Star Trek is Dead

Rating: 4/10 (10 May 2009)

I've been a Star Trek fan since 1974. Though I looked forward to this movie, I thought the choice of J.J. Abrams as director was questionable. Abrams was quoted as saying he was "not a huge fan to begin with" and that the series "seemed to promise adventure more than it would deliver."
Arrogant words from someone about to direct the eleventh feature film based on this seriesand that's not counting four spin-offs. Despite Abram's opinions and the commercial disappointment of recent Trek efforts, Star Trek worked for a lot of people before he came along.
I saw the new Trek movie on opening day, and my worst apprehensions were justified. Just as troubling, critics are slobbering over this movie, claiming it's a "reboot" that both fans and newcomers will love. This fan left the theater vowing never to see another Trek movie produced by this team. Abrams took a series which I've happily enjoyed since childhood, twisted it into his own mass-market "vision," and insultingly claimed that it's a bridge between old fans and new.
Here's a breakdown of my impressions:
The good:  The movie was well cast and well acted. Main characters were more or less consistent with their original series counterparts (with one notable exception).  Little homage moments were great. Particularly good was the inclusion of Kirk's "solution" to the Kobayashi Maru test.  Humor was good (though I stopped laughing midway through).  Leonard Nimoy was excellent and his role was neither awkward nor contrived.  The space battles were exciting, if a bit chaotic.  The new ship, equipment and uniforms were attractive (though hard-core Trekkies may be unhappy with the often extreme departures from original series' art design).
The horrible:  The villain, though well cast, was utterly two-dimensional. It's difficult to understand why Abrams did not include the excellent prequel material that was released as a graphic novel. In the prequel, Nero was a decent man who tried to do the right thing. In the end, he felt betrayed by his government, by Spock, and indeed, by all of Vulcan. Worse, he lost his family when Romulus exploded. But we didn't get to see all that, so Nero comes across as a cardboard cutout villain whose only purpose is to serve as a foil for the heroes. Weak, lazy writing.
 Spock and Uhura necking like pubescent teens, and doing so in front of others, was simply preposterous. I'm not slavishly devoted to every detail of Trek lore, but the dignified, self-possessed Spock portrayed by Leonard Nimoy would never be romantically involved in that way, and even if he was, he would never kiss his girlfriend in public. In every other way, Zachary Quinto did a great job playing young Spock (though I found the more extreme emotional outbursts unrealistic). The sub-plot romance between Spock and Uhura was a juvenile, ridiculous distraction, presumably aimed at widening the audience demographic.
 Any respectable Star Trek fan can accept a time travel plot, even when it contains contradictions. But Abrams and the writers (who ironically claim to be Trek fans) use time travel to excuse their heinous molestation of Star Trek lore. Follow me hereNero coming back in time and killing Kirk's father would only affect Kirk's childhood at that time. It wouldn't affect the entire universe (although Nero's later acts of destruction would). The writer's try to convince us that Nero is responsible for an entirely new alternate time line, before he'd actually destroyed Vulcan. That's careless, dishonest plotting.
 Small deviations from the original series' details were irritating because they were unnecessary. The most notable: Vulcan's sky was blue in the movie. Vulcan orbits a red giant, making its sky red. This large, red sun has much to do with the physical characteristics of the Vulcan people (great strength, being used to thin air and heat, pointed ears, etc.). It was irritating for the writers to pay so much attention to some details, and ignore others.
 They. Blew. Up. Vulcan. Are you kidding me? How sick do you have to be to blow up Vulcan and its six billion inhabitants as part of your plot? What's next? Will they shoot Scotty out the Enterprise's tailpipe in the next movie? I watch TV shows and movies to be entertained. The good guys should win, the bad guys should lose. There's comfort in knowing that there are certain aspects of a show that you can count on. Not anymore. Modern entertainment has taught us that no character is safe, no matter how central he/she is to the plot. Sure, they killed Spock in Star Trek IIbut they brought him back in III. They destroyed the Enterprise in Star Trek III, but they built a cool new one in IV. In the new Trek movie, I kept waiting for the whatchamacallit that would set everything right. But no. Kirk's dad and Spock's mom were still dead, Vulcan was still gone. And this one plot point, more than any of the movie's other flaws, was what lost me.
I could bear most of the other annoyances in light of what was otherwise a fun movie, but it was clear that Abrams had no respect for the vast amount of back-story established by the original series. In setting such important material aside, he insulted the very fans who gave him the opportunity to direct this film. The effects were cool, and it was fun to see the crew come together. But in the end, I left the theater feeling betrayed. I'll always have the series and the first ten movies, but if this is the direction Star Trek is taking, they will boldly go on without me.