His Star Trek Will Go On Forever
JJ Abram's Star Trek will be out next year. This will be the first time the original crew is played by different actors (in a major professional production). I'm still not sure if I like this. But it got me musing about the previous Star Trek films.
Because when you think about it, they represent something remarkable, something that's never been done before. There have been plenty of times when popular TV show casts reunited and made a movie (usually a made-for-TV movie) and in every case I can think of, the result was worse than the original. But the top Star Trek movies, particularly II and IV, are superior to the series.
Perhaps the cumulative power of the TV show is greater, but the movies, at their best, work quite well, and offer better adventure and deeper characters than any episode, which is saying something.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:16 AM
6 Comments:
My sense is that the new movie will represent "the beginning" of the five year mission. As such, I think the trekies (trekers?) will accept the film if it attempts to smooth over the change in actors by matching the costumes and general look of sets and props from the TV servies. I would also assume the actors will, to some extent, try to match the mannerisms of the originals.
From the series, we can't tell how new Kirk's command was. Since the series lasted just three years, we could assume they were the last three years of the 5 year mission, making room for 2 years of "early missions."
My big question - will Klingons have bumpy heads or not. Since Deep Space Nine and Enterprise went to some effort to explain why Kirk's Klingons looked different, I think it would be neat if the movie shows a mix - ie the genetically enhanced Klingons sans bumps and the original Klingons as bumpy as all get out.
The TV shows have already tried to deal with the changing Klingons (unsuccessfully).
I know almost nothing about JJ's film, as it's mostly being kept under wraps. But based on how movies work, I can make some guesses.
I'd assume the whole point is to reinvent Star Trek, not to copy it. There will be some similarities, but this isn't a continuation of the TV show or even the earlier movies. It won't try very hard to git into the feel of the whole Star Trek world like the Enterprise series did. My guess is it will have as much to do with the Star Trek movies as Christopher Nolan's Batman had to do with Tim Burton's Batman.
You may be right. I have a sneak preview that shows no characters, but shows the original enterprise being constructed. That's why I've assumed it would be "Kirk, the Early Years." Of course, according to the tV show, Pike was the first captain of the Enterprise, so we'll see if they deal with that.
P.S. I don't see how I can accept Sylar as Spock.
It'll be hard to accept anyone as Spock. Once Niomy became the breakout star of the show, he allegedly asked for more money and NBC prepared a list of replacements (including David Carradine) though I don't think they were ever serious. Since then, there have been a lot of Vulcans, but only one Spock.
From what I understand, a lot of fanboys are actually pumped about Zachary Quinto as Spock. I can at least see a similarity in look and temperament, but it'll still be very weird. Even tougher, though, will be a new Kirk.
LA Guy wrote:
But the top Star Trek movies, particularly II and IV, are superior to the series.
It seems unfair to compare the two best movies to "the series" (presumably all 79 episodes).
If you compare the movie series (ST:TMP through ST 7, or even ST 6) to the three seasons, I think the show as a whole holds up better than the movies. Four of the seven movies are pretty bad, and ST1, 5, and 7 are inexcusably bad.
If you compare the best movies to the best episodes.... that's tougher. But "City on the Edge of Forever" is clearly better than Wrath of Khan, while "A Piece of the Action" and "I, Mudd" are each funnier than Star Trek IV.
The exchange between Kirk and Spock in the blond woman's truck in ST4 is one of the best Kirk-Spock dialogues ever. Better than the last scene in "Amok Time"? That's a tough question.
Obviously this is a judgment call, and it's tough to compare a movie, where you prepare for a year and have a lot more money, to a TV churned out each week under tricky circumstances. And I love the Star Trek series as a love few other things. But even the best Star Trek episodes have weaknesses in plotting and logic. One can make a plausible argument that Wrath Of Khan is superior to any single episode (or any two episodes) in plotting and action. (I have a friend who considers it one of the five greatest movies of all time.)
But that argument is tricky. On the other hand, I have no hesitation in saying the comedy in Star Trek IV is superior to any comedy in the series. Most of the humor in the original show is fairly weak, and even at it's best only works in fits and starts. Even when it's done alright, it's often a bit overdone (except for Spock, thank goodness), whereas much of the humor in IV is at a fairly high level. I was so used to not even cracking a smile at most Star Trek that I was surprised to find myself laughing.
Post a Comment
<< Home