Sure It's A Hit. But Is It Star Trek?

Anyone who's known me for more than five minutes knows that I'm a big Star Trek fan. Truth be told, my devotion to the sci-fi classic isn't just overblown, it's downright Shatneresque. 

So when my friends heard that there was a new Star Trek movie coming out they asked, was I excited to see it? Did I think it was going to be good? Was I going to be first in line? I didn't know how to answer any of these questions because frankly, I was scared. And I had plenty of reasons.

I had heard rumors that director J.J. Abrams was not a Star Trek fan, was not following established canon and was intending to update the movie for a wider audience (meaning 13 year old boys). Great. So he was planning to "fix" my all-time favorite show the same way like-minded directors fixed other cult classics like Lost In Space, Wild Wild West, Bewitched, The Avengers and of course, Transformers. Now I know, the Transformers movie was a huge hit and made a ka-jillion dollars. That doesn't mean it wasn't a steaming pile of crap characters, tired plot-points and blurry computer graphics (and I'm trying to be nice here).

I stalled almost two weeks after Star Trek came out before seeing it. In that time I read every review, grilled friends and scanned the message boards (yes, I visit Star Trek message boards - I'm not proud). Finally, I was ready to see it for myself. And... hey Mikey, I liked it! But is it Star Trek? Well, maybe not exactly, but J.J. came pretty darn close.

**Spoilers follow**

The first thing they did right was to create an alternate timeline. Me (and my fellow nerds) know James T. Kirk and crew inside and out. We've devoured TV, movies, books, comics and cartoons. We know their past, their future, their favorite foods and tastes in women. Creating a new timeline allows for a Star Trek that's both familiar and new at the same time.

They also did a good job selecting and directing the actors. Most of them look enough like the original actors to satisfy true fans. But more importantly they all understood and conveyed the spirit of the characters. 

Best of all, J.J. remembered that Star Trek isn't about space. It's about the human condition (as viewed from space). The story (like all good Star Trek) uses external crises to force our characters to confront their own internal conflicts and flaws.

One thing J.J. didn't seem to understand is that Kirk and Spock aren't a duo and McCoy shouldn't be demoted to irascible sidekick. The three men are parts of a greater whole. Kirk's courage and determination need Spock's logical mind and McCoy's deep feelings to function as a commander. (J.J., you use OZ reference all the time. Courage-heart-brain, get it?). McCoy had some nice character moments in the movie, but I don't think he served his character's true purpose.

The only other negative I feel worth mentioning is the Enterprise. The exterior was okay (yes, just okay), but the bridge looked an overly-lit hair salon and the engineering deck looked like a crummy old factory (which is exactly where they filmed it). 

Okay, one other thing. J.J., can you back off on the lens flares a little? It's one thing to give a movie a distinctive look, but not every scene needs to have bands of light splitting them in two.

See? That wasn't so bad. All in all a good film adaptation of a beloved TV classic. And let's face it. Even if it had stunk I'd still buy a ticket, a DVD, a Blu-Ray copy, pick up the comics, magazine and see the sequels. After all, I'm just your average nit-picking, detail-obsessed, line-quoting lunatic... in other words, a Star Trek fan.

What did you think? Did J.J. and crew make the best Trek ever or did he miss the target? Leave a comment and let me know.