Crash and Burn

Rating: 2/10 (20 May 2013)

******SPOILERS BELOW******
When I saw the starship Vengeance crash into San Francisco, I thought, "This is what J.J. Abrams has done to Star Trek."
Already, some of you might be sneering, "Another bashing from someone who knows nothing about Star Trek." I reiterate what I wrote 4 years ago about the previous movie (review #347, posted 5/9/2009): I was a Star Trek fan since The Original Series was on NBC. I have seen every episode of every TV series, including The Animated Series, and all 12 movies. I found the previous movie repulsive, but hoped that Abrams would deliver a better 2nd act. Instead, this movie was even worse.
I shall begin by listing the few positives in this movie. Once again, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto gave very good performances. Once again, ILM produced very good visual effects.
End of positives. Here come the negatives, in random order.
The dress uniforms were comical. They looked like parodies of Nazi German uniforms. The standard uniforms still looked like cheap knockoffs I would find in a second-rate costume shop.
Once again, the Enterprise's Bridge looked like a disco. Once again, Abrams included irritating shots of glare to make the movie more "realistic." Once again, Engineering looked like an oil refinery. Once again, this Enterprise is a pale shadow of the original NCC-1701.
Once again, we had a very loud and very forgettable soundtrack.
Once again, we saw Scotty's pint-size companion, Keenser - a.k.a. Cabbageface, a.k.a. Rockface, a.k.a. the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek.
We saw Doctor Carol Marcus, but now she's British?? And a weapons specialist?? Now Chekov is not only an Engineer, but (temporarily) the ship's Chief Engineer?? Apparently, Paramount is allowing J.J. Abrams to turn the Star Trek universe upside-down and inside-out.
When the Enterprise visited Nibiru, she was underwater, and Spock (and, eventually, Starfleet Command) were worried about the Nibirans seeing the ship emerge from the sea. Objection #1: Why was the ship underwater? Couldn't the mission be conducted with the Enterprise in orbit? Objection #2: Considering the water pressure on the ship's hull, why didn't we hear any creaking in the hull or see any breaches caused by the pressure? The shields weren't up because Scotty complained about the sea water corroding the hull. Objection #3: How did the ship enter the water without any Nibirans seeing her? Was the Enterprise invisible during descent? Are all the planet's humanoids in that one small village?
What I did in the previous paragraph is called Thinking About What I'm Watching. This is what we should do when watching any Star Trek story. But in J.J. Abrams' version of Star Trek, we are expected to stop thinking and just watch the loud, frantic action.
Now we come to Khan Noonien Singh. Abrams has transformed Khan from a Sikh Indian into a Brit. (Is Abrams obsessed with Brits?) Also, Khan's blood can resurrect the dead! So now Khan is like Robert Neville in The Omega Man (1971), or - dare I say it - Jesus Christ. (This Is The Cup Of My Blood, The Blood Of The New And Everlasting Covenant, etc.) Obviously, Starfleet Medical should extract blood samples from those 73 superhumans so that Starfleet personnel who are killed can be resurrected. (Again, we are supposed to stop thinking.)
This movie had two scenes that may be disturbing - even traumatic - to some viewers: the explosion in London, and the crash of the Vengeance in San Francisco. Many people in the Boston area (after 4/15/2013), the New York City area (after 9/11/2001), and the London area (after 7/7/2005) may be appalled by this exploitation of massive tragedies. Abrams might be trying to assuage such objections by dedicating the movie to first-responders and military personnel "after 9/11." But this still looks like exploitation.
I'm not the only veteran Star Trek fan who saw the ripoff of Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek III - The Search For Spock. The minor changes: Kirk enters the radiation-filled warp-core chamber; Spock gets to bellow, "KHAN!!" (which was almost comical); instead of The Genesis Effect, the resurrection agent is Khan's blood. Also, Kirk's death gives Spock another excuse to act like a brutal savage (what would Sarek say?), and Abrams an excuse to stage an absurd high-altitude fight scene.
Let's debunk the basic defense of J.J. Abrams; i.e., that he saved Star Trek. He has replaced Gene Roddenberry's version with his own version. In the pre-Abrams chapters of Star Trek, we saw intelligent stories with strongly-defined characters. But Abrams has replaced that with movies loaded with loud, frantic action but thin on story and logic. Obviously, this is appealing to the only movie fans who count: teenagers, who expect every movie to resemble a 3-D video game. I saw the 2-D version (on the night of May 19), and noticed that the theater was only half-full and devoid of teenagers. Apparently, the Target Audience gathered in the 3-D theater. We can expect every future Star Trek movie to follow the Abrams Canon: virtually non-stop, loud, 3-D action, with very little intelligence.
Paramount's weak excuse is, "We still have Star Trek." We still have Saturday Night Live, too. But both have become pale shadows of their original selves. Thanks to J.J. Abrams, I am no longer a Star Trek fan.