TV, the final frontier

Rating: Null/10 (11 May 2009)

Directed by JJ Abrams, and made by a cast and crew plucked from the world of prime time television, "Star Trek" (2009) attempts to inject some life back into a dying franchise.
Abrams' film recasts the characters from Gene Roddenberry's now iconic "Star Trek" series, erases the more cerebral, sociological aspects of "Trek", ditches everything remotely resembling science fiction and swathes itself in zany special effects. Murder, vengeance, death, genocide, violence and ego-maniacal "rights of passage" arcs are the film's raison d'etre, instantly making "Star Trek" the antithesis of Roddenberry's humanist, quasi-Utopian vision.
In truth, the "Star Trek" franchise has been degenerating for years, slowly becoming a crypto-Imperialist action series. But it nevertheless often tried to be weighty, and always had a certain recognisable aesthetic about it. A certain elegance. Abrams' "Trek", though, is pure mayhem; a zillion dollar car crash.
Still, the film works well as popcorn. "Star Trek" is fast paced, takes helpful cues from Joss Whedon's "Serenity", abounds with zippy dialogue, TV teen soap-drama, sitcom level humour and has some moments of poetry, like a sequence in which Captain James Kirk is born, his body exploding into existence amidst flame and vacuum. Unexpectedly, Abrams also manages to capture the feeling of brotherhood, family and camaraderie that made the original "Trek" so popular. But is it genuine or cosy familiarity?
On the downside, Abrams is weak with visuals. He relies on words, the rhythm of his scripts, rather than strong images. As a result, most of "Star Trek's" pleasures are derived from the patter of dialogue, the pace of its twists and turns, rather than anything we actually see on screen. This is not surprising. Spectacle is now largely dead. Successful blockbusters are moving away from image oriented screenplays to word oriented screenplays. Audiences are left dazzled by frenetic storytelling, constant plot beats, incessant vignettes, canned drama and fast dialogue, rather than extended set pieces, new ideas or effects.
Still, there are some neat visuals scattered about. Consider one in which distant shuttles trickle across the screen. Mostly, though, the Starship Enterprise is ineptly photographed, and Abrams' space battles are shot with a frenetic, urgent, pseudo documentary camera. It works at times, but also reeks of a kind of desperation.
The "Star Trek" franchise had a few cool sets in its past, but there aren't any in Abrams' film. His starship bridges look like Apple showrooms, and real life factories and chemical plants are used as stand-ins for engine rooms. Later, a villain's ship is simply a mass of cliffs, chains and dark rooms.
Unsurprisingly, the film is a raging rip-off of "The Wrath of Khan". Marooned characters, truth bugs, villains bent on vengeance, the Kobayashi Maru, a self-sacrifice scene, a reluctance to admit a fear of failure, planetary destruction, super-weapons (a planet destroying super-weapon that rips off both Trek's "genesis device" and "Star Wars'" Death Star), ships hiding in clouds etc etc...are all ideas borrowed from "Khan". It's all very cheap - particularly one sequence in which Abrams wipes out a planet for kicks - but because things are so fast paced, you're quickly beaten into submission.
Incidentally, the film exists in an "alternate reality" such that anything which happens in this new series does not undermine what has gone on in previous instalments. But why not jettison this idea completely and simply reboot the franchise? In attempting to placate fan-boys, Abram' screenplay gets increasingly ridiculous.
Other silly moments abound: wouldn't someone have spotted a giant star that was about to go supernova? Why do the black holes have to be at the centre of planets to be effective? Since when do black holes send you back in time? How can these holes destroy entire planets but not ships? Why throw Kirk in an escape pod rather than jailing him in the brig? Isn't it too much of a coincidence that Kirk lands on the very same planet where Spock is hiding and where Scotty has been working? How gimmicky is the concept of "interplanetary beaming"? How can people respond so callously to the destruction of an entire planet? Why didn't the planet have orbital defences? Why promote Kirk to captain so swiftly? Why doesn't the villain – essentially a clichéd pantomime Bond villain – not age after 25 years?
8/10 – Science fiction is supposed to be a genre of ideas. Though fast and fun, Abrams' "Trek" points toward a depressing future for this new franchise. Things are going to get a lot dumber. Worth multiple viewings.