By Dan Cohen, NewsLanc’s Santa Monica Reporter
The new “Star Trek,” piloted by TV wunderkind J.J. Abrams, has already scored at the box office. Given that the cost has been estimated at around 150 million, this is a good thing for Paramount. It’s interesting that the initial turnout skewed older than most blockbusters; apparently 35 plus. As I write this the studio has refocused its attention to recruiting teenagers and twenty somethings, most of who, they say, have no connection to the media galaxy the starship Enterprise has traveled for more than 40 years.
There have been 10 “Star Trek” movies and a handful of TV spin offs. All except the last series ran at least seven years, and even that one, the anemic “Enterprise,” went four. By my calculation there are close to 800 hours of “Star Trek” floating through the cosmos, with the last original programs airing in 2005. These are the offspring of a three year series that NBC cancelled in 1970 due to lack of interest.
My point is, it’s hard to conceive of anyone under the age of sixteen who doesn’t have some impression of the Trek on their grey matter. So, even after all the TV and film progeny have exhausted our interest, Paramount probably thought that rebooting the franchise was a good bet. We all know how lucrative these things can be if they stimulate the raw appetite for more. The money train runs on familiar tracks, from “Tarzan” to “Indiana Jones,” to “James Bond,” to “Harry Potter,” ad infinitum. But Trekkers, as they prefer to be called, are finicky.
So, how has the studio done with the newest crew? I give them a solid B, largely for technical achievement. This “Trek,” unlike previous offerings, is a non-stop action machine. Chris Pine, a worthy young Kirk, gets strong support from a roster of newcomers who ably shadow the storied crew of the original. Names and personalities have remained the same; only the faces have changed.
The standout is Zachary Quinto’s young Spock. Quinto, who has made his reputation in TV, (“Heroes,” “24″.) Quinto plays the storied half human with subtle, sly humor that plays like a jazzy homage to Leonard Nimoy.
The movie wears its gleaming technology like a radical hair cut, but it quickly and almost proudly shows familiar roots. Leonard Nimoy shows up as the character he’s owned the past four decades, who now exists in a parallel world. Is this explained to anyone’s satisfaction? No, but it’s no less credible than anything else in the genre, so we’re fine with it.
But Abrams and his writers lean on two crutches the earlier films didn’t have at their disposal. First of all, this “Star Wars” is a new beginning, and as such, it’s largely an origins story. Second is that huge budget. Since there are no household names in the movie, (save Nimoy, whose face is starting to look like it belongs on Mt. Rushmore,) the money is mainly on screen. The action scenes are many and amazing. Nothing, or so it appears, has been spared on production design.
The movie has two complimentary agendas; introducing the new crew and confronting the Alien bad ass (a well made up Eric Bana), who kills Kirk’s daddy in the first scene. This, aided by the huge effects arsenal and some canny direction, fills two diverting hours.
Still, there’s something that the creative team will have to confront on succeeding voyages (which are sure to come.) And that is the sort of kitschy allegorical writing that made the series and the best movies so dear to their millions of fans.
From the very beginning “Star Trek” played with big ideas. The tone was often comic and frequently self aware, but the problems in space were mainly reflections of earth. And in dealing with them the crew of the Enterprise, for the most part, fell just short of winking at the audience.
The flavor of the absurd allowed us to indulge in “Star Trek’s” sophomoric ironies without feeling like the writers and directors were insulting our intelligence. Their original mission was “to go where no man has gone before,” but we all knew better. How will the new generation handle that?
