April 8, 2009

Some thoughts on the new Star Trek

First, some proof of my bona fides in this particular area:


The new Star Trek has premiered, and the reviews seem to be very good (Thanks, Alex - whoever you were!). I'm trying not to read any of them beyond the first few sentences to avoid having the whole thing spoiled. Of course, over at Ain't It Cool News the reviews are predictably glowing, but I'll never be able to trust Harry Knowles and Co.'s opinion(s) ever again due to its initial, ridiculously stratospheric praise of each and every terrible Star Wars prequel. And they are just as likely to gush over something like Fast & Furious, so their judgment is highly questionable and completely unreliable.

I am still sort of excited, and definitely curious, about this movie. But as the various trailers have been slowly released over the last few months, I've increasingly cooled on it. Maybe it was when they stopped using the original theme in them. Maybe it's the fact that every time I see the guy who plays Sulu, I can only think of those idiotic Harold and Kumar movies. In fact, that particular bit of casting may have "ruined" the whole thing for me. Whatever. It's become clearer and clearer to me this Star Trek may not be intended for the die hard, old school, TOS, Trekkies such as myself. No, I think it may be for the same audience responsible for making the Fast & Furious premiere last weekend a record debut. And that's okay. The makers of this film should be trying to appeal to the widest audience possible. I suppose the bottom is line is no matter what "new Trek" is like, it'll never be able to replace the original and what it meant to me, or make me twelve-years-old again. I learned that with those retched Star Wars prequels. And besides, who wants to be twelve-years-old again?? Not me, nosirreebob.

  • My "City on the Edge of Forever" post.

    Peteski said...

    Did you see this?

    ps. I didn't even know that Star Trek was shown in color until about 1976, when I saw it over my cousin's house.

    Chris said...

    That's very cool, Pete. Thanks for the link. I can't believe that'll be the May issue cover of Esquire.

    Star Trek was clearly meant to be seen in color (remember the old NBC station ID, with the "living color" peacock?). What a unique way to have grown up with it!

    Gilligan said...

    Your Star Trek cred is untouchable.

    I think you hit it on the money - this is not intended for us. Rather, like GI Joe, this is intended for the masses, who largely have never even seen an original Star Trek episode.

    I'm similarly conflicted about the upcoming Land of the Lost movie.

    Chris said...

    Gilligan - with all due respect, that's like comparing "The Odyssey" to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, but I know what you mean (per Land of the Lost). I think the Land of the Lost movie is going to be extremely tongue-in-cheek, so if you have any reverence for the original, Saturday morning show (which I too loved), you'd best be prepared for Will Ferrell hilarity. It can't be any worse than taking the cylons from Battlestar Galactica and making them blonde babes. I still don't get that one.

    Peteski said...

    one more thing:

    Chris said...

    Yes! "I come from the lights in the sky." I need to remember that.

    Anonymous said...

    Heh, glad you found the AV Club article. I thought I was being redundant, so I got rid of the comment. Anyways, keep up the good work!