I couldn't agree with you more. I think my first mistake was to see it at an IMAX theater and sit too close to the screen, which had the effect of emphasizing many of the things I didn't like about the film (Shaky Camera Syndrome, the endless cycle of really soft lead-up to REALLY LOUD ACTION!, etc.). I like the "affectionate parody" characterization. But the difference between Star Trek and Galaxy Quest is that GQ is a tongue-in-cheek parody where the plot takes advantage of the sci-fi references by creating characters who are actors, which means they can be in on the joke in a way that connects with the audience. Contrast that to ST, which wants to be a worthy successor to the franchise with "nods" to the original, but instead comes across as a generic (cool and fun notwithstanding) special-effects flic with Star Trek vocabulary, impressionists, backdrops, and props substituted for (Transformers, Terminators, Empire Clones, whatever). In other words, I think GQ succeeded as a movie given the context it was created in, whereas ST fails, despite a few points for it being enjoyable.
Finally someone said this. For most of the movie I half expected Kirk to force-pull his blaster phaser to shoot at the bad guys, and had to repeatedly tell myself this wasn't Star Wars, that I shouldn't expect humans to have telekinetic powers here. And yet, I couldn't be sure it wouldn't pop up at some point.
Another thing that bothered me, and that I'm surprised nobody mentioned, was the Enterprise being filled with children: it felt like a whole crew of Wesley Crushers.
Leave a Comment:
Old-Fashioned Zap-Gun Action in a Thin Star Trek Wrapper
When I first heard of this film, I thought I would become one of those nerdy fan-boys everyone seemed to hate in advance for the expected cries of They Changed It Now It Sucks. Watching the film for the first time initially confirmed this. Re-watching the film recently, however, made me appreciate it more for what it is. But what it is to me, is still not Star Trek.
The changes to the continuity were not what I minded. They added an interesting element to the plot, and I enjoyed the unexpected twists. What I disliked was the feel of the film. This movie is two things: First, a caricature (though an affectionate one) of Star Trek. Second, an old-fashioned sci-fi action flick that would do fine if set in a completely different universe.
What makes this film Star Trek? Is it that everyone gets to say their catch phrase? That we get to see a Red Shirt meet his fate? It feels like an Affectionate Parody; the first work the movie brings to mind is Galaxy Quest, not Star Trek. Take every Trek cliché, turn it Up To Eleven, make it shiny and modern, and you've got all that connects this film to the franchise. But somehow, this isn't enough. The substance of Trek should be thoughtful science fiction with social commentary, moral dilemmas, and a well-paced plot. And the universe dreamed up by Gene Roddenberry, with all his now-outmoded ideals.
But the substance of this film is, for the most part, a bunch of shiny good guys (not girls — the old Trek dedication to egalitarianism was, presumably, too stuffy) flying around on a shiny rocket ship with their shiny ray-guns, zapping the bad dudes and saving the day.
This made me feel like the film's creators Completely Missed The Point. They decided Trek was just the archetypal Space Opera, and as long as they had a space-ship, ray guns, and threw in some catch-phrases and Continuity Nods, they'd have created an updated Trek with universal appeal.
And they did create something with universal appeal. It's a fun film. Taken for what it is, and judged exclusively by Rule Of Cool and Rule Of Fun, it's entirely enjoyable. But for someone who wanted a continuation of the Star Trek franchise that stayed loyal to its spirit, the film was a disappointment.