Star Trek (2009)

I would like to point out what follows is my opinion based on what I think is important and MY personal tastes. And I need to you bear in mind that no one has ever made a rule that you can’t change your mind over time.

The only still from the movie without a lens flare. Except, not actually from the movie.

And yet, every time I tell people I hate this movie, they give me weird looks, surprised looks, or angry glares. That last look usually leads to arguments. What’s weird about this is that I used to like the movie.

Seriously. Right after I saw it, I ranked it up with The Wrath of Khan. I watched it every day for the next week, and probably once a week for the two months following that. I have seen this movie probably as many times as any other Star Trek movie other than Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country.

So obviously the movie didn’t change. Why do I hate it so much?

Oh, BTW, spoilers everywhere.

Let’s start at the beginning. A giant ship flies out of a black hole. Now, I’m no theoretical physicist, but I’ve read Stephan Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. So I know enough about black holes to know that if they turn out to actually be gateways in the space-time continuum, you wouldn’t survive a trip through one.

This is, of course, where all of the terrible physics starts. Now, Star Trek is 100% bad physics. I know this. But it’s consistent bad physics, and to my mind, it’s part of the universe. So I can live with bad physics. But there's bad physics and then there's blatant stupidity. Why is the viewscreen a window? The entire command crew is just a few panes of fancy glass away from the void of space? Why?

Also. Why did the captain have to give the order to “polarize the view-screen” when he got to the bridge? Why didn’t the previous command officer do it as soon as they decided to face the ship at a star? Was he TRYING to make the bridge crew blind?

Short answer, yes.

Next, the battle. George Kirk’s noble sacrifice is very touching. Great moment. But every time some random officer on the bridge yells something about the shields, I can’t help but think that, at some point, someone would have realized that it didn’t matter that the shields were at 20%, because they didn’t stop anything anyways when they were at 100%, because unlike real Star Trek, apparently shields in this universe don’t actually DO anything. Now, there is the one bridge officer who says “Are our shields even up?” at one point. I give him props for not being stupid. Why they didn’t just run away or abandon ship at that point, I don’t understand. Also, missiles? Romulans stopped using missiles in space before Kirk’s parents were even born, and these Romulans were from 150 years in the future! And don’t tell me they were some sort of mining explosive. They were freaking missiles. I saw the movie.

Pictured: A missile. Also, lens flare.

Next there’s the theme song. I’ve ranted about this elsewhere, but suffice it to say, I used to like it. I got the soundtrack. I haven’t listened to that soundtrack in years, because unlike real Star Trek themes, this one gets really obnoxious after about the fourth consecutive viewing. And don’t tell me it’s that way with every soundtrack. I’ve watched The Wrath of Khan every day for a week before, and I still listen to that soundtrack regularly.

So now we’ve passed the introduction, and I’m sure you’ve realized that if I keep going at this rate, we’ll be here for a while. So I’ll just pick some general issues to mention.

Lens Flares

JJ Abrams has been hailed as a visionary director. I would submit that his vision is to ensure that he’s the only one with any left. By which I mean, the visuals in this movie universally suck because every one of them is fractured by at least one massive lens flare. People have complained about the shaky cam in this movie. I have yet to notice it, because I can’t resolve actual details on the screen because the ENTIRE THING is whited out, all the time. This isn’t visionary directing. This is crap.

Also, I don't think anyone involved in this production has an appreciation for how bright stars are. If this were an actual photo, and the white balance were adjusted enough to make the star look like that, you wouldn't even be able to see the glow from that engine, let alone a lens flare from it.

The ship

What ship? Why, all of them! At the beginning of the movie, there’s the Kelvin. This ship violates one of Gene Roddenberry’s unspoken rules of starship design as recorded by the folks who designed the original Enterprise (one warp nacelle. They’re supposed to come in pairs). This is a minor niggle in comparison to the Enterprise itself, which looks fabulous (if you manage to spot it through the lens flares), but refuses to adhere to both the laws of physics (Mr. “Ye-cannot-change-the-laws-of-physics” Scott shows up and the ship goes faster. HOW?) and the laws of common sense (What, stuffing a whole section of apparently superfluous officers in between two rows of what look like fuel storage tanks is bad design? Says who?). But neither of these ships is as bad as the Narada.

Sorry if it's hard to see because of, go figure, the lens flares. There is literally no shot of this movie without some in it.

Yeah, the utterly forgettable ship captained by Darth Maul, or whatever that guy’s name was.

The Narada is supposed to be a mining ship from the 24^th century, an era of sophisticated technology. So why do they need to drop a drill into a planet’s atmosphere to use it when 24^th century tech has never had that limitation? And why is it all spikey? For what purpose did the Romulans design their mining ships like porcupines? And where, pray tell, would they store ore? Even the interior of the ship, which could be much larger if all the spines weren’t there, has catwalks and platforms EVERYWHERE. What the heck for? How would that help them mine and transport minerals or materials? This is, by far, the worst designed ship in the history of sci-fi. And believe me, I pay attention to that kind of garbage. I mean, it doesn’t even LOOK good.

I’m sorry. If I can’t tell where the front of your sci-fi ship is, it sucks.

The plot

It’s goofy. Sure, making the whole thing happen in an alternate universe was a clever way to reboot Star Trek without automatically alienating your entire fan base. But the cleverness ends there. Bad physics, plot holes, motivation gaps, and general weirdness define this script.

I liked it for its one-liners, which are plentiful and good, and for its fan service, which is at least plentiful. But this movie ignores the one thing I really want from Star Trek.

A story about a ship and her crew. That’s the germ of all Star Trek ever, even Enterprise! I don’t want a story about Kirk and Spock and their blossoming bromance! I want a story about a SHIP and her CREW! Frankly, aside from some jokes, I couldn’t have cared less about the entire crew of the ship, and the ship itself was just a thing. Had the whole thing been torn to shreds by that black hole as it should have been (see bad physics, above), and all hands had perished as well, I wouldn’t have cared at all.

Pictured: A thing that would blow your ship to smithereens seconds before the black whole turned you into spaghetti. Also, lens flare.

All of this having been said, however, I’m glad they made it, because that led to a sequel. If there’s a moral to this story, however, it’s that a movie can make an initial good impression and then dive quickly upon rewatching.

We’ll have to see how Into Darkness fares. Because this movie didn’t fare well at ALL.