Star Trek – no subtitle, no number, and a new beginning for a film and television series long gone out of fashion. Yet an appropriate subtitle would be Star Trek: The Ride, for this slam-bang summer actioner is a breathless thrill, although with little to say about science, ethics or any of the familiar subjects Trek is occasionally admired for.
For all the hype surrounding a bold new direction, Trek XI feels surprisingly familiar. Almost straight away we are given backstory about how this film ties into the others, and the villains (the Romulans) are the same enemies seen in the last Trek movie, Star Trek: Nemesis. However, Trek XI fairly shoehorns in the audience expectations, whether it's in dialogue: 'Dammit Jim! I'm a Doctor not a...' or 'I'm giving her all she's got!' 'Phasers on stun' to Kirk womanising and Spock doing a nerve-pinch and mind meld. So the film wants to be fresh, while keeping the branding.
The real changes appear to be in the camera-work, with direction dizzyingly fast and disorienting, portraying the internal mayhem of a starship under attack more effectively than any previous Trek film. To be fair to previous Trek movies, they haven't had the same amount of money thrown at them, and, while visually impressive, the use of re-dressed industrial locations to represent the bowels of various ships is a misfire (you never get the feeling that you are looking at the ship's engine - it's all a mess of pipes). The steel and concrete of these 'real-world' sets instantly drags the viewer out of a futuristic-looking world and into a rather cheap-looking one.
The film is also noticeably more violent than any previous Trek film, and, sadly for a future without money, product placement creeps into Trek for the first time in its history.
The film goes at full-tilt nearly all the time, and if you stop to think about the absurd meetings and convenient plot-developments, the edifice crumbles slightly.
One unfair criticism of the Trek series that were set in the 24th century (TNG, DS9, VOY) is that they were too soapy, too interested in the minutiae of the character's lives and not as interested in 'big ideas' like the Original Series. In this regard Trek XI has more in common with Picard, Janeway and Sisko as Kirk fails to lecture any aliens about the importance of freedom and democracy, but does spend time emoting about his dead father.
Yet Kirk's backstory is never explored. OK so he lost his father, but why does that mean he goes off the rails? Why is he hanging around shipyards if he hates Starfleet so much? Would one little jibe from a Captain reverse years of rebellion? The film moves so fast you can't even consider these questions. More focus on the origin story would have been welcome.
Plot holes abound - if Spock went back in time, why is Kirk being born on a starship? The official Star Trek website says he was born in Riverside, Iowa. Will Riverside be taking down its 'future birthplace' signs now? And Scotty-s 'transwarp beaming' - if you can beam anywhere, why the hell do you need starships? The plot falls apart after a cursory inspection. And why was Kirk promoted in a ship full of presumably better-experienced candidates?
Spock's romance with Uhura is also given no background or explanation and seems an instant-mix attempt to connect the audience to Spock and show him as more than the cold, unfeeling logic-monster he is. Yet other characters are given short shrift in the internal motivation stakes. Scotty is used as a comic foil, and Pegg's 'Scottish' accent is occasionally distracting as is the 'Wussian' - although Yelchin does his best at making Chekhov eccentrically charming. Sulu has almost nothing to do character-wise, so no change there then. The biggest disappointment is Bones McCoy, who never gets to have a heart-to-heart advice scene with 'Jim' - this film is a buddy movie and the third spoke in the TOS wheel is largely left out.
What also stuck in my craw was the 'execution' of Nero. So the dastardly Romulan refused help, fair enough, but why then phaser him into oblivion? Wasn't being sucked into a black hole enough? Spock's lack of mercy for Nero at this point was also troubling. Nero may have been willing to fight to the end, but what about his crew? I thought Kirk didn't believe in the no-win? Well a real win would have been the capturing of prisoners. Still, at least we see that baddies torture and goodies don't in Trek XI.
Fundamentally the film is exciting, and that is probably the 'Prime Directive' of this reboot. Will it convert a new generation of Trekkies? Maybe, but what will they then watch because of this new interest?
Any of the old TV series will be lacking the bells and whistles of the new film and seem hopelessly dull in comparison – if taken at surface value. While a successful Trek film is to be celebrated, Trek is at its best on the small screen, where it can explore issues in more depth. There just isn't any depth to the new Trek, it is indeed style over substance.
While there is nothing wrong with a stylish, fluffy Trek being at the cinema *if* a thoughtful Trek runs alongside it on TV, in this new 'timeline' there is now only one Trek, and it is a big cinematic confection of light and sound, signifying little.
So yes, I enjoyed Trek XI, but for me, Trek is really about TV and how this massive film will translate into a decent TV series is unknown.
Best Trek film ever? No. For me that honour still goes to 'Moby Dick in Space': Star Trek First Contact.
For all the hype surrounding a bold new direction, Trek XI feels surprisingly familiar. Almost straight away we are given backstory about how this film ties into the others, and the villains (the Romulans) are the same enemies seen in the last Trek movie, Star Trek: Nemesis. However, Trek XI fairly shoehorns in the audience expectations, whether it's in dialogue: 'Dammit Jim! I'm a Doctor not a...' or 'I'm giving her all she's got!' 'Phasers on stun' to Kirk womanising and Spock doing a nerve-pinch and mind meld. So the film wants to be fresh, while keeping the branding.
The real changes appear to be in the camera-work, with direction dizzyingly fast and disorienting, portraying the internal mayhem of a starship under attack more effectively than any previous Trek film. To be fair to previous Trek movies, they haven't had the same amount of money thrown at them, and, while visually impressive, the use of re-dressed industrial locations to represent the bowels of various ships is a misfire (you never get the feeling that you are looking at the ship's engine - it's all a mess of pipes). The steel and concrete of these 'real-world' sets instantly drags the viewer out of a futuristic-looking world and into a rather cheap-looking one.
The film is also noticeably more violent than any previous Trek film, and, sadly for a future without money, product placement creeps into Trek for the first time in its history.
The film goes at full-tilt nearly all the time, and if you stop to think about the absurd meetings and convenient plot-developments, the edifice crumbles slightly.
One unfair criticism of the Trek series that were set in the 24th century (TNG, DS9, VOY) is that they were too soapy, too interested in the minutiae of the character's lives and not as interested in 'big ideas' like the Original Series. In this regard Trek XI has more in common with Picard, Janeway and Sisko as Kirk fails to lecture any aliens about the importance of freedom and democracy, but does spend time emoting about his dead father.
Yet Kirk's backstory is never explored. OK so he lost his father, but why does that mean he goes off the rails? Why is he hanging around shipyards if he hates Starfleet so much? Would one little jibe from a Captain reverse years of rebellion? The film moves so fast you can't even consider these questions. More focus on the origin story would have been welcome.
Plot holes abound - if Spock went back in time, why is Kirk being born on a starship? The official Star Trek website says he was born in Riverside, Iowa. Will Riverside be taking down its 'future birthplace' signs now? And Scotty-s 'transwarp beaming' - if you can beam anywhere, why the hell do you need starships? The plot falls apart after a cursory inspection. And why was Kirk promoted in a ship full of presumably better-experienced candidates?
Spock's romance with Uhura is also given no background or explanation and seems an instant-mix attempt to connect the audience to Spock and show him as more than the cold, unfeeling logic-monster he is. Yet other characters are given short shrift in the internal motivation stakes. Scotty is used as a comic foil, and Pegg's 'Scottish' accent is occasionally distracting as is the 'Wussian' - although Yelchin does his best at making Chekhov eccentrically charming. Sulu has almost nothing to do character-wise, so no change there then. The biggest disappointment is Bones McCoy, who never gets to have a heart-to-heart advice scene with 'Jim' - this film is a buddy movie and the third spoke in the TOS wheel is largely left out.
What also stuck in my craw was the 'execution' of Nero. So the dastardly Romulan refused help, fair enough, but why then phaser him into oblivion? Wasn't being sucked into a black hole enough? Spock's lack of mercy for Nero at this point was also troubling. Nero may have been willing to fight to the end, but what about his crew? I thought Kirk didn't believe in the no-win? Well a real win would have been the capturing of prisoners. Still, at least we see that baddies torture and goodies don't in Trek XI.
Fundamentally the film is exciting, and that is probably the 'Prime Directive' of this reboot. Will it convert a new generation of Trekkies? Maybe, but what will they then watch because of this new interest?
Any of the old TV series will be lacking the bells and whistles of the new film and seem hopelessly dull in comparison – if taken at surface value. While a successful Trek film is to be celebrated, Trek is at its best on the small screen, where it can explore issues in more depth. There just isn't any depth to the new Trek, it is indeed style over substance.
While there is nothing wrong with a stylish, fluffy Trek being at the cinema *if* a thoughtful Trek runs alongside it on TV, in this new 'timeline' there is now only one Trek, and it is a big cinematic confection of light and sound, signifying little.
So yes, I enjoyed Trek XI, but for me, Trek is really about TV and how this massive film will translate into a decent TV series is unknown.
Best Trek film ever? No. For me that honour still goes to 'Moby Dick in Space': Star Trek First Contact.