Two Takes, One Film: Star Trek

RP: I have never been a big fan of Star Trek.  My general assumption was that all their movies were about whales.  My father was a big fan of the series when I was growing up which automatically made it lame and uncool for me to have any interest in it.  I’ve looked at it as a series consistently characterized by in-jokes and a deep sci-fi cannon.  I think this is what makes a Star Trek movie so difficult to do.  You have to balance making something that the average person would want to sit down and watch for two hours while also showing appreciation to the hardcore fans.  The whole concept of Star Treak seemed to be the opposite of anything JJ Abrams would do.

MtK: First of all, let me commend my pal RP on the title of this post. I guess my very first reaction to the movie, once it was over, was “Wow, J.J. Abrams didn’t ruin that.” I suppose I expected it to be like Cloverfield: In Space!. The movie was good, and for being what I’d consider to be a re-adaptation, it wasn’t bad. The special effects were good, but not to the point where it ruined any past Star Trek lines for me. Interestingly, I found myself more bothered by small things than anything, such as product placement (Budweiser, Nokia, etc). I felt that those didn’t particularly have a place in this segment of Sci-Fi—much like you’ve never seen it in Trek or Star Wars. Some films, like Demolition Man (1993) did have over-abundant product placement, but, it felt out of context in Star Trek.

Lastly, the only other thing that bothered me was how some of the scenes and imagery actually seemed to borrow from the original Star Wars trilogy; by far the easiest comparisons were made with some of the shots of Kirk on the ice planet and Luke’s time alone on Hoth.

by roninpowride
2 years ago