What's Future Is Prologue


I had to resist the temptation to tack this onto the brief Star Trek review that went up the other day — a good thing, because it keeps getting un-posted somehow. Here, if we're lucky, are some expanded thoughts on the franchise and the film...

Star Trek 2009 insignia poster

I guess I'm a Trekkie. Star Trek's original series was in reruns as I grew up, and my mom introduced me to it; I even faintly recall seeing the early-'70s Saturday-morning cartoon incarnation — specifically, and amusingly given the plot of the new movie, the episode where Spock goes back in time and meets his younger self on Vulcan. The Next Generation was just about the only television I watched in college regularly besides the news and SNL, and I sampled every subsequent series out of affection for the concept (ignoring them periodically for the same reason). Heck, I've read episode guides and maybe a half-dozen of the hundreds of novels, but I've never dressed up in a Starfleet uniform, memorized the kind of minutiae some fans have, or engaged in other behavior that I tend to associate with the more serious enthusiasts who prefer the name "Trekkers".

And if you'd asked me a decade ago whether recasting the original crew was remotely a good idea, I'd have have said no. What's the point? They had a good run in the movies, popped up in subsequent series effectively on a few occasions, and, most importantly, were inextricably bound to the actors who played them. Capt. Kirk and clan weren't characters like Batman or James Bond, open to interpretation, recognized as raw material by creators and the viewing public. William Shatner was Kirk, and so forth down the line; a large part of the crew's appeal 30 years on was how they aged, their familiar traits amplified — even if the passage of time meant that, ultimately, sadly, some wouldn't be seen anymore. They were, and please don't take this in a cannibalistic sense, comfort food.

The problem with comfort food, of course, is that pretty much by definition it isn't flashy or attention-getting. But spicing up the recipe is a dangerous prospect, too, whereas introducing something new that echoes the familiar may hit the sweet spot of marketability. So after a brief attempt at reviving Star Trek for television in the late '70s, which ultimately led to the 1980 feature Star Trek: The Motion Picture (widely derided in fan circles as The Motion Sickness, since almost everything about it beyond actually seeing our old friends reunite was considered a turnoff) and four more popular films, Roddenberry & Co. were shrewd in setting the 1987-94 Next Generation series nearly 100 years after the original, with an entirely new roll call.

While quite successful in syndication, Capt. Picard and his 24th-century shipmates never captured the wider zeitgeist the way Kirk's gang did, and when adjusted for inflation a box-office ranking of the Trek movies is bottom-heavy with Picard-era pics. After it became clear that The Next Generation's spinoffs/successors wouldn't make the jump to the cinema, and with the 2001-2005 series Enterprise the first ratings disappointment since the original (to which it served as a prequel, set only 150 years from now), one wondered how the franchise would survive.

The answer turned out to be, as the hip kids say, "rebooting" the whole thing. And by the time it was announced a few years ago that J.J. Abrams was, as the Hollywood types say, "attached" to direct, I was guardedly optimistic. I'd been a loyal Alias viewer to the end and his co-creation Lost remains, as the flappers say, "the cat's pajamas" [Note from later: I changed my assessment there big-time, at least as regards the final season]. He's apparently gotten a rap from some genre-fiction followers for being a great idea man and then leaving those ideas in either lesser or greater hands, but that's frankly the price one pays for more work from an in-demand talent (not that I haven't lamented the departure of many guiding lights on comic-book and TV series myself). While I never watched Felicity, given that Abrams is known for both group dynamics there and on Alias (he's written no Lost since the pilot) and that he directed bang-up big-screen action on the third Mission: Impossible film, plus the fact that the screenplay assignment went to his Fringe partners Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci, well, that was all good enough for me. If somebody had to do it, this was the guy.

Abrams said in his 10 Questions interview with Time, "Star Trek was always a little bit closed emotionally. I never connected to the characters." Which proves his oft-repeated profession that he's not a Trekkie in the least, because the movies and spinoff series used personality and cast interplay as their dilithium crystals. The director was also asked, "Have you developed your own style, a J.J. Abrams touch?" and replied, "I have no style." Whether he's wrong on this count I can't say, but we did get some familiar Abrams motifs in the film: The white, 3D letters from the title card of Lost that also pop up to identify locations on Fringe could be seen establishing Iowa and Vulcan. His childhood friend and lucky charm Greg Grunberg made an off-screen cameo as the voice of young James T. Kirk's stepfather. And central to the plot was a visual callback to Alias's giant red ball. Now it's time for the spoiler warning, as I'm veering into discussion of details; while I doubt anyone reading this wanted to see the film and hasn't yet, there you go.

Word came long ago that the original Spock would be seen in the form of Leonard Nimoy, and more recently it got out that the villain of the piece would be traveling back from the future of what the credits called Spock Prime to the mid-2200s of his much younger self as played by Zachary Quinto. Any Trekkie not utterly opposed to the project had to be as thrilled as I was at the news, because it allowed for in-story explanations of (nearly) everything from the new faces and sets to the big-picture concern of reintroducing suspense on a grand scale to an almost exhaustively documented fictional universe. The studio and creative hands could simply have decreed the new film to be utterly separate and apart from what came before, keeping only whatever superficial touchstones they wanted the public to bring to the story, and still had much the same movie — minus Spock Prime, with Capt. Nero as a present-day Romulan or any other interstellar threat. Using Nimoy brought them not only a certain gravitas and some goodwill from even casual admirers, but the chance to keep the film in Trek canon without continuity-obsessed fans having to fall back on the rationalization that every new story takes place in its own reality anyway (though some did just that).


The 2009 Enterprise crew

The casting of Quinto didn't disappoint, and everything else already suggested a different enough framework that the other actors' lack of resemblance to their iconic ancestors wasn't an issue (with one exception, addressed below). It was comforting to hear Karl Urban sound so much like Dr. McCoy, while Simon Pegg's sheer glee as Scotty washed away only the need to mimic Jimmy Doohan, not Doohan's memory; that little creature, however, was dreadful. Chris Pine wisely doesn't ape William Shatner's line readings, but he owns the chair with Kirk's trademark nonchalance and calls to mind his predecessor's physicality. Honestly, Pine still struck me as a bit of a cipher — not what you want in your central character when he's surrounded by accents and exotic attributes, and a problem that (unlike other ensembles) the classic Star Trek troupe never had thanks to the scenery-chewing Shatner. I trust that he'll come into his own with the inevitable, anticipated sequels; until then when faced with a pretty-boy lineup I'll remember that he's the one who looks like a cross between Treat Williams and Neal McDonough.

With the designers breaking from the past in overhauling the Enterprise interior and other visuals — bringing the 23rd century up to date, if you will — I actually wish they had changed the crew's uniforms just a bit more. Once the smart choice of putting those trademark primary-color tops over black undershirts was made (instead of just giving the tunics black collars), someone should have ensured that the undershirts were if not attached to the slacks then at least severely tucked in, because I didn't need or even want to see Spock's navel. The Starfleet uniforms worn by Kirk's father and his crewmates on the Kelvin in the film's opening were at least as tacky as first-season Next Generation, but I was surprised by the nostalgia I felt when newly promoted Admiral Pike appeared at the end in a grey-and-white jumpsuit like the one worn by Kirk in The Motion Picture.

References to Star Trek lore suffused the movie without being intrusive. There was a "red shirt" killed off in, actually, a red environmental suit, but we all got the wink at one of Trek's most enduring contributions to pop slang. There was not only the Vulcan nerve pinch but what I considered an homage to the mythic "Vulcan death grip" when Kirk, full of piss and vinegar, was strangled to within an inch of his life by Spock, full of hold-the-vinegar. There was even the first on-screen staging of Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test at Starfleet Academy, a part of the lore known only to Trekkies; the eponymous novel is one of the rare Star Trek books I've read — unfortunately, as the movie version was disappointing in comparison.


Spock with his hand around Kirk's neck

I couldn't help thinking about Lost's time-travel adventuring and Fringe's alternate-reality subplots while watching their co-creator's Star Trek, which incorporated some of both. Previous Trek films and many pivotal episodes had not only shown that time travel was possible but suggested, unlike the "whatever happened, happened" hypothesis on Lost, that history was malleable and that remnants of one timeline could be left behind if it were rewritten by another — echoes of memory, for sure, yet also objects and even people. The much-loved Next Generation episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" found history suddenly altered and Lt. Tasha Yar, who'd died earlier in the series, alive again; as in most timeline-altering Trek plots, the reality that the viewers knew was determined by the characters to be the proper one, and thus important to restore, so Lt. Yar traveled through a temporal rift to help ensure that history played out as it should have — and we learned in later episodes that this Lt. Yar hadn't vanished, instead bearing a child years before Yar herself was to be born. Similarly, Spock Prime retains all the memories of his 24th century after traveling back to the present of the new Star Trek, and much like Yar is stranded; in a way, we're seeing the equivalent of "Yesterday's Enterprise" from the perspective of the past (still a fictional future to us), but instead of setting things right, Spock Prime, while helping place young Kirk and Spock on a path to prevent further destruction, is trapped, like Steve Gerber's Howard the Duck, in a world he never made.

One could see this as the last canonical appearance of the four-decade-strong Star Trek timeline, itself not without internal inconsistencies that Trekkers are almost duty-bound to rehash and reconcile, and the birth of a new one. The writers were careful to pluck the long-lived Spock from after his last Next Generation appearance; I can't speak to whether he was seen or referred to as older, if not gone, in the thriving prose-novel realm, but such stories are generally considered apocryphal — although Trek screenwriters Orci & Kurtzman contributed to Countdown, a comics prequel to the new movie that's set after Nemesis (the previous film and final on-screen Next Generation story), describing the involvement of Spock, Picard, and an Enterprise led by Capt. Data in the effort to stop the destruction of Romulus and then halt Nero's rampage, a backstory only briefly related in the movie by Nimoy's Spock Prime to Kirk.

I choose to think that Nero at the very least created an alternate, divergent timeline from the moment of his appearance in the 23rd century rather than overwriting the one in which Picard saw Nero and then Spock vanish — and that he most likely traveled to a parallel universe altogether, because some elements of the new film are obviously different even prior to Nero's battle with the Kelvin. Since James Kirk is born shortly after the temporal rift is opened, any character older than he is should (at least eventually) be physically identical to the characters we recall, just as any moment in history prior to Nero's emergence from the rift should be consistent with established Trek chronology. In this light Anton Yelchin's lack of resemblance to Walter Koenig is no problem, and the fact that Jim Kirk meets Pike, Spock,et al. under different circumstances is understandable, especially given the death of his father in this timeline. Ben Cross as Spock's father Sarek, on the other hand, looked more like James Cromwell's Zefram Cochrane in the Next Generation movie First Contact than Sarek as portrayed by Mark Lenard in Trek canon to date, and it was jarring because of Sarek's prominence in the oeuvre.

The main reason why I choose to believe that the future I remember is still out there unfolding is that Next Generation was a great set of stories that I watched and discussed with friends. Of course any story exists, just as imaginary and just as real as any other, as soon as it's told — at least, without delving too deeply into metaphysics, as long as it's remembered. Despite the fact that some folks took my review last weekend as a thumbs-down, I truly enjoyed this new Star Trek for the bittersweet sense of discovery and adventure I felt in the theater, for the exposure it's giving to a worthwhile worldview, and for the memories it's jogged. I don't think I've seen an episode of any Star Trek since the Enterprise finale in 2005, but, yeah, I guess I'm a Trekkie. Or to paraphrase the Spock we know and love: I have been, and always shall be, a fan.


Star Trek logo and characters TM/® CBS Studios. Images © 2009 Paramount Pictures.




If you'd like to buy one of the items shown and can't do so locally, please consider clicking through to Amazon; Blam's Blog may receive a small commission on the sale of anything placed into your cart and purchased during the session.

Kindred Posts: The A TeamWhat Lies BeneathAstral Week
Fringe Thinking: Across the UniverseBoldly Golden

6 comments:

SonshineMusic i.e. Rebecca T. said...

I haven't seen the movie, but am dying to. I consider myself a Trekkie in that I grew up watching the reruns of the original as well as NG and DSN. I followed Voyager regularly and I would consider it my favorite. I think it's interesting that J.J. Abrams said he felt the characters were closed emotionally, because that is exactly why I like Voyager the best - it's the team of misfits and I identified with the characters in a way I never did with the "flagship of the Federation".

Once I get to see the movie, I'll come back and read the rest of the post. Hopefully that will be soon :)

Benny said...

I like your post. I may be late to the party but when you originally posted it, I hadn't seen the movie yet and only now did I remember this written exercise.

I agree with you on most accounts of the alternate timeline. The call-back to "Yesterday's Enterprise" was exactly what I was thinking of.

The earlier comment you make in relation to Chris Pine as a cipher and will likely come into his own is not one I echo with the same vigor.

My interpretation of it melds into your closing statements that the lives of the characters are significantly affected by Nero. In such, the personality of Kirk that we used to know is inexistant, as should any traits emanating from a given family and social upbringing (his never had never died).

The physicality of the character should certainly remain present, but psychologically he should be a completely different person. Pine's character has to be pushed and convinced to do things (by Pike and Spock). That Chris Pine plays the physical but not the personality is, I think, more of a credit to his talent. One would be to believe he should actually play a cipher.

In such, I agree that Pine has work to do in elevating the his character acting of Kirk, but that is something I see as being written into the character as opposed to one of Pine's characteristics showing up on-screen.

But that is just one's interpretation of such the role and the relevant acting creating the character.

By the way, I was just watching TNG's "Cause and Effect" where the Enterprise is stuck in a causality loop and finally breaks from it with the USS Bozeman, a decades old Soyuz-class ship commandeered by Frasier Crane, emerging from a temporal distortion.

Blam said...


Hmm. I don't mind that Pine didn't act like (and won't turn into) the Kirk we knew, Benny, but the fact that New Kirk's life experience has been vastly different doesn't to me translate that he should feel like a cipher. But as I said, I'm not really worried about it and look forward to Trek sequels unabashedly.

I thought of "Cause and Effect" as I wrote this piece, and many other time-manipulating episodes besides, but struggled with how to include them and ultimately figured the damn thing was long enough. Then while catching up on Supernatural, which I'm now over a year behind on but really enjoy, I saw the episode from last season that sort-of smooshes "Cause and Effect" and Groundhog Day in that one of the boys has to figure out why he's reliving this certain day to escape it.

Benny said...

Whatever the case may be, it is certainly no cause for concern as you said. This was only my opinion and interpretation of the character. It will definitely be interesting to see the sequel, not only for character development but also for the story and how they approach it!

Batcabbage said...

Blam, what a great post. I, too, am a Trekkie, and whilst waiting for Nikki's Lost Rewatch to begin, have been watching TNG again. I saw Cause and Effect yesterday, I'd forgotten that Frasier showed up at the end. Also, I noted that the Soyuz is the name of the Russian capsule that falls to earth in Y: The Last Man (had to get a BKV reference in there).

I loved the new Trek movie. I had to literally restrain myself from jumping up and screaming 'YAY!' at the screen when the logo came up. I thought Pine did a great job. It would have been lame had he tried for a Shatner imitation. Quinto was brilliant, and it was a pleasure to see Leonard Nimoy again in the role that made him a sci-fi icon.

One thing that I wanted to bring up: while 'Yesterday's Enterprise' is one of the best time-travel/alternate reality episodes, and your comparison between the new Trek movie and 'YE' is apt, I think my favourite TNG time travel episode goes along the lines of 'whatever happened, happened'. 'Time's Arrow', the season 5 finale and season 6 premiere, featured Guinan prompting Picard to go on an away mission or he would never meet her. He travels back in time to rescue Data, who's hanging around with the young Jack London and being stalked by Samuel Clemmens and... well, and so on. Not really relevant to your post, I suppose, I just wanted to point out that Trek has been known to go both ways (that came out worse than intended) in regards to time travel.

The thing I had an issue with was the Countdown comic. Not the comic itself, but the fact that so many people (those that don't read comics) won't get the benefit of that excellent lead in to the movie. Being a (and looking remarkably like) comic-book-guy, and a trekkie, I picked up this four issue series immediately. I loved it. I love TNG, and Data is my favourite character on that show (I thought what they did with him in Nemesis was a crime against Trek. B4, I ask you!). Seeing him as captain of a starship was completely awesome. I'm glad you mentioned it in your post, it's the first one I've seen that actually even makes reference to the book when talking about the movie. It actually explained why red-matter was involved in the story at all, where it came from, and how the 'jellyfish' came into Spock's hands. So here I was sitting in the theatre, all excited and saying to myself 'Wow, can't wait to see how they explain all that' and was thorougly disappointed by Spock Prime's brief, and in my opinion, lacklustre explanation to Kirk. After we'd watched the movie, I tried to get Batkitty to read Countdown, so she would get more from the story, but her comic tastes don't go far beyond Buffy: Season 8. I think they could have done so much more to incorporate the backstory into the movie. I mean, Nero had more lines in four issues of comics than he did in the entire movie! Mostly, I think I was disappointed that none of the TNG characters involved in the backstory showed up in Spock's explanation.

Sorry for going on so long. Really enjoyed your post!

Blam said...


I don't mind the length or the belatedness, Bats. Thanks for the kind words!

To be honest, I was wracking my brain to figure out where Frasier (since we're all calling him that) showed up. Didn't most big celebrities -- y'know, like John Tesh -- cameo as Klingons? Right before I went to look it up, it finally came back to me somewhat.

For some reason, I kept thinking of that episode which isn't actually about time travel where Data keeps erasing their memories because Picard made him promise to, even though Picard doesn't remember it, but like Beverly's plants are growing and so is Geordi's beard. Then I wondered if he was the Q who popped up in a shuttlecraft at the end of an episode, but that was Arnie from LA Law, not Frasier.

I actually had more substantive thoughts on your comments, but right now have to run.