Surprisingly gentle commentary! I thought based on what I heard from you earlier you would have come down harder on the film.

It’s interesting to note that the makeup of the bridge alone was political commentary back in the day of the original show. Now almost 20 years since the fall of the USSR, Chekov’s nationality seems (and now can only be seen as) incidental. A true reboot would have included a member of the Taliban/Al Qaeda on the bridge.

The show also had to stay on the bridge – that is, focus on the characters – presumably because the budget for a TV series would never be able to provide the kind of action this film had. In other words, this film was more Star Wars than Star Trek. But why can’t Star Trek have big scary monsters and chase scenes? Why not allow this flexibility for the franchise?

All in all very fun. And it seems like even hardcore Trekkies think it’s at least “average”, which, given their demanding tastes, is an accomplishment in itself.

By Diego on 06.05.09 1:37 pm

My review to you over IM sounded harsher, I think, because (a) I was a little baffled by everyone going, “It’s AWESOME!” and (b) I was cranky during the movie because I had to go to the bathroom so badly. I decided to go gentler here getting some distance from the viewing.

I think your additional points here are interesting, but I’m going to be pedantic: Chekov being Russian (or whatever that accent is supposed to be) heralded a post-political future in which Russian ≠ Soviet. To be updated, I guess a new take could have someone from Afghanistan to show that Afghan ≠ Taliban, but terrorism is such a thorny issue—with even Bush (verbally) stressing to the world that Muslim ≠ terrorist—that I wonder if we even have an appropriate analog now to the Red Menace that any given Russian once would’ve represented to audiences.

Either way, though, I think this does imply (as I assume was your intent) that the new movie kind of throws “commentary” out the window in favor of “spectacle.”

By Jason on 06.06.09 4:04 pm