Advertisement
In speaking of Star Trek, JJ Abrams’ origin story prequel designed to sex up the venerable brand and relaunch it as again-viable film franchise, I can’t speak for the fans, and I probably shouldn’t risk inciting their wrath by regurgitating the plot. Suffice it to say, all the familiar characters are rendered here as 20-something and absurdly attractive; they all end up on the Enterprise, from which they fight a Romulan who blows up a planet; there’s some time travel mumbo-jumbo that complicates things just enough to allow for a cameo from Leonard Nimoy; and the sexual tension between Young Kirk (Chris Pine) and Young Spock (Zachary Quinto) is the stuff that viral video makers in the “1 + 1 = GAY = LOL” mold dream of.
Fans and critic-fans will be predisposed to liking this film more than I, because they have more invested. Though I have a working familiarity with both the original TV series and The Next Generation, I didn’t walk into the film with opinions as to how something like the Kobayashi Maru test should have been handled, and I didn’t walk out anymore convinced that it matters one way or another. I can only offer the perspective of a viewer who walked in not really giving a shit about Star Trek, and from that perspective, Abrams has done a sufficient job. After all, the reason Star Trek exists is to support the theory that more Star Trek films should exist, and in painlessly demonstrating how the motley, almost incredibly diverse crew of the Enterprise fits together, in convincing that it wouldn’t be unpleasant to watch these seven space soldiers take on further missions, and in setting up a soapy workplace love triangle that will mandate sequels to resolve, Star Trek does that job. I walked out still not giving much of a shit about Star Trek, but at least I didn’t resent the expenditure of time, and though the central mythology of the series still fails to get a rise out of me, the pretty faces assigned to mobilize that myth offer their own rewards.
Feminist film theory exists because of Hollywood’s reliable persistence in ensuring the attention of the male audience by stressing the physical charms of women on screen. It’s a requisite of the summer blockbuster movie formula to offer the male viewer opportunities for sexual fantasy within the proceedings in the most unremarkable fashion, if for no other reason than to guarantee his continued interest. So I feel no guilt or shame in saying that whenever my attention started to drift from Star Trek’s march towards inevitability (in this origin story context, it should not be a spoiler to reveal that the core crew of the Enterprise survive their mission intact and ready for a sequel), I was soon drawn back in by a new opportunity to appreciate Chris Pine’s sheer hotness.
It may be true that boredom begets boy craziness, but I don’t think that’s the beginning and the end of it. Each time the pristine youthful beauty of his face is marred by a new fist-fight scar, Pine seems to take a step towards fuller immersion in the passionate but detached persona of the eventual Captain Kirk; as his cockiness makes him a target for one set of fists after another, his physical stamina becomes increasingly part of the point of his character; in a film without any real sex and minimal romance, he gets closer to naked than anyone else. A compactly built Ken doll with lips fixed somewhere between a pout and a smirk, and sky blue eyes fixed in regulation smart-ass position at the top of their sockets, Pine effortlessly embodies the bad-boy-with-a-heart-of-gold allure that survives as an echo within William Shatner’s standard-bearing rendition of the same character. Within the effort to remake Star Trek as something young and sexy, it feels like there’s been an honest attempt to not only wind each character’s clock back a decade and a half from the youngest we’ve seen them previously, but to also bring them down to earth, to offer cause for later effects, and we see this most clearly in the way Pine finds and plays a nugget of something real that can easily be seen as an ingredient to Shatner’s puffed-up self-parody.
On the level of craft, it’s either a sign of his limitations or fitting considering the images of Star Trek with the greatest pop cultural endurance, but Abrams shoots most of the action on the Enterprise in TV mode, with a wideangle-lensed camera whipping from side to side on a single set, facial close-ups interrupted by blinding light flares. In thematic terms, Abrams’ most notable contribution is a demonstrated interest in the plight of college girls caught between cute brainiacs with a yen for common sense, and brooding blonde hunks with a knack for instigating sloppy hand-to-hand combat. In applying this to Kirk and Spock’s classic conflict between passion and logic, Abrams is to a large extent remaking his own Felicity (coincidentally, the same dynamic animates Reality Bites, which like Star Trek features Winona Ryder as an archetype over which a nerdy brunette guy attempts to exert control). In a way, Star Trek allows Abrams a second chance to overcome that series’ inherent limitations. Eventually Keri Russell’s Felicity had to choose one male polarity over the other, and live a life deprived of the charms of the second place candidate. But being that the boys of Star Trek will ultimately choose each other — er, their common mission — over womankind, space can benefit from both, while the question as to what type is more desirable can remain infinitely unresolved.
Whether or not all of this works as a movie-movie is an issue that critic-fans won’t be able to fairly assess, and critics who are not fans may feel unequipped to care. I’ll gladly give Star Trek a high grade for its eye candy and sugar-shot power of diversion, but I’m hesitant to give it too much credit for breaking the mold of the summer blockbuster. With its wisecracks, its cast of exaggerated characters, its indulgence in majestic moving paintings of intergalactic battle, and its insistence that it takes a wacky bunch of misfit stereotypes to keep space a safe place, Star Trek is structurally not much different from something like Armageddon. Michael Bay gets no respect, and it’s probably fair and right that he shouldn’t, but it’s hard to put a point on what JJ Abrams brings to that formula that’s uniquely his, other than that which seems an artifact from his previous work for TV. The Felicity similarities make the lead actor’s atractiveness all the more legitimate a point of critique. By — uh, spoiler alert? — placing Kirk and Spock in the running for the same woman’s affections, the conflict between passion and logic is transformed from a question of guiding life philosophy to a question of preferred type of boyfriend. If anything, by being true to his previous TV work, Abrams fundamentally alters part of the brand’s traditional core concerns.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Eye candy and sugar-shot power of diversion aside, I’m hesitantly going into this one with quite low expectations, being a Trek fan, but not a Trek fanatic.
I’m hoping that the the woman who Kirk and Spock are fighting over is Uhura.
This reminds me somewhat of “Cloverfield” actually (another JJ Abrams affiliation) - not necessarily in terms of story. A group of “20-something and absurdly attractive” types, working together to get through some challenge. Except, the monster movie’s characters weren’t as diverse.
Make that, “thewaitisover”
“Each time the pristine youthful beauty of his face is marred by a new fist-fight scar, Pine seems to take a step towards fuller immersion in the passionate but detached persona of the eventual Captain Kirk; as his cockiness makes him a target for one set of fists after another, his physical stamina becomes increasingly part of the point of his character; in film without any real sex and minimal romance, he gets closer to naked than anyone else.”
Wow. So this is where Tweets about how much you enjoyed Chris Pine’s ass will get us.
Well put, Ms. Longworth. Very well put.
Nice review; I enjoyed the read.
I defy anyone to look at the lighting of the still above and then tell me that Chris Pine’s ass is *not* a valid area of inquiry.
I dunno. I’m trying to evaluate the boobage…
For godsake its a popcorn summer blockbuster, what did you expect. The fact that you worte that much about star trek shows you thought more about the movie than any other critic did. Feminist theory get a grip. Here is a tip for reviewing a blockbuster was it well cast, good use of cg/action, decent story. There it no need to write a bloody essay or what you think is one but fuck it keep tying you will get there.
Yes, it is a crime that I worte anything at all about a popcorn summer blockbuster. All apologies.
I’ve read your take on the new Star Trek film and while you make some interesting (if not valid) points, I find your review inadequate. This film makes the choice not to directly hit the audience over the head with social commentary, but instead finds a way to tell a small compact story that happens to have same nice special effects. I say small because frankly not alot happens travel wise. The crew actually heads for one place, then goes to another, gets delayed, then finally arrives.
Outside the main characters the smaller one get their time to shine. I can see how you could compare that aspect to a Michael Bay assemble event film, but this characters are earnest with a sense of humor that comes out not as slap stick but as something that fleshes out their different aspects making them more than one dimensional Michael Bay puppets.
As far as the characters being exaggerated is a confident african-american woman who shows she has the intelligence to work amongst some of the more intelligent and well trained men in a galaxy who also happens to show emotional honesty in falling for an intelligent member of another race (er..species) instead of going for the caucasian cocky guy exaggerated? Or a character of another mixed race (er..species) being offended and defying those who would congratulate him for overcoming one side of his race because they find it inferior exaggerated?
Does the film have it’s flaws sure. But the film doesn’t depend on it’s effects to make the story. It’s not the best story ever written. It’s not the most inventive. But it is (if you let yourself escape) a future earth where people are finally learning to be at peace with themselves but are just starting to learn to be at peace with the galaxy and maybe the future galaxy a good story.
in the defense f the pretty cast, remember, the original cast back from the sixties were good looking too. William Shatner from the mid 60s was a stud!
Yeah I think this film turned me gay for Chris Pine.
Thanks for destroying my sense of sexual security and giving me a future of awkward conversations with the parents, J.J.
I agree with Ms. Long is pretty right about this movie. The best review I have read so far abou this movie was by Scott Mendelson at Huffington Post. http://www.huffintonpost.com/Scott-mendelson/
It was short on talent long on formula. It’s the weaker formula for a star trek movie that shows out. If you are a star trek fan as I will admit it was a dumb ass job to create what I call ST:UII = Star Trek: Univers Two and i think it pisses on everything else created by all the other francizes when JJ Abrams says they aren’t relevent by not restoring or not even trying to restore the timeline in the end of the movie.
Thank you JR. You hit the nail on the head. It may have a lot of snazy effects and big explosions, but it is NOT true to trek. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they where brainstorming ideas for this movie. I bet it was “How can we get the 15 year olds into see this movie” and less “How can we make a movie that works in every ones interest”. J.J. Abrams is to Star Trek as Joel Schumacher is to Batman. Perhaps there was intention to stay true to the fans but marketing and demographics changed that. I went today to see this movie expecting to see a full house, it was almost empty. The people who did come to the movie are all fans. So shouldn’t it make the most sense to at least HONOUR you audience? I don’t want some massive flow chart to see where things fit in the time line(lets face it, DC comics is the best example of what NOT to do to a series) and thats what’s happening. Stay true to the original ideas or at least make an attempt to return some order to the series we all grew up with and loved.
As for the actors, I think they all did a great job. I’m impressed with Simon Peg and Karl Urban. Both nailed there roles with precision. Chris PIne however may not have been the best fit for Kirk, but in the end seemed to redeem him self with some classic Kirk-ish actions.
Too much glaring lighting effects and way to much moving camera.
Over all not a horrible film, but lacks in what it should have been heavy in, Trek accuracy. The ship looked like someone didn’t even look at the Volumes of technical journals and countless hours of movies and TV footage. I was hoping for CG like the remastered Original Series has.
Message to JR : Please feel free to reference the alternative universe in which the equation U/Lsr = actually get a life.
Message to Karina : What on earth were you expecting? The film pretty much ticked every box you could have expected short of inventing time travel and getting the original cast sucked forward from the year 1965. I enjoyed it anyway.
Why can’t you just relax and enjoy an entertaining movie without resorting to boring politically correct double-speak. Who cares if the feminists don’t like it-heck, that would only make me want to see it EVEN MORE! Star Trek may have some philosophical undertones but it was NEVER totally about social issues. Action, suspense, and comedy were always a part of what made Star Trek enjoyable. This franchise is for anyone who has ever looked up at the stars and said “what if”- NOT about a bunch of elitist, “intellectual” bores discussing social engineering. Now go out and see it again- you know you want to!
I am the chief editor of ViciousWriters.com. The following is a letter that I’ve written to the editors of this half-cranked magazine, conveniently entitled SpoutBlog.com:
Who in hell taught Karina Longworth to write? Are you serious in presenting this half-wit as your representative? This is the first time I have been to your site, and you can guarantee that I will not return. In fact, don’t even reply to this email. Instead, simply burn little miss Longworth upon the stakes of spelling errors, grammatical insults and Emo-driven innocuous revilements. What’s more, her writing is condescending toward anyone that happens to know anything about the written word. It’s disgusting. Should I blame her inept editorial staff, perhaps?
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with her content. In fact, I would agree with her half-thought drivel, given that she could possibly form two sentences within the same paragraph without the use of “LOL”. But, her writing is nothing short of insulting to the reader. It thoroughly disgusts me that this wench of the written word is allowed to continue her tirade against the English language, while other MORE QUALIFIED WRITERS are waiting patiently in the wings with absolutely NO recognition. Speaking for every worthy writer out there, Karina Longworth and this entire established online magazine disgusts me.
I’m utterly impressed by your ability to whip together Felicity (one of Abrams’ best, along with Alias), Armageddon, and undertones of Stephanie Zacharek’s salacious adoration of Hollywood hunks under the same review. Hooray for post-feminist film criticism, whatever that means.
I’m not sure that was a full-fledged review - it hit on certain points the reviewer latched onto and ignored many others about the film. The qualification that she’s not a fan and so doesn’t give a shit about Star Trek doesn’t mean you can’t write a review that serves its audience’s interests.
whoa there damian, kinda sketchy to use someone’s review to plug your own lame blog, no?
it’s also pretty hypocritical to insinuate karina’s writing is condescending given your tone and name calling.
i won’t speak on behalf “all worthy writers” such as you, but on behalf of the some of the readers…we’re here on spout for the content and not the spelling.
Come on people….somebody got pissed off everytime a new series related to Star Trek was released. Next Generations was not instantly accepted by o.g. fans. It took a while. Deep Space 9 and Voyager were spit on…but they lasted for a few years. Enterprise was considered superior and closer to the o.g. series but was the shortest of all series.
That this review was so long and detailed (in the sexuality department/ presentation thereof mostly) makes me wonder if you like the movie more then you care to say.
My feelings were mixed after watching this movie. The cast looked like they belonged on a MTV show. The special effects and sets looked like they were mashed together from several genre films spanning several decades. Some of the plot devices (holes rather) were used in a questionable manner. In the end i found those things minor to how much i enjoyed the film. The movie isnt meant to stay hardcore to the o.g. Star Trek. Its a rebirth made in a way that the modern audience. Most of the former Star Trek movies kept the plots simple, leaving the deeper stories for television. JJ Abrams did an alright job (great compared to his other shiet). I do agree that some of the angles used for bridge scenes were “frustrating” and i would have liked some wider angle shots and more of the interior.
all in all….i enjoyed the movie. it wasnt the greatest tasting pie i ever ate, but i liked how it went down the gillet. it was nice to see familiar characters, that nostalgic thang. I also liked that they created a way to reharsh the o.g. Star Trek but allow the o.g. canon to stay true. Star Trek 2.0, the alternate reality…..and practice commonly used in japanese manga and anime.
Abrams has really laid an egg with his version of Star trek. Has this man ever seen Star Trek? He has destroyed the Trek time line. In pursuit. of his own blinded vision. Vulcan left destroyed….in the past?
Bad Romulans again! Like the show lost….so is this. What would have been a great movie. Wasn’t because he failed to repair the time line.
Hey Abrams like Cloverfield….this sucks too.
spock out
I commend you on this review. You do not necessarily bash/dislike the movie in any obvious sense, but you do recognize the film is not perfect. Recognizing it for what it is–largely, an attempt to create a summer blockbuster hit while also attracting the unfailing attendance of a niche TV show’s committed fan base. Still, many critics and fans have praised the movie over and over again.
There is an interesting summary video on the movie and its different reviews at newsy.com. Take a look:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/beam_me_up_box_office/
classic movie making
The story is good. but making twenty year old novices into first officers is unbelievable. This story sets up the crew into power way to early. in the franchise.
Costumes are lackluster. dull and duller. They look like walmart wear. Spock Prime is the only character with interesting futuristic clothing.
The Makeup is horrible or these actors are butt ugly. The make-up shows discolored skin, blotches and blemishes and the standard bruise over the right eyebrow of lead character James Kirk. Audiences watch film to see beautiful faces. Vllian Eric Bana as Nero looked better than the Trek crew in close-up. The Punk heavy metal makeup for the futuristic villian Romulons was unimaginative.We have seen it before. Their costumes were boring hackneyed cliches also.
One bright spot visually was Rachel Nivchols as Gaila in green body paint. She was interesting and gorgeous.
Casting is seriously flawed also.
Zachary Quinto as Spock is unappealing uninteresting, unlikeable. and basically unspock like. His Young Spock is a boring petulant little man. Zoe Zaldana as Uraha sulks her way through the role. Their romance is as palpable as a limp noodle. Chris Pine as Kirk would be tolerable if we did not have to see the pores and flaws in his skin. His acting is infantile and brought nothing new to the screen, or the role. He has the look and style of a dumb football player.
Some casting choices were successful
Simon Pegg as engineer Scott , Karl Urban as Bones, Bruce Greenwood as Cpt Pike and Winona Ryder as Spock’s mother each brought personality and life to their characters.
JJ Abrams used CGI effectively but missed the boat on character presentation. His lack of trekkie love shows.
as a fan of star trek, the next generation and i also watched voyager too when i was a wee lad i can see that as a woman the writer of this blog went in to the movie as a hater. her comments on writing this critic are very passive aggressive from the start with the homosexual comment regarding young spock and kirk.
this is a prequel about the start of the crew on the enterprise so yes it is logical that the crew is younger. i saw somewhere that talent was lacking a bit. i’d like to shoot down this comment by saying it was casted perfectly. to those that disagree i apologize that tom cruise and pamela anderson did not make the cut.
anton yelchin is on an upward act in his career. his role in alpha dog was amazing and his accent with chekov cracked me up. of course this year he was also in terminator salvation the fun but few brain celled action flick. for those heroes fans you should recognize zach quinto from there and those into comedies will know of simon pegg from sean of the dead and hot fuzz. chris pine as captain kirk was interesting, i first saw him as a hitman in smokin aces. i’m being a name dropper because the film was casted out of talent for each star trek character instead of the fame that they earned. even zoe saldana who played uhura is doing well for herself because of her talents. you can see her in the upcoming avatar movie.
i’m the first to agree that star trek movies have always been bland no matter what cast they used… but especially the next generation crew. gag me with a spoon and rotate please!
as a filmmaker myself i’m glad on the outcome of the new star trek film. its not an award winning film but its action packed and directed from a none star trek fan. most fans hated jj abrams for admitting this but i applaud him for bringing a strict film makers vision to the world of star trek. it was a fun movie.
i laughed when karina mentioned that its no spoiler that the core crew members survive. of course they did sweet heart.. its a prequel! dont worry though captain pike will suffer a severe accident leaving him to a wheel chair where a light blinks once for yes… twice for no. also not a spoiler..they even made fun of this on an episode of south park.
the remark of spock being played by quinto as unlikable and boring ..thats his character. and just because jj abrams is not a trekkie he still loves film making and it shows by bringing an actual good film to the star trek saga. not just through action and explosions but in cinematagraphy and over all thorough plot development as well.
i grab my crotch at all the haters.
yours truly
GOD