Skip to main content

Thoughts on the Star Trek movie

I was pleasantly surprised by the new Star Trek movie last night. [Some spoilers to come.]

As a prequel to the original series, it could have been dire. Instead, all the familiar characters were beautifully played without ever being a caricature or impersonation of the original. Chekov, for instance, had all his youthful enthusiasm - but had lost the dire hairstyle, introduced to try to win over fans of the Monkees. I particularly warmed to McCoy - it was no surprise there was a small cheer in the cinema when we got 'I'm a doctor, not a physicist' - but they were all excellent, Simon Pegg proving a much better comedy Scotsman than the original.

Some aspects were a bit iffy - the whole red matter/black hole business, for instance. (Including the way the crew happily sat by as a black hole formed, then were surprised it was difficult to get away. Duh.) But not too many.

Perhaps most controversial was setting it in an alternate reality to the original series. This meant a slight feeling of detachment - these weren't 'our' characters, really. But it was an essential for the writers. Otherwise we would know, for instance, that Spock's mother couldn't stay killed, because we saw her in Season 2 of the original series.

All in all, it should delight any Star Trek fan, or even those with faint fond memories, and works well as a new version of the franchise in its own right. There's bound to be another, and that's not a bad thing.

Comments

  1. I'm so excited to see this, Brian, so thank you for the critique. I'm a closet Trekkie from way back, when my dad and I used to plunk our butts down on Sunday evening to watch the original. I'm even a fan of the rest of the offshoot series. I'm pathetic. I know this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I used to watch it with my dad, too Lynn (though it was on on a weekday over here) - and I loved STTNG, though I didn't really bother with the later spinoffs. Not pathetic at all. (Or at least, if you are, we're both pathetic together.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. rather than calling this new Star Trek a "reboot" they should call it "downloaded onto a far more sophisticated machine, edited, polished, then rebooted."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe it rebooted and found itself on a Mac instead of a PC...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brilliant movie - however, no organization puts a 'enlisted' guy in charge of an army for valor. He would just get a bunch of medals, no way is he made captain of a starship. Plus, who would put the inventor of cross warp beeming' on a ship instead of in research? Problem #2 - but could have fixed them both if 'Old Spock' influenced the outcome ... i.e. picked the crew. solid movie (should not have been a duplicate villain scream equivalent to, "KAHN!!!!!" either ... thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, having someone three years into his career suddenly given charge did stretch disbelief (but, hey, have you watched any Original Series episodes lately?)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Space,the final frontier.These are the old and new,trekkies of the past an future,of the star ship enterprise.our mission,is to stand by,an support and maintain the integrity,of the symbol and cerw,that we all know an love.To seek out new life and civilization.To contiue,to bodly go,where no trekkies have gone befor.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We are the borg,resistance are futile.We have manage,to intercept your transmission,coming for the far region of the alpha sector.We know of the star ship enterprise,and of its capabilities,function,and strength.apond of arival,the star ship enterprise and crew,will be assimilated;then earth.resistance is futile.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou