{"id":1600,"date":"2008-11-22T15:22:29","date_gmt":"2008-11-22T15:22:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/?p=1600"},"modified":"2008-11-22T15:22:29","modified_gmt":"2008-11-22T15:22:29","slug":"my_reaction_to_the_trailer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/2008\/11\/22\/my_reaction_to_the_trailer\/","title":{"rendered":"My Reaction to The Trailer"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" alt=\"Iconic masculinity vs. metrosexual blah\" src=\"http:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/images\/trek-gizmodo-comparison.jpg\" width=\"570\" height=\"255\" \/><\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ve been dithering over an entry on J.J. Abrams&#8217; <i>Star Trek<\/i> remake for weeks, ever since that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slashfilm.com\/2008\/10\/15\/sixstar-trek-photos-revealed\/\">first batch<\/a> of production photos hit the Web. I had lots to say about them, but I procrastinated, let myself be distracted by other topics, and finally lost the moment. You folks out there with blogs of your own understand: it&#8217;s all about being topical, and the farther away from &#8220;current&#8221; you get, the harder it is to work up the motivation.<\/p>\n<p>Then came the first <a href=\"http:\/\/screenrant.com\/new-star-trek-movie-uss-enterprise-vic-4205\/\">photo of the revamped <i>Enterprise<\/i><\/a>, and I was off again, repeating the same cycle.* And now here we are a week past the release of the first full-length trailer (viewable <a href=\"http:\/\/www.apple.com\/trailers\/paramount\/startrek\/\">here<\/a>, if you&#8217;ve somehow missed it), and everybody in the blogosphere has weighed in on the thing except me. I hate being behind the curve and frankly don&#8217;t know what I&#8217;ve got to contribute that a million other people haven&#8217;t already said, but I&#8217;ve had a few friends contact me and specifically ask why I haven&#8217;t written about it yet, so I guess it&#8217;s time I finally have my say.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ve been dubious of remaking <i>Star Trek<\/i> from the very beginning. (I know everyone&#8217;s calling it a &#8220;reboot,&#8221; and I think I&#8217;ve probably referred to it as such myself, but what does that term really mean, anyhow? Reboot, refresh, reimagining&#8230; whatever you call it, it&#8217;s all the same thing, isn&#8217;t it? Even with Leonard Nimoy on board to try and provide some connection between the new film and the original series, we&#8217;re still talking about a do-over of a classic media property with an aging fan base. Abrams&#8217; <i>Trek<\/i> is as much a remake as that justifiably forgotten <i>Lost in Space<\/i> movie that starred Joey from <i>Friends<\/i>. I suspect some marketing guy somewhere probably came up with &#8220;reboot&#8221; in the hopes that it would sound a little less sacriligeous. But I digress.)<\/p>\n<p>My loyal readers know I tend to frown on remakes in general. However, I am willing to grant that there are cases where the original fell short of its potential and actually warrants another attempt. <i>Battlestar Galactica<\/i> is the obvious example here, even though I personally don&#8217;t care much for the updated version. <i>Star Trek<\/i>, on the other hand, falls into another category altogether. It is one of a small handful of films and TV series that rise to the status of icon, shows whose stories and imagery and catchphrases are so thoroughly woven into the cultural fabric that <i>everyone<\/i> knows and recognizes them, even non-fans. There aren&#8217;t many such media phenomena, but there are a few. And in my opinion, they ought to be <i>sacrosanct<\/i>. You shouldn&#8217;t re-edit them to suit modern sensibilities, and you most certainly shouldn&#8217;t insert sparkly new FX that weren&#8217;t possible when they were made (George Lucas, I am looking at you). And you don&#8217;t remake them simply because they&#8217;ve gotten <i>old<\/i>. Aside from any necessary restoration work, you let them be what they are, or what they were, or whatever.<\/p>\n<p>But of course many people consider my opinion to be extreme and\/or weird. Movies and TV aren&#8217;t widely considered legitimate or enduring art, after all, and when there is potentially billions of dollars to be made from restarting a successful media franchise, well&#8230; sacrosanct goes out the window and we get J.J. Abrams&#8217; <i>Star Trek<\/i>, coming to a theater near you in 2009.<\/p>\n<p>So, that&#8217;s my baseline in approaching this project. I don&#8217;t think a remake is necessary or desirable, and I&#8217;m frankly a little bit resentful that the Powers That Be have overruled me on this matter. That said, the trailer is&#8230; not bad.<\/p>\n<p>Or so I&#8217;ve decided after several viewings and a week to think about it. My initial reaction was reflexively negative, simply because of what it is. But now after a cooling-off period, I can see that it has a lot going for it. It&#8217;s exciting, in that jittery, over-caffeinated, fast-cut style that The Damn Kids seem to like these days. It contains a number of striking images, including some that remind me of commercial illustrations that caught my eye as a kid and have stayed with me over the years. (Tell me that Abrams&#8217; <a href=\"http:\/\/media.screenrant.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/star-trek-trailer-10.jpg\">robot cop<\/a> wasn&#8217;t inspired by Michael Whelan&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/img11.nnm.ru\/imagez\/gallery\/a\/0\/0\/0\/f\/a000f90177cdeadea46b623123ea273d.jpg\">cover art<\/a> for Fred Saberhagen&#8217;s <i>Brother Assassin<\/i>, or that <a href=\"http:\/\/media.screenrant.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/star-trek-trailer-12.jpg\">this shot<\/a> of the distant city-towers of the 23rd century doesn&#8217;t have a similar vibe to one of the more famous paintings of <a href=\"http:\/\/michaelwhelan.com\/catalog\/images\/large_dt_onbeach.jpg\">Roland the Gunslinger<\/a>.) The <a href=\"http:\/\/media.screenrant.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/star-trek-trailer-13.jpg\">shot of young Kirk observing the construction<\/a> of the <i>Enterprise<\/i> is as stirring and awesome a sight as any in all the science-fiction flicks I&#8217;ve ever seen (even if it does mess with my long-held notion that the <i>Enterprise<\/i> was built in orbit; I guess if you have the power to do the things we&#8217;ve seen in other <i>Star Trek<\/i>s, raising something that big into space isn&#8217;t all that difficult). And the filmmakers have obviously made some effort to respect the look of the original source material: the uniforms, the shuttlecraft, the &#8220;beaming&#8221; effect, the revamped <i>Enterprise<\/i> itself&#8230; they&#8217;re all instantly identifiable as <i>Star Trek<\/i>, even if they don&#8217;t look exactly as we remember them. (I&#8217;d like to see what Abrams has done with the iconic props of the old series, the communicator, hand phaser, and tricorder.) I&#8217;m not crazy about the interior <i>Enterprise<\/i> sets &#8212; the Apple-store &#8220;iBridge&#8221; and the rounded corridors &#8212; but they&#8217;re not all that different from the originals, and the sets were always changing in every other movie anyhow, so that&#8217;s not a deal breaker for me.<\/p>\n<p>I still have some reservations, though. I see a real possibility that this movie will be yet another case of style over substance, and I don&#8217;t think I will <i>ever<\/i> embrace the idea of new actors playing characters that are as real in my mind as my own parents. That&#8217;s one of the big challenges in remaking an iconic film or series. Sometimes a particular actor is so indeliably fused to a particular role that it&#8217;s nearly impossible for anyone else to take over. (Recall, for example, how David &#8220;Hutch&#8221; Soul made everyone forget about Bogart when he played Rick in that <i>Casablanca<\/i> TV series in the early &#8217;80s. What&#8217;s that? You don&#8217;t remember that show? Hm&#8230; I wonder why?) Granted, this trailer doesn&#8217;t provide much more than glimpses of the new cast, but the only one I&#8217;m reasonably comfortable with so far is Zachary Quinto as Spock. He&#8217;s a little too baby-faced, but he&#8217;s got Nimoy&#8217;s reed-thin build and posture, and he seems to have the proper inflections when he speaks his lines. I&#8217;m optimistic about Karl Urban&#8217;s McCoy, because I&#8217;ve seen him do the crusty-exterior-with-a-soft-heart thing in other films (notably his turn as Eomer in <i>Lord of the Rings<\/i>), but his delivery of the &#8220;disease and danger&#8221; speech here seems a little too hysterical and out of character. I love Simon Pegg, and lord knows his Scottish accent is much more realistic than Jimmy Doohan&#8217;s ever was, but his one line in this trailer is really corny. (I grant that both Urban&#8217;s and Pegg&#8217;s scenes are probably taken way out of context and may be more effective in the complete film.) And then there&#8217;s Chris Pine as James Tiberius Kirk.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ve read a number of very positive comments about how Pine&#8217;s got the same mischievous twinkle in the eye as William Shatner&#8217;s Kirk, but I don&#8217;t see it. He has yet to impress me as anything more than a reasonably good-looking kid who I probably couldn&#8217;t pick out of a line-up of a dozen other actors his age.** But then part of my resistance to Pine&#8217;s portrayal of Kirk might be how Abrams has apparently chosen to interpret Kirk, i.e., as a troubled and reckless kid looking for a place to belong. That&#8217;s not <i>my<\/i> Kirk. The Kirk of the original series was an explorer at heart; he was driven by duty and the urge to see what was Out There, not a desire to find his &#8220;true worth.&#8221; These characteristics aren&#8217;t necessarily incompatible &#8212; Pine&#8217;s Kirk is younger than Shatner&#8217;s, and he may find through the course of this story that his &#8220;place in the world&#8221; is to be an explorer. I&#8217;ll wait to see how the finished film actually handles this theme before passing any final judgment. But for now, I&#8217;m concerned that Abrams may have missed the central point of the original series, just as Ron Moore missed what I believe to be the real heart of <i>Battlestar Galactica<\/i> when he created his version.<\/p>\n<p><i>Star Trek<\/i> 1.0, at its best, was about <i>exploration<\/i>, whether you&#8217;re talking about exploration of space or of human nature, and if you&#8217;re going to do a remake of the series, I think that&#8217;s what you really need to capture for it to legitimately <i>be Star Trek<\/i>. I don&#8217;t see anything in the Abrams trailer that suggests this is his theme, and the bland <a href=\"http:\/\/screenrant.com\/theatrical-star-trek-posters-vic-4182\/\">poster campaign<\/a> &#8212; consisting so far entirely of headshots of a cast of mostly unknown faces &#8212; certainly doesn&#8217;t scream &#8220;boldly going&#8221; to me.*** Instead, it seems we&#8217;re getting more of the same old stuff that the <i>Star Trek<\/i> franchise came to be about in the &#8217;90s: space battles and political intrigue and soap-opera-style character development. The sad fact is, after <i>Next Gen<\/i> and <i>Deep Space Nine<\/i>, I no longer care much about the politics and frictions between the Federation and its neighbors. If we <i>must<\/i> have a new <i>Star Trek<\/i>, can&#8217;t it be about something new? About a ship venturing beyond the familiar and encountering something never before seen (either by its crew or the audience)? Maybe that&#8217;s what Abrams has in mind for the inevitable sequel&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>I guess the bottom line here is that the trailer has left me ambivalent. I&#8217;m not entirely dismissive of the project, but I&#8217;m not sold on it either. John Kenneth Muir, whose blog I <a title=\"I\u2019ve Won a Major Prize!\" href=\"http:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/2008\/11\/ive_won_a_major_prize\/\">recommended<\/a> earlier, <a href=\"http:\/\/reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com\/2008\/11\/galloping-around-cosmos-is-game-for.html\">points out<\/a> that this <i>Star Trek<\/i> isn&#8217;t really for people like me, not for the Boomers and Gen-Xers who grew up with ST 1.0, and that &#8220;even if the new Star Trek is a great movie, my generation is going to have a tough time living with it.&#8221; That sums up my feelings pretty concisely. The big difference between he and I, though, is that he&#8217;s pretty confident it will be a great movie, and I am not. Moreover, he <i>wants Star Trek<\/i> to continue. I was perfectly content with the idea that it was over&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>* Truthfully, I was a little hesitant to get into a deep analysis of the ship re-design because I was afraid I&#8217;d end up sounding like the type of fan I&#8217;ve always disdained, the ones who miss the forest &#8212; the actual <i>show<\/i> &#8212; for the trees, i.e., the meaningless details. Like this kid I knew back in college who obsessed endlessly over finding an &#8220;in-universe&#8221; explanation for why the gang on <i>Red Dwarf<\/i> had different quarters in the later seasons of the show than they had in the first year. Apparently, the obvious explanation &#8212; that the producers had built new sets in between seasons, probably because their budget had increased &#8212; just wasn&#8217;t sufficient for him. I&#8217;ve never wanted to become so involved in anything that I got like that&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>** This is a whole different rant, but what <i>is<\/i> it about the up-and-coming crop of actors all being so bland and, frankly, kind of funny-looking? I can&#8217;t think of <i>any<\/i> twentysomething actors who are genuinely handsome or charismatic.<\/p>\n<p>*** Yet another digression: I <i>hate<\/i> the photoshopped-head style of movie posters. I miss the colorful painted collages I grew up with. Damn Photoshop&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve been dithering over an entry on J.J. Abrams&#8217; Star Trek remake for weeks, ever since that first batch of production photos hit the Web. I had lots to say about them, but I procrastinated, let myself be distracted by other topics, and finally lost the moment. You folks out there with blogs of your [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-star-trek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jasonbennion.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}