Skip to main content

The Angst of Trek?

Angst - Focusing on anxiety that leaves the character full of doubt and uncertainty.

The new (and reportedly final) trailer for the upcoming Star Trek is online at Apple trailers. Check it out here. The film is due in theaters 5/8/09.

This trailer simply rocks, for the first time making me excited about seeing the film. And yet, I can’t help being apprehensive. I’ve been a Trekkie since before there was such a thing. I watched the very first episode when it very first aired way back when. I watched the salt vampire try and suck Kirk dry, saw Spock attempt to smack it around, and saw McCoy blast it into eternity. I was hooked.

Despite that, and my continued love of the show and several of the movies it spawned (everybody scream, “Khan!”), I’m not so fanatical as to object to any change. From what I’ve gleaned of the plot for this film, it sounds pretty intriguing. A Romulan is apparently more than a little pissed at how things have turned out for his planet. To correct things, he travels back in time to rid the universe of the two things that have, in his mind, set back the Romulan empire: James T. Kirk and the entire planet Vulcan.

That’s right, as we always suspected, Kirk is at least as important as an entire planet.

It’s a neat setup. Kirk’s parents are killed so Kirk is raised by an asshole of an uncle. As a result, instead of the confident swaggering Kirk we’re used to, we meet little jerk Kirk. You get a hint of all that in the trailer, btw, so I’m not spoiling too much. And maybe the rumors I’ve read are all wrong. Doesn’t matter, because if the storyline really is about jerk Kirk trying to set things right in the universe, this could still be a neat flick.

The problem I’m having is one of attitude. In the original Trek, Kirk & Co.  joyously faced the unknown in episode after episode. There was an irresistible optimism, not just that the future would be brighter, but in the sheer joy of exploration and discovery.

Where’s it all gone?

I can understand why Bruce Wayne broods, why Peter Parker pouts. I can even understand why the new Superman sulks. But more and more, this entire self-involved, angst-ridden, self-involved, narcissistic attitude is dominating film characters. I suppose they call this depth, but a little goes a long way and instead we’re getting it by the bucket loads. It annoys the crap out of me that it appears to be  invading Star Trek.

Now, you could argue that in the very best Trek ever made (scream it with me, “Khan!”) Kirk was suffering a bout of angst. It was more a mid-life crisis, though, and he had the years to justify it. Besides, the old joy come back as the story unwound, even in the face of death, especially in the face of death. If you count in the next two films, thus making a little trilogy, you see that by the end Kirk & Co. are reborn. Doubt me? Watch how Kirk and Spock march out of Federation HQ at the end of The Voyage Home. They are in confident lock-step, about to return to their natural element, the bridge of a starship traveling deep into uncharted space.

Maybe I need to think this through, maybe it’s not this bad, maybe I only feel this way every time I see the new Kirk’s kiddie-like face as he squats into the captain’s chair (is deep in brood or is he about to make a doo-doo?) because the rest is beginning to look sooo good.

Besides, I suppose I can treat this rendition of Trek like I had to treat Conan the Barbarian. John Milius re-conceived much of Conan, too (OMG, Conan a slave?!?!), but I eventually embraced the changes, but it took a bit.

Maybe that will happen here, but I sort of doubt it. Writer-director-producer J.J. Abrams has as much as, “This is not your father’s Star Trek.” Well, my father never liked Trek (except for, and let’s hear you shout it, “Khan!”), it was always my show.

While honoring the past, Abrams wants to re-establish Trek as something new and different, and he’s apparently doing so by given Kirk a major make-over.

One apparently fraught with angst.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home.Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes. In Batman Begins, I blamed Katie Holmes. Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film, at almost two and a half hours, might be a shade long. Having said t…

About that "Steven Spielberg ending" comment

All right, when I wrote about the film V for Vendetta, I said the "happy ending" was an ending Steven Spielberg would have been proud of. Is there someone out there who doesn't get it? I can think of precisely one film that Spielberg didn't slap some sort of "and they all lived happily ever after" ending onto, and that was Munich (which sucked in its own right and for other reasons).Most of his films righteously have happy endings. Kill the shark, absolutely. Hero wins the day, without a doubt. Some poor schmuck prevails over homicidal big rig, yea!But as I recall, his first theatrical film didn't have all that happy an ending. Indeed, I think the protaganist gets his ass shot off and dies. Which was proper, since that was based on a real story and that's really what happened.And does Close Encounters of the Third Kind really have a "happy" ending? Our hero goes off with the aliens, and the music swells to happiness, but he's just aban…

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I went and saw The Last Jedi shortly after it came out and at first I didn't really feel like writing a thing about it. Why? Because the film just left me apathetic; I just didn't care. But I've been seeing arguments and counter-arguments fly back and forth, especially the aggregate professional critic (very high) versus the aggregate viewer (pretty low) scores. So, what the heck, here's my two cents' worth. And because I want to work myself up to a proper, full venting, there will be spoilers a-plenty.

We join the action shortly after the events of The Force Awakens. The Resistance (with no clear idea of what they're actually resisting) is fleeing from the relentless pursuit of The First Order (with no clear idea of what their order actually is). Death is closing in on our less-than-plucky heroes. Much running ensues.

And that's it, the entire plot in a nutshell. Yes, Rey (Daisy Ridley) goes off to receive training from Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill). But it…