I just hope they don't use Khan for the villain. I want to see some Klingons.

There won't be any of this guy though. Probably just as well anyway.
 
 
 
Fin.


Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Four TV Shows That I'm (Still) Royally Pissed Got Canceled

1. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

Dear Thomas Dekker, thanks for being less of a whiny bastard than Edward Furlong.

To this day, when I see someone who was on this wonderfully well done continuation of the Terminator franchise (set in an alternate universe where the events of the third and fourth movies didn't happen). Often, I end up pleading at the television set, "You're supposed to be on Sarah Connor Chronicles!" And then I get depressed. And then I get angry at Fox for pulling the rug out for what was a truly wonderful example of science-fiction on TV.
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles wasn't just good for the Terminator franchise, it was just plain good. The show had solid writing, great acting (especially from Summer Glau as Cameron, the terminator sent to protect John) and surprisingly good special effects for a television show. It didn't pull punches and make sure your favorite characters survived every episode. A couple of my favorites got taken out with little ceremony. There was one particular "Bang, you're dead" moment toward the end of the second season that was particularly shocking. If you enjoyed the Terminator movies but didn't watch the show, you ought to check it out.
Be warned, though, a huge part of my ire is that the show's producers decided to take a risk by ending the second season with a huge cliffhanger. I repeat: a huge cliffhanger. And how did Fox respond? Oh, yes, they canceled it. Bastards.
On the bright side, the show's stars and producers have apparently been trying for the last year to get Warner Brothers to let them make a direct-to-DVD movie that would wrap-up the loose ends of the series. Though there hasn't been much in the way of developments in that regard. Sad face.

2. Firefly

Oh, come on, like you didn't see this coming. I'm sure this is on everybody's lists of "Got Canceled too soon." I actually never watched Firefly while it was on the air. Before last summer, I'd seen a couple episodes in reruns on The Channel Formerly Known as Sci-Fi and I saw Serenity when it hit theaters and enjoyed it. I probably would have liked it better had I been more familiar with the show.
How did it get canceled? Seriously, it was essentially a western set in space with extremely memorable and likable characters. The cast was top notch, with awesome actors like Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, Alan Tudyk and the aforementioned Summer Glau (who sadly is pulling double-duty on this list).

I'm actually going as Jayne for Halloween. True story. I just wish I had the hat. You know the one I'm talking about.


Unfortunately, Firefly suffered from a bad case of the common Fox-Is-A-Bunch-Of-Idiots. The network said the original pilot wasn't action packed enough and was essentially "too smart" and it showed the crew as being a little morally dubious for dealing with a villain like Niska (played with a large amount of creepyness by Michael Fiarman) to hook people in. So Joss Whedon wrote and filmed "The Train Job." While it was the third episode in the series chronologically, it was aired first. It's a great episode, but it left people somewhat confused because they weren't introduced to the characters properly. Then, to add insult to injury, Fox aired the whole series out of order. And they showed it on Fridays - a night that nobody wants. Small wonder it didn't make it past 14 episodes.
On the bright side, we did get a very fun movie, Serenity, that served as a sequel to the series and allowed us to get some closure to some of the story arcs of the series. However, hardly anybody went to see it and Universal lost a bunch of money on it, so we've probably seen the last of Captain Malcolm Reynolds and the rest of the crew (that survived the movie).

3. Star Trek: Enterprise

Ah, the often-maligned Enterprise. I grew up on Star Trek, and Paramount was eager to keep producing more when Voyager came to a close. What came next was Enterprise, a prequel that precedes the original Star Trek by a little over 100 years. Starring Dr. Sam Beckett himself, Scott Bakula, as Captain Jonathan Archer, the series got off to a rocky start. But anybody who's familiar with the various spin-offs of the Star Trek franchise knows that all of the spin-offs generally didn't hit their strides until the third season (though I still contend that Deep Space 9 was very good even in its first season). Combine that with the fact that thousands of infantile Trekkies who thought that Enterprise violated their sacred canon who boycotted the show out of principal, and that led to less than stellar ratings. But then, Enterprise was on UPN, which was never a ratings powerhouse (and shortly after the cancellation of Enterprise, it merged with the WB Network to become The CW - a terrible name for a TV channel, if you ask me).

There's a whole lot of swagger on that bridge. But we all know we're looking at the Vulcan. The sexy, sexy Vulcan.

Enterprise is the longest running of all the shows on this list, with a whole 98 episodes under its belt. It definitely did not start strong like Sarah Connor or Firefly. But as the show progressed, the writing and characterization got stronger and stronger. The second season saw some really strong episodes, and then the producers took a risk with the third season. Instead of an episodic story structure, the show launched a season-long arc in which the crew had to go into an explored sector of space to pursue an group of aliens responsible for a Sept. 11th-like attack on Earth. This got into some dark, Deep Space 9 like story-telling involving torture and other morally dubious actions taken by Captain Archer. The fourth season was one of the best seasons of Star Trek ever, but most people stopped watching the show in the first or second season. Even with a new producer and new two to three episode arcs that bridged gaps and explained many mysteries of the Star Trek canon (like why Klingons in the original series didn't have ridges on their head), the show just didn't have the ratings to survive. So, for the first time since the original series, a Star Trek show got canceled. This cancellation, combined with the poor performance of Star Trek: Nemesis, the last outing for the Next Generation crew, did lead to the JJ Abrams reboot that came out in 2009.
But, with Enterprise canceled in 2005, I found myself without new Star Trek to look forward to every season for first time in my life. Le sigh.

4. Dollhouse

I didn't even watch Dollhouse, save for the pilot episode which left me feeling it was a little lackluster. So why should I be pissed that it got canceled? Well, take a look back at the first entry, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Dollhouse premiered while Sarah Connor was in it's second (and final) season. Dollhouse consistently got lower ratings than Sarah Connor and less critical praise. However, when it came time to renew for the next season, Fox decided to go with Dollhouse, because Fox's own studios produced Dollhouse, whereas Sarah Connor was produced by Warner Brothers and sold to Fox to air on their network. Apparently, it was more cost effective to keep making Dollhouse than to keep paying Warner Bros. for the rights to air the episodes. Plus, Fox would make money off DVD sales of Dollhouse while Warner Bros. got the DVD sales for Sarah Connor.
So, Sarah Connor didn't get a third season, while Dollhouse got a second season. And what happened at the end of its second season? Oh. Yeah. It got canceled. Way to go Fox. Morons. Notice a trend in who canceled these shows?


I'm so bitter at you, Dollhouse, that all you get is a caption without a picture.

I might give Dollhouse another shot, since it was created by Joss Whedon, the man behind Firefly (and who will direct The Avengers due out in 2012). But for now, I'm content with being bitter, thanks very much.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Star Trek - A Second Opinion

First off, I'm sorry for the lack of updates. The last week and a half has seen me moving into a new apartment and aiding the family while my grandmother was in the hospital (she's out and she's okay, by the way), and I just got Internet service in my new apartment tonight.

So, now on to our subject matter. On Monday, just after a too-thick-to-drink chocolate shake from the Warren's diner, Megan, Julie and I went to see Star Trek again. For me and Julie, it was a second viewing, for Megan it was a third (which is just ridiculous since she'd never even seen a Trek movie before I gave her a crash course in the franchise over the last few months, yet she's seen the movie more than I have).
In any case, I walked out of the film with a more tempered opinion of it than the one I put up in my initial review.
Frankly, I was still on a contact high of brand new Trek after the disappointment of Star Trek: Nemesis in 2003 and the cancellation of Enterprise (which was just starting to get really good) in 2005. The movie was certainly quite good, but I definitely overlooked some of its flaws because I was still giddy from having just seen it.
So how does it hold up now? Aside from some science-geek and cinemaphile nitpicks and a highly-underdeveloped villain, quite well. It's still fast-paced and incredibly fun, it still has some superb special effects and it still has some great acting. Where it falls flat are the characterization of Eric Bana's Nero and some glaring logic problems (that, admittedly, most movie viewers would not cue on to).
Nero simply didn't get enough screen time nor enough to do. I probably did not catch on to this initially due to the fact that I read IDW's comic Star Trek: Countdown, which featured a story by the film's writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. This comic gives the details of what happened in the 24th century that made Nero as insane and vengeful as he is in the film. When I first saw Star Trek, I didn't question anything about Nero because I knew why he was the way he was. However, this time I noticed that all that's really said is that Romulus, Nero's home planet, was destroyed by a supernova (a science nitpick I'll get to in a bit) and he wanted to make the whole galaxy suffer for not helping to save his planet. Nero simply isn't developed enough. I think the writers aimed to make him more of a tragic villain, yet other than an image of Nero's wife who died in the calamity, we're never given any real reason to connect with Nero. There is nothing shown to make the audience connect with him in some way, to feel any sort of sympathy. Had we seen Nero as a man so torn by grief that he's fallen into insanity, he would have been a high effective villain - and Trek movies have a tendency for great villains, like Kahn, Chang and the Borg Queen. However, all we see is an insane, flamboyant, tattooed Romulan who we know very little about and who simply seems to want to watch the galaxy burn.
Another thing that irked me this time was not glaring but flaring (pun intended). For the most part, I love JJ Abram's cinematographic style in the film - with it's documentary style camera movements and angles. What I didn't like was the fact that every other second, there is a lens flare. Most were small and subjected to the sides of the screen, but on occasion there would be one that would totally white out the picture and it started to get on my nerves. The little ones I could deal with, but the big ones that interrupted my field of vision started to annoy me. I even found a humorous edit of the trailer for the Original Series episode "Space Seed" with the lens flares added in, so I apparently wasn't the only one who noticed. It's not really a problem with the film itself, but it started to bug me. It's something I can learn to ignore, however.
The science-geek in me had some problems with the science of the movie, namely supernovae and black holes. Generally, Trek has been really good about keeping to actual science (for the most part), so it was a bit of a disappointment to see problems like that. Apparently, Romulus was destroyed by a supernova that hit with little warning (an event depicted in Countdown, which likewise gave me the same thought). However, even a supernova of a nearby star to Romulus would have taken years to reach the planet, unless it was the Romulan star itself, because supernovae move at less than the speed of light - so there would have been plenty of warning and, thus, Nero would have no reason to be so angry. Also, a black hole is created at one point in the film, and the subsequent destruction shows that everything that is destroyed by it is simply sucked in. However, the debris would have formed a visible accretion disk that would orbit the black hole. That's a minor quibble and doesn't present much of a logic problem for the story as the supernova one does, but oh well, that's just me griping cause I've taken an astronomy class and actually learned something.
All in all though, I won't contradict everything I said in the first review, because those opinions still held true. I loved the acting and the story. I loved the action set pieces and I was still just as blown away by the incredible special effects. It's not as perfect as I initially made it out to be, but it's still a great movie in all respects.

One more gripe about it: I never want to watch it in anything but High Definition, because the film is simply gorgeous to look at. Unfortunately, I don't have an HDTV or a Blu-Ray player. So when this movie hits home video, I'm out of luck. Anybody have any high paying jobs to offer me?

- Nate

Thursday, May 7, 2009

The Second Coming of Star Trek


Well, folks, I've seen it. At 7PM tonight at the Warren Theater in Moore, OK, the Voice of the Theater spoke, the trailers rolled and then it began. The film I've been anticipating for something close to the last two years.
Star Trek.
The JJ Abrams-directed, Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman-written flick is both a loving tribute to and fresh breath if life into the Star Trek franchise. In fact, I would go on to say that this is one of the best science-fiction films to be released in years.
The film is a sort of sequel, prequel and reboot at the same time. Through some complicated bits of time travel and back story, actions that take place in the twenty-forth century of the timeline that's been set up by the last forty years of Trek and creates a new, separate timeline. This allows the filmmakers to create a story that both honors the established canon and creates new opportunities for story telling at the same time. The film proceeds uninhibited by the veritable Sword of Damocles of canon constraints, which makes for surprising twists of story that this life-long Trekkie did not expect to see. It sets up a new franchise with some very interesting possibilities.
The film itself is nothing short of epic. The script is wonderful, managing to incorporate the strong characterization inherent within the franchise along with strong crowd-pleasing action sequences. Every time I thought they had spent too long focusing on the action, they relented with character moments and that made the movie all the more enjoyable for me, as a bona fide Trekkie.
I said on this blog last October that as long as the characters felt right, I would be satisfied with this film. Other than a few minor parts, the casting and characterization of these iconic characters was nothing short of awe-inspiring. The most prominent reason for this is the spot-on casting, especially the choices of Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock, Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy and Zoe Saldana as Uhura.
Pine simply exudes with the brash confidence that one would expect of a young Kirk. This is exceptionally well done because Kirk does not remain this way through out the entire film, but has a definite growth over the course of the film - seen especially well in a moment when Uhura tells Kirk that she hopes he knows what he's doing, and rather than providing a cocky quip that he would have delivered earlier in the film, his only reply is an honest "So do I." I did not expect to love Pine's performance nearly as much as I did.
Quinto was perhaps the most obvious choice for Spock that anyone could have come up with. Between his resemblance to a young Leonard Nimoy and the cool and unattached performance that he's given as Sylar on Heroes, he was a simple shoe-in for the role. He excellently portrays the emotional turmoil that is presented to Spock due to his heritage as well as the hardships he faces through the course of the film.
It seemed that Karl Urban was possessed by the spirit of DeForest Kelley while filming Star Trek. He doesn't just portray the character well, he is Dr. Leonard H. "Bones" McCoy. He has an incredibly strong introduction nearly the beginning of the film and the consistency with which he delivers the character persists throughout without ever feeling like imitation. Between his wonderfully in-character scripting and the way he performed the part, Urban was simply a joy to watch.
Saldana's Uhura was refreshing because the character was finally given her due. Throughout the original series and the movie, Uhura was ever present, but without much to do story-wise. In this new film, she plays a major role and her interactions with both Kirk and Spock give her far more character than she's ever had before. Uhura was always sort of a blank slate, a character that we never really knew much about. In fact, a running plot point in the film is the mystery behind her first name, something that was never once said before in any of the episodes or films. So seeing Saldana really give the character substance was great.
As for the rest of the cast, they were very strong, but perhaps not as much as the previous four. Simon Pegg was hilarious as Scotty, and while Scotty was used for a fair amount of comic relief in the episodes and movies, he has his serious moments. In this, he's given nothing and I'm hoping that he'll be given more to work with in the sequel.
Likewise, Anton Yelchin's Chekov was nothing but comic relief, with a few jokes on the accent and such. Yelchin does put his heart into the performance, staying true to Walter Koenig's campy Russian accent and being the exuberant youth at the navigation console.
John Cho isn't really given much to do as Sulu other than one cool fight sequence. It's hard to give a verdict on his performance.
Surprisingly, I found myself slightly disappointed with Leonard Nimoy's return as the future Spock. Mostly it was the portrayal I would have expected, with Spock even seeming like he had developed more since the last time we saw him. Unfortunately, there were simply a few lines that I felt were forced and those just kind of bugged me.
The special effects and sound are nothing short of amazing. From the opening shots of the battle between the Kelvin and the Narada to the ice planet monsters, this film looks and sounds positively incredible. I continually found myself in the theater thinking "Wow" at many of the effects shots.
Perhaps, though, the greatest achievement of all is the film's accessibility. My friend Megan was in the group I saw the film with tonight. She came in relatively fresh, with very little experience with Trek. I had had her watch the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh films to kind of give her some background and a feel for the characters. She expressed it best when she said that it was a good enough movie that she thought anyone would like it, but it had enough nods to things she'd seen by watching other Trek that it made her feel like she was in the know. If this film can attract all the new fans that I think it could, then perhaps we'll get to watch more new Star Trek for years to come and, as a fan, that is wonderful.
Though, it's not that I didn't have some minor problems here and there with things. For one, I didn't care for the usage of Beastie Boys in one of the scene - I mean, the film already had such a great score in all the other scenes, couldn't they have used that? Also, the way Kirk jumps so high up in rank so quickly felt contrived and unrealistic. Some of the comedic scenes also got a little too ridiculous at times, feeling more slapstick than the usual dry humor found in the franchise. These problems, though, were not enough to ruin the film for me.

In the end, I definitely need to see it once, twice or maybe a third or fourth time more. But this is most definitely one of my new favorite Trek movies and it easily equals the caliber of The Wrath of Kahn,The Undiscovered Country and First Contact or even surpasses them. I haven't quite decided yet.

Star Trek is back. Or, to quote James T. Kirk at the end of the fourth film, "My friends, we've come home."

- Nate

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Quantum of Solace (+Star Trek trailer)


Essentially an extended epilogue to Casino Royale, the new James Bond flick, Quantum of Solace, is heavier on action than the 2006 franchise reboot but not quite as engaging when it comes to characters.
From minute one, the audience is taken through the high-octane life of the 00 Agent as he tries to track down the mysterious organization that his love from the previous film, Vesper, was working for when she betrayed him and killed herself. Bond swears he's doing his duty, but the trail of bodies he leaves in his wake seems to prove otherwise.
I've been a big fan of the Bond movies since I first saw the Connery-era Diamonds Are Forever. I've always been especially appreciative of the Connery films because the character of Bond seems so much richer than the Bond we see in the days of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, in a world of ridiculous (though, admittedly, quite fun) gadgets and zero character consequences. So when Casino Royale came out, I was delighted to see a Bond film where Bond felt like a real man working in the real world with real consequences, to an even stronger degree than the early Connery films.
Quantum of Solace does feature these things, but I would say to a lesser degree than its predecessor. While Bond does have to grow and, in the end, get over the betrayal he felt from Vesper, I didn't see as much of that growth as I'd have liked. At points it seemed like false alarms, a friend (whom I won't reveal for the sake of anyone who hasn't seen it) dies in his arms and just when you think Bond is realizing what his actions are costing him, he turns around and leaves his friend's body in a dumpster, saying that he wouldn't care about it. Ultimately, we do have a satisfying emotional payoff, but the ending of this film simply wasn't as resounding as Casino Royale. Whereas in the first of these two films, we see Bond go from a somewhat eager new 00 Agent to the cold-hearted assassin that Ian Fleming made famous, we see Bond go from cold-hearted assassin to an even colder-hearted assassin.
The action scenes were also quite good, though a few of the action sequences seemed a bit contrived for this more realistic take on Bond. But, to be fair, none of those were too contrived, because I didn't even remember how contrived they were until I started this paragraph.
It was a hell of a ride and will still be an important chapter in the legacy of this new Bond (and, by the way, I like Daniel Craig in the role as much as I like Sean Connery). I'd say it didn't quite live up to the bar set by Casino Royale, but ultimately you still get a great film.

As for the trailer for JJ Abrams's Star Trek, a film I have already discussed at length on this blog... I don't know. I sincerely hope that the trailer is not indicative of the entire package. To me, Star Trek is about the characters. Yes, a Trek film needs its fair share of action, but the characters are supposed to come first. Look at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country or Star Trek: First Contact. All three of these have a good blend of character and action, with a little humor, and are widely considered to be some of the best of the films. I realize the trailer is only two minutes of a two hour movie, but I hope JJ Abrams knows what he's doing. I'm still optimistic, but I'm also wary. As long as the spirit of Trek is preserved, and we get a good movie, I'll be happy.
One thing that worries me though: I live in a college town and there were a lot of my fellow college students in the theater. At the end of the trailer, I heard a fair amount of snickering. They had better get pretty creative with their marketing to entice my generation to go see this movie. There's still a bit of a social stigma assigned to people who are openly Trek fans. They need to make sure this looks like a movie that everyone is going to want to see, Trekkie or not.

- Nate

Friday, October 24, 2008

Thoughts on JJ Abrams' Star Trek

First, let me apologize for my lack of updates this week, my novel has been kicking my ass. But I've been kicking back these last few nights and have finally made enough headway to get on here and make some posts.

Second, let me put this out there. If you don't like it, stop reading this blog, because it'll probably be something you'll see a lot of.

I'm a
huge Star Trek fan. I even have this lovely white ringer t-shirt that simply says "trekkie" across the chest (Thanks goes to my sister on that one).

That being said, it's time to dive into my opinions on the upcoming Star Trek film. The re-pre-sequel-imagining-boot is directed by JJ Abrams (Mission: Impossible III, TV's Lost, Alias & Fringe) and will be released in theaters May 9th, 2009.
There are really two main camps within the Trek community when it c
omes to JJ's upcoming film. One faction is eagerly anticipating it and think a fresh take on Star Trek is welcome and needed if the 41-year-old franchise is going to endure. The other is claiming that this film constitutes heresy, because recasting the original Star Trek crew and re-imagining all of the series aesthetics, not to mention bringing the characters together chronologically before the original series goes against the story canon established in the franchise.
I fall more in with the first group. I've recognized that I'm a hell of a lot younger than the majority of Trek fans and that that group isn't going to last forever. I also recognize that it is the older fans who more frequently beat on the bible-that-is-canon and whose lack of support due to supposed "canon violations" caused the most recent Trek series, Enterprise (which had become an excellent series by the time it was canceled in its fourth season).
Plus, canon junkies should be satisfied that the writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, are such huge fans that they even went the extra mile of trying not to negate the storylines of the Star Trek novels published by Pocket Books. They're even canonizing some of the stuff from the books, like that Kirk's mother's name is Winona.
But because of insatiable canon junkies, Star Trek needs an infusion of fresh blood. The reason the original series has endured these forty years were because of its characters and the daring story lines. This was the series that featured the first televised interracial kiss. This was the series that had a black woman and a Russian as regular characters during the heights of the Civil Rights movement and the Cold War. It dared to challenge hatred and champion humanity in trying times. Hell, it was even reported to be one of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s favorite television shows. And right now, with America on the cusp of trying to decide where its society will take itself and the world watching in baited breath as we try to deal with economic and social problems that ultimately affect the entire world, we need Star Trek almost as badly as we did in the late 1960's.
I don't have high hopes that this film will be a riveting allegory on today's social problems and vices. If it is, I'll be vastly impressed and incredibly thankful that JJ Abrams could stay so close to the spirit of Trek. I imagine this will at least be a fun film and wi
ll hopefully be on par with the better Trek movies (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn is widely considered to be one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, not just the best Trek movie).
My main hope for this film is that, with its big name stars (and hopefully excellent writing from Orci and Kurtzman), it will attract enough uninitiated film goers to the theaters that it can spark new life for Star Trek as a television series. I'm not looking for the cast of this movie to be in some kind of "New Adventures of Old Star Trek," since there's no way they could even get all these people to be regulars, not to mention that would negate canon and I'd prefer to see it preserved if possible, after watching hundreds of episodes from the different series. What I am looking for is something to carry the torch. If it were me, I'd create a new show, set in the 23rd century (Kirk's era), with the same design aesthetics as the film but with a new crew on a different ship. That way, it would be similar enough for new fans, who will hopefully be brought in by the movie, to feel comfortable with it. Plus it would open the possibility of guest roles by the actors from the film as their characters. Even better, the characters on this new ship can make references to the "current" adventures of Kirk and company here and there by mentioning events that happened in various Original Series episodes to create a more cohesive sense of canon for older fans. The best thing is, Bryan Fuller, one of the most underutilized writers to work on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise and also the creator of ABC's hit Pushing Daisies has been adamantly talking about wanting to create a new series very similar to this idea. I hope somebody at CBS-Paramount listens.

Now that I'm done talking about all that drivel, on to my reactions to some of the stills from the film that CBS-Paramount released last week.

First up, the most important of them - the crew on the bridge:

Okay, so this one I'm kind of ambivalent on. I don't really mind so much that they redesigned the bridge. In fact, they'd been warning us that they would. However, cast members and set visitors who happened to be big fans of the Original Series all kept saying how wonderful and true this set design is to the original. My immediate reaction was that this looks more like the bridge of the Apple iNterprise. But, on closer inspection, I saw that pretty much everything is where it's supposed to be, even the red railing, but most of it just has been covered in white, chrome and blue. Someone said it looked like someone barfed iPod on the bridge, and that's not completely inaccurate. However, that yeoman's station was not in the Original Series and is a blatant change in design. Here's hoping it sees the classic Exploding Console duty and is gone by the end of the movie.
The actors, on the other hand, look fantastic in this. I still have my doubts about Chris Pine (Bottle Shock) as Captain James Tiberius Kirk, but I admit, he definitely looks like he got into the character, just judging by the way he's sitting in that admittedly awesome-looking captain's chair. I have hope for him. Karl Urban (The Lord of the Ring
s, Doom) was another big question mark, especially as a fairly young New Zealander playing the grizzled Southerner: Doctor Leonard H. "Bones" McCoy. But in this image, it's like he's channelling DeForest Kelley, and I feel my doubts slipping away. I also took note that Kirk and Sulu - John Cho of Harold & Kumar fame - have shiners. Did they have a bar fight with some rowdy aliens? Or each other? I never had any doubts about Zachary Quinto (Heroes) as Spock, and he still looks great here.


Okay, so here we've got the entire Original Series crew, sans Spock. Again, Pine seems to have a bit of that Kirk groove to him, and Urban keeps looking better and better. I love Zoe Saldanya as Uhura - she's beautiful but still looks like she could make you feel like an elementary school kid with her smarts and charm. Uhura is supposed to be a strong female character, despite her relatively light duties in the Original Series, and I hope JJ's given her her due. Cho looks decent. I'm still pretty iffy on Anton Yelchin (
Charlie Bartlett) as Pavel Chekov. For one, the kid is younger than me, which doesn't seem right in the slightest, and he looks nothing like Walter Koenig. They didn't even bother to straighten the curls out of his hair. Simon Pegg, on the other hand, looks like he's going to be fantastic. Standing there in the background, the look on his face just screams "Ach, no. I cannae do it, Cap'n. It'll cause too much harm to me wee baerns!" Other than his hairline being a little too high, I'm sure Pegg is going to be an excellent Montgomery "Scotty" Scott.

So this is our villain, Nero, played by Eric Bana (
Munich, Troy). This dude appears to be some kind of Romulan renegade. It was with this picture that we got some story details (which everyone already knew anyone, but hadn't had confirmed). Nero is apparently from the 24th century, not long after the events of Star Trek: Nemesis, which left the Romulan political structure in ruins. If Orci & Kurtzman were looking to the novels, the Romulan Empire is even split into two seperate states by this point. Apparently, Nero and his cronies have a plot to go back in time to kill Kirk, which causes 24th century Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy from the Original Series, to go back in time to stop them.
I gotta say, he looks pretty bad ass. And anybody who has seen
Munich nows that Eric Bana's got some serious acting chops. Here's hoping this is aTrek villain on par with Ricardo Montalban's Kahn Noonien Singh or Christopher Plummer's General Chang.


WTF? No, seriously, what's going on? Spock is choking Kirk? Most illogical. Zachary Quinto has said that Spock is not as in control of his emotions at this point though, so I guess this is a glimpse. I'm glad they included the subtle green tint to his skin. And apparently, this is public, cause that looks like the bridge. It also looks like the top of McCoy's head there by Kirk's chin. He has witnesses, so maybe Kirk should file charges?

This is the USS
Kelvin (an in-joke JJ Abrams puts in his movies, since his grandfather's name was Kelvin). Though not the Enterprise, it is a Starfleet ship and should give us an idea of what to expect from the full view of the Big E. It's very reminiscent of the Original Series, but it has sharper detail that reminds me of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I'm satisfied.

And that's it for my
Star Trek ramblings. I felt those were the pictures really worth commenting on, so there you go.

I'll try to get you guys my weekly recommendations tomorrow.

Live Long and Prosper, for my fellow Trekkies.