Don't Re-tread On Me: Why New Trek, Like New Coke, Sucks

The new J. J. Abrams Star Trek is out and doing fab at the box-office. I'm assuming that everyone who is interested in this movie has already seen it, maybe more than once, but just in case-- Spoiler Alert! (Yawn...)

I am 44 years old. Star Trek and I grew up together. I was the kid who got beat up for wearing my Star Trek shirt to school and had the "Star Fleet Technical Manual" stashed under my bed instead of "Playboy." (Don't worry; I knew where my brother hid his.) Star Trek is one of my oldest friends, so please forgive me for feeling a little possessive about it. I am what's known as a "Trekkie," "Trekker," "Hard-core-fan," or just plain "Nerd." I cut my teeth on the original series, and have loved every incarnation of this phenomenon from the Animated Series right down to "Enterprise," (Which was just getting warmed up when they pulled the plug.) So it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to the release of this new spectacular, "Not your father's Star Trek" cinematic extravaganza. I literally got out of my sick bed to go see this new movie.

I thought the casting was outstanding. You would be hard pressed to find a better Spock than Zach Quinto and Simon Pegg was a delightful hoot as Scotty. I think top honors for character have got to go to Carl Urban as Bones. He really nailed McCoy and seemed closest in spirit to Deforest Kelly's portrayal of the character. I thought Chris Pine was good as Kirk, although I thought the  Kobayashi Maru test, while a nice bone to throw to the "Trekkies" was handled poorly. It seemed out of character for Kirk (and a violation of canon from "Shore Leave" where Finnegan remarks about how serious Kirk was at the academy) for him to play it as a smart ass. The James T. Kirk I know and love might have gamed the system, but he would have played it over the top with heroic melodrama and probably would have managed a heart-felt speech to the Klingons on universal tolerance before blowing them up. Of course Uhuru was hot, and I even liked the budding romance with Spock. That has potential to bring steam to the screen over any number of sequels.

I liked the fast pace and the overall gritty reality of the film. It is stylistically to "Star Trek" what "The Dark Knight" is to "Batman." The fresh, fast paced, actioner will no doubt catch the eye of the Ritalin crowd and fill theater seats, at least until the new "Terminator" opens on Memorial Day. Heck, I even liked the superfluous CG monsters on the ice planet Hoth Delta Vega. Why should "Star Wars" fans have all the fun? As for the new Enterprise, I just didn't realize that starships of the future would be mainly powered by steam. (More on that later.)

But like a favorite childhood comfort food fixed by a well-meaning aunt instead of your mother, it was familiar yet not the same at all. The immediate rush of memories mingled with unfamiliar spices can cloud your head and only in the after-taste can one tell how unfulfilling it really was.

The forums are lighting up with reaction to this film and from what I can tell there are three types who are posting: Die-hard fans who are freaking out about all the changes, Die-hard fans who think any "Star Trek" is better than no "Star Trek" and new fans who are awfully defensive about this film and angry at those who wish to point out its flaws. I fall into the second group. I'm not so rabid that I can't deal with a few changes for better or for worse, yet Mr. Abrams has certainly played fast and loose with what is considered Trek "fact." It is as if this new movie is the Bobby Ewing shower scene wherein we come to learn that all we knew and loved that came before was just a dream. Oh yes, I know... As the over-sensitive movie defenders have been trying to explain to the over-sensitive canon defenders, this is an alternate reality created by Spock's travel back in time.

It's still a pretty cheap parlor trick that wipes out everything in the known Trek universe from "Balance of Terror"  which established that there had been no encounter with Romulans in over 100 years, to "Amok Time" where Kirk and Spock battle to the death on planet Vulcan, to "Obsession" where we learn of Young Lt. Kirk's travails aboard the U.S.S. Farragut at least eleven years prior to his command of the Enterprise. And what of the eleven years that Spock served with Christopher Pike aboard the Enterprise as depicted in the two-parter "Menagerie?"  Was Kirk's brother Sam just off visiting relatives during this new pic, or have we lost him to the Great Trek Dogma Purge of '09? And wasn't Delta Vega the barren lithium processing station near the galactic barrier where Kirk had to abandon his pal Gary Mitchell in the episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before?" Hmmmm... Harsh winters. (And I sure didn't realize that it was within eyeball range of Vulcan.) These are just a few of the history problems I can name off the cuff. I'm sure that even as I type this there is a legion of the kind of fans so mercilessly skewered by The Onion, sitting in Mom's basement compiling a complete list of heresies.

While not being that nit-picky, there are a few things that really bothered me:

1. Alright, in the spirit of a willing suspension of disbelief I'll accept the alternate reality argument, but did you really have to blow up freakin' Vulcan? I would have gladly sacrificed Leonard Nimoy's throw-away appearance for a story line that didn't involve the destruction of one of the best loved planets in the Trek universe.

2. The redesign of the Enterprise was awful. As I mentioned before, I didn't realize that 23rd century starships would be mainly powered by steam, with a Willy Wonka water slide tossed in for a little comic effect. I've worked in factories that were more futuristic than the engine room of the new/old Enterprise. In fact, that travesty was shot on location at the Anhauser Busch brewery in Van Nuys, California. Oh come on now!

And what about the bridge? What a mess. Gone are the familiar stations and landmarks that were the hallmark of the Enterprise bridge, such as Spok's moiré scanner. In their place, just a bunch of chrome and white plastic crap more reminiscent of a Moon Base Alpha rummage sale than anything "Star Trek."

How did all this stuff fit into the Enterprise anyway? The engine room seemed entirely too big for the all too curvy, nacelle-bloated exterior model. And was it just me or was there a brief shot that seemed to indicate that the bridge took up way more room in the saucer section than in any previous incarnation of the ship? It reminded me of a poorly executed TOS comic book I saw long ago that depicted a cutaway of the Enterprise where the bridge took up the entire primary hull and crewmen climbed the neck down ladders to a submarine-like secondary hull. And what the heck were the plastic shower curtains in the shuttles for, sneeze guards? While I don't mind a less sterile set design in my Trek, a little industrial grunge goes a looong way.

3. My biggest problem with this film isn't the violation of canon or even the visual desecration of the ship I love. It is basic story telling. First, J. J. Abrams promised to bring something new to the screen-- This is not your father's "Star Trek" remember? Oh yeah? When was the last time you saw a movie featuring a bald, pissed-off Romulan with a grudge, a creepy henchman, and a giant ship bent on revenge against the Federation? Nero meet Shinzon. Shinzon, Nero... Granted, technically Shinzon was a Reman, but J. J. Abrams wouldn't know the planet Remus from Uncle Remus. What exactly did Spock come from the future to do, steal the plot of "Star Trek Nemesis?" Which brings me to point number two.

You mean to tell me that Nero's best plan upon traveling back 154 years prior to the destruction of his beloved homeworld is to wait a quarter century for the appearance of the one guy in the universe with the ability and technology to prevent that tragedy then wreak vengeance upon him? You know the exact date and time of the horrific event, you posses the technology to prevent it and at least a hundred and twenty years to prepare and instead of taking advantage of that you take a play from the Khan Noonien Singh playbook and go for the dish best served cold? What an idiot.

I know that I'm peeing up stream with my opinions here. The rest of the world has fallen in love with this bastardized "Star Trek," many without ever tasting the real deal. That's fine. It is just a movie after all. I'm sure I'll get it on DVD, buy a few collectibles and go see the next one as soon as it is out. I'll just have to take my Tums and I'm sure I'll hate myself in the morning.