My Thoughts on JJ Abrams and his Star Trek

Rating: 1/10 (12 May 2009)

So, as I suspected, I did not like the new Star Trek film/movie. Let me repeat myself, I did not like the new Star Trek movie. Unfortunately, giving a movie project to a non-Star Trek fan is comparable to giving a head coaching job with the Yankees to a person who doesn't like baseball. Being a new convert, watching for only 10 years or so I came to the realization that this film, like all films, was made to make money – lots of it! Although one could argue that anyone who took on the new Star Trek project would make money, regardless of who was at the helm of this intricate, massive, cultural-hit of a concept. Alas, in this case it is J.J. Abrams, the "stealer," the "3M" of many of someone else's idea kind-of director/writer. Please insert your own comparisons for Alias (La Femme Nikita), Fringe (X-Files), Cloverfield (Godzilla meets Blair Witch Project), Lost (The Prisoner from the 1960's meets Gilligans Island), etc...
Before I tear a hole in J.J.s alternate-universe of Star Trek, let's give credit where credit is due and make it clear what the silver-lining was: 1) J.J. probably ignited, excited, and down-right invited non-Star Trek fans into possibly researching/enjoying the Star Trek of old and become a fanatic of the sci-fi "Enterprise" and all its counterparts. 2) He made Star Trek "cool", especially for the younger generation, perhaps younger than me (30). 3) The set, studio, CGI, casting (mostly, especially "Bones"), and most of the storyline (I'll get to this later) was awe-inspiring, saliva-inducing, and visually stimulating to any creature on Earth. 4) They kept the "funny" quibbles in the script. Good job.
These examples of what was good should be enough to love the film, right!? It really sounds like I really enjoyed it, right!? No. And here's why: 1) Once you get past the "glitz & glamor" of JJ's Star Trek alternate universe, you realize he forgot one thing many Star Trek television series episodes had, a "realness." Well, you're thinking I'm some head-case to think Star Trek is real. No, I'm not a crazed, Star Trek lunatic, let me explain. Every Star Trek episode/movie teaches a lesson on life – one could argue Kirk, Spock and crew in the movie showed valor, braveness in this film, but at what cost? The message in this film was transparent: Action, revenge, action. It didn't teach me anything about the dangers or consequences of revenge. 2) The original Star Trek had its own explosions, shouting, and grunting, but rarely used expletives, such as "G.D." Of course, in reality people curse, and I probably do it more than others, but it was another discrepancy to start from a sci-fi series that rarely curses. 3) Yes, I mentioned the casting/storyline was "almost there" but the Sulu actor did not come close to the original; the inflection of voice/tone was especially lacking. The storyline: Well it's completely new for Star Trek – everything that came before, and I mean everything, would logically need to be discarded. Why? In the new film there is now no Vulcan planet, and Kirk's father, as well as Spock's mother (an important supporting character in the original time-line) have perished. This changes everything, creating a J.J. Abrams "alternate universe of Star Trek" Star Trek.
Whether you are a purest, hardcore Star Trek fan or newbie, the movie is definitely a love/hate situation. Basically, this movie disregarded/omitted all previously known created Star Trek material, because the time-line has changed and all the choices/adventures would be irrelevant. Does this set-up allow the studios to make new adventures and create new character development? Yes. Does it sum everything I like about Star Trek? Almost.
Overall, there were many good/bad choices. I don't care for the "hold-my-hand", watered down, non-thinking Star Trek. To me, there was no rewarding personal character development or new insights. I didn't take away a moral lesson, such as, "oh, this is how I should live as a person...with character, respect, duty, honor, pride, encompassing critical thinking/feeling skills." This movie tells me I should live by a feeling that lacks realism combined with frenetic movement, and more explosions, the "I can't think, but I can react to visual stimulation" crap. Many will like the dumbed-down, in-your-face version of Star Trek, but I will always have the original genius of Gene Roddenberry vision in mind. This is one that is thought-provoking, breeds massive fans and has been doing just fine for 50 or so years without the almighty, J.J. "stealer of good things"..."got to 3M everything" Abrams. All in all, it's like different versions/translations of the Bible, everyone has their opinion. But for me, and many others, it just didn't have the heart of Star Trek and now is a critical time for fans to decide, J.J. is attempting to become the modern-day figurehead of Star Trek, leading the series away from the vision that should and always be guided by the foundation Roddenberry built.
As for the blatant disregard for William Shatner in the new film, especially his original narration, I hope J.J. "boldly goes where no man has gone before" and stays there in an isolated chamber, so he can not steal, borrow, nor corrupt another concept from an original creator and call it his own. "Live, long, and prosper...in a galaxy far, far away"...oh wait a minute; I don't want to give J.J. any more "new" ideas.