here you go MarkJ

Since I saw *Star Trek* a little over a week ago, I’ve struggled to write an
adequate review of the movie, and what it meant to me, as someone who was
part of the first effort to make *Star Trek* relevant to the, uh, next
generation of fans. I’ve started and abandoned a few thousand words, mostly
because I can say everything I need to say in just six:

It was awesome. I loved it.



I realize that a column about the movie, and what it meant to me, is going
to need to elaborate on that just a little bit, and that’s where the trouble
begins. See, I keep feeling like I’m just rewriting what I wrote about*
Watchmen*, which could also be reduced to six words:

It was awesome. I loved it.



I've tried to stay away from *Watchmen*, but I keep coming back to that
comparison because they both played significant roles in my life as I came
of age during my teens. I feel a deeply personal connection to them, and I
was – I think understandably – worried that these movies would leave me
feeling the way I felt when I walked out of *Phantom Menace*.

In fact, to explain why, I'm going to quote myself, from my review of*
Watchmen*<http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/02/spoiler-alert-watchmen-is-fucking-awesome.html>
:

...we live in a world where we've endured Ang Lee's *The Hulk*, *Spiderman 3
*, both *Fantastic Four* movies, and *Indiana Jones Gets Raped Repeatedly
While We Are Forced To Watch In Horror*, so I think it would be really
strange if we weren't worried and apprehensive about something that already
means so much to us...



And that's the thing, isn't it? *Star Trek* has meant too much to too many
people for too long for those of us who love it to blindly accept that
whoever makes it will treat it with the same love and respect that we
believe it deserves. I think it was normal and natural for all of us to have
reservations, *especially* about *Star Trek*.

It turns out, I think, that a lot of our fears, while well-founded, were
unnecessary. JJ Abrams may not be *one of us* in the convention-going sense,
but I think he has something in common with us, and I think it's a big
reason why *Star Trek* made so many of us so very, very happy.

A lot of Trekkies got worked up when JJ Abrams seemed to
say<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/star-trek-dir-1.html>
that
he didn't even like *Star Trek*, and was more of a *Star Wars* fan:

Well, I'm just a fan of *Star Wars*. As a kid, *Star Wars* was much more my
thing than *Star Trek* was.



The usual blogs and geek punditry picked up on that, and freaked out that he
clearly didn't care about *Trek*, and was going to make something that had
more in common with *Star Wars* – and possibly its disastrous prequels and
special editions – than the *Star Trek* we've loved for so many years. I
think, living in our post-*Phantom Menace*, post-*ET*-with-Walkie-Talkies,
post are-you-fucking-kidding-me-with-*X-Men 3* world, that's an
understandable response. The funny thing is, I never heard anyone bother to
add the very next thing he said:

"The challenge of doing *Star Trek* -- despite the fact that it existed
before*Star Wars* -- is that we are clearly in the shadow of what George
Lucas has done.



Let's think about that for a moment, because it could mean a couple of
different things. It could mean that Lucas made *Star Wars* movies that were
bigger spectacles than the *Star Trek* movies, and we need to somehow top
that ... except JJ immediately says it isn't:

The key to me is to not ever try to outdo them because it's a no-win
situation. Those movies are so extraordinarily rendered that it felt to me
that the key to *Star Trek* was to go from the inside-out: Be as true to the
characters as possible, be as real and as emotional and as exciting as
possible and not be distracted by the specter of all that the *Star Wars* film
accomplished.



I think this means that JJ Abrams, self-professed *Star Wars* fan, left the
Special Editions and prequels feeling the same way a lot of us did. *That* is
the shadow George Lucas cast over science fiction movies, especially remakes
and reboots and re-imaginings. *That* could be why he made sure that, even
though he doesn't love *Star Trek* as much as we do, he surrounded himself
with people who did, and listened to them when he made his movie.

I could be completely wrong, of course, but I think the story in *Star
Trek*supports
this: Spock Prime says, "Listen, I know that I've messed with the timeline
in your universe, and things are never going to be the same. But the
universe that existed before I traveled through time *is still there*, and
now it's up to you to explore *this* universe."

It's like JJ is simultaneously telling us, "I respect you. I respect the
people and starships and adventures and universe that you've loved for 40
years. I'm not going to tell you that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to
tell you that you were wrong to love it, and now it's all gone because I
have shiny new effects and actors. It's all there, and it's yours to
continue exploring as long as you want to.

"But I do have this new starship and a new crew, and we're going to go
explore some different places where no one has gone before. If you want to
come along with us, you're welcome to aboard. If not, bon voyage. If you
treat her like a lady, she'll always bring you home."

This is the fundamental difference between what JJ Abrams did with *Star
Trek*, and what George Lucas did with *Star Wars*. Lucas told us, "Hey, you
know all that stuff you love so much? That stuff that's been a huge part of
your life? Well, you're stupid for liking it because I didn't mean it. These
are my toys, always have been, and now I'm taking them back. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Fuck you, now give me more of your money."

I hope that *Star Trek*'s legacy is two-fold. I hope that it leads to more
movies with these actors and this creative team, and I hope that it
encourages more studios and film makers to follow the example laid out by
people like JJ Abrams, Zack Snyder, and Peter Jackson.

I mean, can you imagine Michael Bay's *Star Trek*?

Sorry. Sorry. That was cruel, and I shouldn't have put that image into your
head. According to some quantum physicists, though, just thinking about that
created a universe where it happened, and I'd like to apologize to everyone
in it.

I want to talk about something else from *Star Trek*, but it contains
spoilers, so...

I loved a lot of different things in *Star Trek*. I thought the casting was
perfect. I thought the story was brilliantly paced and executed. I thought
the photography, editing, sound design, and visual design was superb. But I
especially loved...

...all the subtle nods to those of us in the theater who have loved *Star
Trek*for up to 40 years, among them: Kirk eating an apple when he beats the
Kobayashi Maru, the Red Shirt heading down to the drilling platform with
Kirk and Sulu, oblivious to his fate, Sulu fencing, and McCoy spitting at
Spock, "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?!" In my theater, each time one of
these things happened, there was spontaneous applause, because we got it,
but also...



...because it let us know that JJ Abrams *got us.* I, um, was also really
happy to see a teenager on the bridge again, but I doubt there is another
person in the known universe who shares my precise reasons.

In other words: I loved it. It was awesome.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Mark J. <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On May 14, 9:36 pm, "Kevin M." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > http://suicidegirls.com/news/geek/23684/
> >
> > Actually, I'm kind of shocked a Trek thread hasn't emerged on the
> > message board yet.
>
> Frakin' anti-viral has site blocked as "adult."
> >
>


-- 
Jason Carpio
[email protected]

Not sent from an iPhone

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
TV or Not TV .... Smart (TV) People on Ice!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to