Let It Die
According to Yahoo Movies, the J.J. Abrams version of Star Trek has grossed $257,730,019 to date, more than any other Star Trek movie. I am the only human who hated this movie. New fans, old fans, Trekkers, Trekkies, men, women...all loved the film. Even George Takaei, the actor who portrayed Sulu in the original 60s TV show, liked it! He hailed the new film on the Howard Stern show. In a quest to find somebody that didn't like the movie, I even searched the internet, but, alas, I stand alone in my hatred for this dreck.
Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future was a positive one. He imagined a future where human beings settled their conflicts peacefully. In Gene Roddenberry's future racism, war, poverty, etc. did not exist. With varying levels of success, over 5 TV shows, an animated series, and 10 feature films, Star Trek extolled the virtues of diversity and tolerance. There were episodes and portions of films that succumbed to the pressure to make money over creative integrity, but taken as whole, the Star Trek franchise stood for something. Star Trek was intellectual. It challenged the viewer to contemplate the human condition through complex storytelling and simple morality plays. In other words, Star Trek is not just the name of a science fiction franchise, it defines a rigid set of rules for story telling.
But, how do you continue to write compelling and entertaining stories in such a confined framework? Well, maybe you don't. In addition to ten motion pictures, over 725 episodes of Star Trek have been produced. Maybe enough is enough. Instead of sullying the meaning of Star Trek by producing a violent action/adventure...just let it die! It is OK for TV shows to go off the air, for a series of books to end, a band to break up, and a film franchise to hang it up. Isn't it better to have less quantity and more quality of your favorite art? Don't you hate that that band recorded an album with a replacement singer, and that TV show went an extra season when the show was spent 3 seasons ago? Wouldn't it have been better to just let it die? Here's a radical idea: create a new film franchise based in space with the familiar Star Trek and Star Wars technology, and do whatever you want with it: Jason Bourne meets Twilight meets The Hangover! Genius!
So, what was so bad with the 2009 Star Trek? Let me count the ways:
- The film creates an alternate reality. Other Star Trek episodes and films have employed the alternate timeline/reality vehicle, but the original timeline was always reestablished by the conclusion of the story. By creating an alternate reality, the producers of the film gave themselves a cheap excuse to do whatever they so choose with Star Trek. Without restoring the timeline back to the original Star Trek 'universe', every thing that you loved about Star Trek is changed. It's done. Over. Screw you Gene Roddenberry.
- It is very violent. Star Trek was never about excessive violence, but in once scene a Starfleet cadet pummels a young Kirk mercilessly!
- The plot is almost incomprehensible.
- The acting is sub-par.
- The dialog is clumsy.
- And so on...
Star Trek was never perfect, and the two films preceding the 2009 release made it pretty clear that it was time to end the franchise. It is a shame and a pity that young fans and future fans will only know Star Trek as a slick action/adventure shoot-em-up. Lastly, please don't tell me to 'get a life' and 'it's just a TV show'. Television and movies are art, and I will never apologize for my love and passion for Star Trek.
