Star Trek: Reboot this thing, now!
May. 22nd, 2009 03:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thedarkagesI hated the new Star Trek.
Perhaps I am one of these people from a past generation, uncomprehending of popular taste -- one of the people mocked in the Onion article -- but I thought that the new Star Trek film was a very unpleasant experience indeed.
The biggest problem for me was the character of Kirk, whom the scriptwriters made both a "snowflake" and a "Mary Sue." Kirk must not have received very effective parenting from his widowed mother. Driving an antique twentieth-century car off a cliff is prodigiously antisocial, even for an eleven-year-old, but it seems born of blank entitlement and unremitting external validation. This sense of self-importance and entitlement, unmixed with the need for hard work or sacrifice, carries him through the entire movie. (The blog "Rate Your Students" was, AFAIK, the first to label a college student with this combination of traits a "snowflake," after the idea that each individual snowflake is unique, important, precious, and should be validated at all costs.) The scriptwriters do nothing but reward these traits in Kirk, Kirk's cheating on a crucial exam is overlooked, and his heroic return from saving the universe (with the exception of Vulcan and Romulus) is rewarded with a Starfleet commendation and the acclamation of the entire school. If Starfleet Academy had an honor code, Kirk would be stripped to his long-johns and have his shredded uniform handed to him with a ticket on a transport back to Iowa. Kirk's rise up the ranks is so meteoric as to be non-linear -- he basically whines his way into command. Pike tells him that, if he plays his cards right, he could be in command of a starship in four years; he does so in a couple of days. His rise is so rapid that it is reminiscent of the "Mary Sue" techniques used by beginning writers when they want to create a heroic character, Star Trek or otherwise, who is a stand-in for themselves, and liberally bestow upon themselves all the positive talents, attributes, and stations conceivable, as quickly as possible.
The Vulcans are no less problematic. Far from being creatures of reason, they embrace emotion at every opportunity. Logic is simply an excuse for them to get more emotional. If, as Nimoy suggests, Vulcans are associated with Jews, the Vulcanism presented in the movie is a sort of Reform Judaism, where logic is what you're supposed to believe in but really don't practice. From Spock's schoolmates taunting him for being half-human -- taunting being as illogical an activity as you can get -- to Sarek's confession that he married Amanda out of love (and not via P'on Farr, either), Vulcan reason is hollow, hollow, hollow.
Finally, there's the Romulan villain, Nero, who is characterized and played without an ounce of subtlety. We know that he is out for revenge for his dead wife and planet. That's it. He says it, and we know that he has no other thoughts in his head. He's just a dumb evil bunny who does bad things. Compared to Nero, Khan is a marvel of interior life. (The scriptwriters rip off The Wrath of Khan big-time when they have Nero extract information by means of introducing a "Centaurian slug" into Pike's mouth; Khan does the same thing to Chekhov with a mind-controlling space beetle in Chekhov's ear.)
The ham-fisted quality of the production is leavened somewhat by the second-string characters; McCoy retains some of his wryness, Chekhov some of his haplessness, and Scotty his excitability. (Scotty also gets a dark sense of humor and a real Scots accent.) Nonetheless, this is first and foremost an action movie, and subtlety goes right out the window. Star Trek TOS was not exactly Shakespeare -- much of the third season was hastily-concocted dreck -- but Spinoza was mentioned in the third episode, and there was a game of three-dimensional chess. There was some attempt to stretch the mind, and in the new movie, that's completely gone. The score doesn't help; it sounds like an appropriation of the music from the Batman movies, only without the wit; the title theme at the end is leaden and overorchestrated.
Now, for some unorganized irritants:
And these are just for starters. I've seen a lot written on the question of the great leap backward for women represented by this film.
I came out of the theatre agitated from the incessant hype and tension. This was basically the Fox News version of Trek. I want the PBS version.
Perhaps I am one of these people from a past generation, uncomprehending of popular taste -- one of the people mocked in the Onion article -- but I thought that the new Star Trek film was a very unpleasant experience indeed.
The biggest problem for me was the character of Kirk, whom the scriptwriters made both a "snowflake" and a "Mary Sue." Kirk must not have received very effective parenting from his widowed mother. Driving an antique twentieth-century car off a cliff is prodigiously antisocial, even for an eleven-year-old, but it seems born of blank entitlement and unremitting external validation. This sense of self-importance and entitlement, unmixed with the need for hard work or sacrifice, carries him through the entire movie. (The blog "Rate Your Students" was, AFAIK, the first to label a college student with this combination of traits a "snowflake," after the idea that each individual snowflake is unique, important, precious, and should be validated at all costs.) The scriptwriters do nothing but reward these traits in Kirk, Kirk's cheating on a crucial exam is overlooked, and his heroic return from saving the universe (with the exception of Vulcan and Romulus) is rewarded with a Starfleet commendation and the acclamation of the entire school. If Starfleet Academy had an honor code, Kirk would be stripped to his long-johns and have his shredded uniform handed to him with a ticket on a transport back to Iowa. Kirk's rise up the ranks is so meteoric as to be non-linear -- he basically whines his way into command. Pike tells him that, if he plays his cards right, he could be in command of a starship in four years; he does so in a couple of days. His rise is so rapid that it is reminiscent of the "Mary Sue" techniques used by beginning writers when they want to create a heroic character, Star Trek or otherwise, who is a stand-in for themselves, and liberally bestow upon themselves all the positive talents, attributes, and stations conceivable, as quickly as possible.
The Vulcans are no less problematic. Far from being creatures of reason, they embrace emotion at every opportunity. Logic is simply an excuse for them to get more emotional. If, as Nimoy suggests, Vulcans are associated with Jews, the Vulcanism presented in the movie is a sort of Reform Judaism, where logic is what you're supposed to believe in but really don't practice. From Spock's schoolmates taunting him for being half-human -- taunting being as illogical an activity as you can get -- to Sarek's confession that he married Amanda out of love (and not via P'on Farr, either), Vulcan reason is hollow, hollow, hollow.
Finally, there's the Romulan villain, Nero, who is characterized and played without an ounce of subtlety. We know that he is out for revenge for his dead wife and planet. That's it. He says it, and we know that he has no other thoughts in his head. He's just a dumb evil bunny who does bad things. Compared to Nero, Khan is a marvel of interior life. (The scriptwriters rip off The Wrath of Khan big-time when they have Nero extract information by means of introducing a "Centaurian slug" into Pike's mouth; Khan does the same thing to Chekhov with a mind-controlling space beetle in Chekhov's ear.)
The ham-fisted quality of the production is leavened somewhat by the second-string characters; McCoy retains some of his wryness, Chekhov some of his haplessness, and Scotty his excitability. (Scotty also gets a dark sense of humor and a real Scots accent.) Nonetheless, this is first and foremost an action movie, and subtlety goes right out the window. Star Trek TOS was not exactly Shakespeare -- much of the third season was hastily-concocted dreck -- but Spinoza was mentioned in the third episode, and there was a game of three-dimensional chess. There was some attempt to stretch the mind, and in the new movie, that's completely gone. The score doesn't help; it sounds like an appropriation of the music from the Batman movies, only without the wit; the title theme at the end is leaden and overorchestrated.
Now, for some unorganized irritants:
- Spock reacts to Kirk's incessant demands for attention on the bridge by marooning him on the planet Delta Vega. The Enterprise is equipped with a perfectly adequate brig -- come on, if it has a Habitrail (tm), it has a brig -- and marooning someone who is not an unstoppable threat to the ship and crew is probably way against Starfleet regulations. The only reason it happens is because the screenwriters need it to advance their creaky plot, so that Spock Prime and Scotty can be met. The entire Delta Vega sequence is a ripoff of the TOS episode Where No Man Has Gone Before, down to the rusty old dilithium cracking station on the surface. The reason Kirk marooned Gary Mitchell is because Mitchell had acquired godlike powers and wanted to do away with everyone; that's a good reason to do it.
- Chekhov's initial "W." I realize that this was homage to Walter Koenig, and I appreciate that. But the Enterprise's computers should be able to recognize both human and alien dialects; initial W seems like a small thing to overcome with twenty-fourth century technology.
- The idea that a transporter can't lock on to someone falling at thousands of feet per second when the Enterprise is orbiting around planets while traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour and beaming people down to stationary locations is complete hogwash. So is the idea that you can beam someone onto a ship at warp speed; once again, this was laziness on the part of the scriptwriters so that they could achieve their goals.
- Spock/Uhura slash. Fine. I can accept a romance, but acting like snugglebunnies in the turbolift? Once again, is Starfleet bereft of discipline? Is Spock bereft of discipline? If mixed-gender police officers and armed forces members can keep it in their pants during working hours, why can't Starfleet officers?
- Kirk's hackery with the Kobayashi Maru simulation is not worthy of credence. Do you think the twenty-fourth century hasn't seen three centuries of hackers? Do you think it possible that systems might have evolved to prevent this from happening trivially? If we had tripwire in the twentieth century, why not something better and more comprehensive later? The only reason for Starfleet not to expect attempts like this would be if they had an honor code, and if they had an honor code... This is a Mary Sue phenomenon -- Kirk as world-beating hacker.
- "Red matter." Yeargh. All right. It's like neutronium, but even denser; a little dab of it is so gravitationally attractive that it will suck whole planets into a mini-singularity. So, how do you store it? In a giant lava lamp? In a big syringe? Why doesn't it simply suck whatever is around it into its vortex immediately? How does it know to wait until it gets to the center of a planet before doing its job? Does it have union rules? Or does it just suck?
- Destroying Vulcan and Romulus in the same movie. What does that do for sequels, guys? Is it going to be Klingons all the way down from here on out? Or are you going to change your mind and retcon with another hokey time paradox?
And these are just for starters. I've seen a lot written on the question of the great leap backward for women represented by this film.
I came out of the theatre agitated from the incessant hype and tension. This was basically the Fox News version of Trek. I want the PBS version.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-22 10:57 pm (UTC)Red matter, though... i mean, hell, if a dollop is enough to create a black hole, why is he carrying around enough to destroy several galaxies?
no subject
Date: 2009-05-24 06:24 pm (UTC)No one can see the evil...
Date: 2009-05-24 10:46 pm (UTC)(BTW, Slonimsky is a must-read. But perhaps no one can see that, either.)
no subject
Date: 2009-05-29 07:40 am (UTC)