Star Trek: Insurrection

I've been watching a lot of Star Trek: The Next Generation lately, just cycling through from season 3 all the way to season 7 in my downtime or vegging-out nights at home. It's spotty but generally very good, and I guess I just felt recently like continuing that trend by revisiting one of the more generic Next Generation movies over the last few nights as a fall-asleep-to choice. I remember it being pretty bland, a little too new-agey for its own good, and more about the actors and writers having fun with the characters than it was about developing them in a meaningful story. (Unequivocally, this falls into that recurring theme of late, plot-driven science fiction stories that don't give enough attention to characterization [for my tastes], just like this and this and this.) It's also an odd-numbered Star Trek film, the ninth, and we all know what that means.

But for all of that, it's actually surprisingly watchable. Especially when stacked up against the last few episodes of the TV series and not the other, admittedly better Star Trek feature films (it follows the mostly very good First Contact, for example -- though it's worth noting that it's succeded by Nemesis, which is basically the X-Men 3 of the Next Generation movies/universe). To geek out for a moment, Insurrection is basically a recap of several decent episodes, off the top of my head it steals major plot-points from "Who Watches The Watchers?", "Brothers", and "Homeward" -- and to be honest, aside from combining elements to keep the story moving, it doesn't even offer a very original take on these ideas. It also insists on making Picard a Kirk-style action hero -- though I suppose both Generations and First Contact had already started pushing us down that road, it's still weird when comparing him to the stoic diplomatic Picard of the TV series (and frankly, hard to believe as a natural development of the same character). But it's not bad. It's reasonably smart, and the fan service paid is neither pandering (exactly) nor totally out of character -- Data's awfully smarmy-human in most scenes but I guess by now he's experienced emotions so many times I can't even keep track, so why not; and Riker's gotten awfully soft and well-fed for a dashing new ship captain, hasn't he?

The only other comment I have is, it's always been my opinion that the difference between an okay Star Trek movie (which I'll generously lump this one into) and a great Star Trek movie is the villain. Star Trek II had Khan; Star Trek VI had General Chang (plus, insidious conspiracy); First Contact had the Borg Queen. Even The Motion Picture and Star Trek IV had interesting non-human/truly-alien adversaries. Hell, Christopher Lloyd cut a decent Klingon villain in Star Trek III, for that matter. But F. Murray Abraham falls into an unfortunate pile with Malcolm McDowell, Tom Hardy, and Eric Bana: fine actors who just can't salvage uninteresting, kind of cheesy villains. Like Batman, like James Bond, like any number of action movies or thrillers: without a good villain, it doesn't matter how cool your heroes are.

In my mind, this was more like a ridiculously expensive reunion episode more than a feature film. I'd say that's how III and IV and Generations feel, too. (Star Trek V wants to feel that way, and the not-unbearable parts of it definitely do, to a fault; but it's easier to just pretend there never was a Star Trek V.) So in a way it almost feels silly to blog (rant) about it here, where I generally don't write-up every TV series I watch (I've made exceptions when I felt I had something I wanted to say). But it's a movie, so I gave it the full service. And I more or less enjoyed it, even the weak parts (oh, and a side-note: now that I've seen all of TNG's successor and this film's contemporary, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, I do want to say I found it satisfying that there were references to the galactic-political situation of that show, giving a sense of consistency to the continually expanding world). And since I enjoyed it, I figured it deserved a little bit of blather. And so there you go.

Star Trek

I've just been through two days of dental torture procedures and so I may be light on commentary for whatever I watch; so it goes. Star Trek is maybe the best series reboot I can think of (second place, as far as I can think of, is Battlestar Galactica). This film is so smart and sharp and fast-paced. Everything comes from the characters, and the story does such a credit to respecting a group of characters with an awful lot of history. Surprisingly, then, as I am reminded each time I watch this, it does such a discredit to Nero, Eric Bana's interesting tragic villain. I actually think Bana does a great job, but the script shortcuts all the scenes where we could sympathize or see layers to his obsession, and his crew of henchmen come off even flatter still, as they are given no agency or personality of their own. The idea of the non-miltary working-class men (answering communications with a charmingly awkward "Hello") being in control of the most technologically advanced machinery in (that part of?) the galaxy and using it for obsessive Ahabesque genocide is a really interesting set-up that deserved more attention. Sure, the story's got tons going on already and manages to eke out a sensical and dramatically satisfying time travel story while putting everybody together and giving them stuff to fight that never feels hackneyed, shoehorned, or artificial, but I would have liked to see Nero get a little more due. Star Trek movies are notoriously soft on villain characterization (exceptions: Khan and VI's General Chang; I feel like I've made this same point before). So it goes. I'd say it's not as good as the original in some pretty major ways, but it's still one hell of a good reboot/remake, and an exciting and moving film, even after I've seen it half a dozen times or more.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

I knew it.

This is not a movie to watch as a critical adult. It's the only movie I can think of where the threat is a planet-destroying, energy-sucking alien monster and yet the stakes are this low (even the animated real Transformers: the Movie had higher stakes). Among other things, this film paints whale biologists as the most gullible, trusting people ever. It takes literally two lines of dialogue while they wait for their pizza for Kirk to convince Gillian he's from the future. Don't get me wrong: this isn't a bad movie, it's just a weak plot. The movie is about character, and here more than anywhere else yet (maybe the beginning of III), the full ensemble of the Enterprise crew gets its due. Sulu, Scotty, Chekov, Uhura and Bones finally have brief but distinct objectives and stories. After playing these same characters for 25 years, they've earned it.

But I'm viewing this as part of a trilogy, that's the deal here. And so, to recap:

The Wrath of Khan is the story of Admiral Kirk, a captain without a ship, unable to accept his age and position, and Spock making the ultimate (albeit logical) sacrifice to save his friends. It ends with Spock dead, Kirk bereft, and the ship limping home.

The Search For Spock is the story of Kirk, a listless man who has lost his soul, and the impossible ridiculous journey to get it back by breaking laws, disobeying orders, committing treasonous crimes and hitting control-Z on Spock's sacrifice. It ends with Kirk forced to give up what he thought was the most important thing in his world -- his ship -- for his friends and his own survival, and with Spock returned to life, a confused and newborn soul inhabiting an adult Vulcan body.

The Voyage Home is the story of Kirk, his soul restored (if the themes of III are to be taken literally and carried over) becoming again a man with a mission: save the planet from a strange alien visitor through time travel, as Spock learns how to be "human" through life lessons like cursing, lying, and valuing a friend's life more than mere logic would allow. Spock's soul matures and Kirk plays Casanova and cowboy. It ends with them returning home in a Klingon ship, saving the day (of course), and Spock insisting on standing trial alongside his friends (despite being absent and therefore innocent of all charges). Because they saved the planet they are exonerated of all charges except one, and Kirk alone stands to be punished. His punishment is a nice moment of reversal, in that it results in a demotion and the return of Kirk to the captain's chair -- of a brand new Enterprise no less (which, by my count, was commissioned and built in under three months! I don't know, is that fast or is it just me?).

As a trilogy, I think it works. The story goes: Kirk has taken a desk job and is miserable. He feels he is losing his ship (the Enterprise), his sense of purpose (a mission), and his best friend (Spock). He is lost -- half a man at best. As the trilogy proceeds, he literally loses all three of these things: his best friend (Spock dies), his sense of purpose (they won't let him go back to Genesis; they won't give him a ship to command), and his ship (the Enterprise is destroyed to beat the Klingons). He fights to bring back his best friend -- arguably the least likely of the three to recover -- and then, through other, mostly unrelated Herculean tasks (though honestly, like I said, the losses in III and the heroics in IV both play out way too easily for my tastes) he is rewarded with the recovery of his other two losses: a new ship, a continued mission/sense of purpose. The trilogy ends triumphant. And all is well in the universe.

(That is until Spock's crazy brother brainwashes the crew and steals the ship and takes them to meet God, who it turns out is an impostor alien who wants a starship and has lightning bolts for eyes. But I think everyone everywhere, fans and non-fans alike, have agreed to pretend Star Trek V simply doesn't exist. So let us never speak of that again.)

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock

There is an old and commonly held belief that even-numbered Star Trek movies are inherently superior to odd-numbered ones. Khan is classic, Voyage Home is good character-driven fun, Undiscovered Country is a sharp thriller, and First Contact is the only really great Next Generation movie (sadly). The theory sort of breaks down with movies like Nemesis and the Abrams reboot, but it seemed sound for a while. And whether you buy into it or not, the theory exists, and it all started here, with the sequel to and undoing of The Wrath of Khan.

I'm viewing these three Star Trek movies as part of a "trilogy" set I bought -- II, III, and IV -- and viewed in that context you could say that The Search for Spock suffers from Act II-ism. Act I ends with the ultimate sacrifice, the loss of a loved one and a ship just as adrift as its captain. Act II begins by complicating things with obstacles and subplots -- McCoy is batshit, the Enterprise is being decommissioned, Spock's dad is pissed off and they all discover Spock's brain is still alive in a jar in the doctor's head. Oh, and that Genesis Planet thing we just saw? Yeah, totally a weird short-lived-Eden now, and Spock's rapidly-aging body is alive and kicking alone on the planet surface... well, alone with Kirk's kid and an even less believable Saavik (Kirstie Alley wouldn't come back, or wanted more money; I forget). Oh, and Klingons, out of the blue, captained by Christopher Fucking Lloyd, blow up the science ship and threaten the guys on Genesis. Which, oh yeah, also: is now a forbidden planet nobody's allowed to admit exists, for political reasons which to be fair actually make a lot of sense if you think about it. Anyway, that's a lot of ground to cover, and a lot of obstacles to get through, and most of them have nothing to do with each other, even thematically.

The end result is just as muddled and unfocused as you'd expect, and gets a little silly to boot (the trajectory from somber to camp is actually a very distinct and easily chartable one, from Star Trek: The Motion Picture's austere 2001-ness to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier's total trainwreck). But it's only fair to add that many of the action sequences -- when summarized at least -- are quite inspired. It's fun to see the sterile-sleazy world of non-Federation Star Trek, though it's populated with an awful lot of neon lights and lava lamps, and it's fun to see what Kirk and McCoy and Sulu and the gang wear when they're not wearing color-coded velour (the answer: naugahyde, mostly, in deep earth tones and pinks). But really, all the fun of it is soiled by things like how bad the dialogue is, or how flat and incidental the characters all come off. (Even Kirk's reaction to [SPOILER] his son's death feels cheap and rushed.)

I'm no good at keeping my comments short anymore, but I can't walk away without saying two more things, one complimentary and the other critical. One: the one theme they really do play, more as an echo from the preceding film than anything else, is the idea that Spock and Kirk are really one man. Constant references are made to Kirk saving himself by saving Spock, going so far as to saying that not saving Spock would have lost Kirk his soul. I personally include McCoy in this triumvirate... Id, Ego, and Supergo? perhaps. For this reason I found it extra satisfying that it was McCoy and not Kirk who bore Spock's mind, while Kirk is burdened with a hole in his soul. What a crazy three-way symbiosis!

And lastly, back to criticizing some more: I don't want to get into it, but I kept seeing great opportunities for characterization or deeper explorations of themes, but the story was so excited by its own plot and many disparate obstacles and threats and goals that it never takes the time to stop and explore anything along the way.

Admittedly, the movie's got an awful lot of plates to keep spinning.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

It's interesting to note that Nicholas Meyer was completely unfamiliar with the series when he wrote and directed this game-changer, just like Abrams with the new Star Trek. And on an even geekier note, it's impossible for me to watch this without seeing how influential it was on the world of Star Trek, in building a franchise out of a series (as I argued previously). All from a guy who hadn't even seen the show. This is the first part in a trilogy about the death and rebirth of Spock (and Kirk, and inversely the Enterprise), and when the closing chapter of the trilogy came out, so too did The Next Generation, and Star Trek was officially a franchise nerds would forever consider in direct competition with Star Wars. (It's a good paradigm: Wars represents space-opera or fantasy; Trek represents a somewhat harder, concept-driven science fiction.)

The movie is about age, aging, dying, and feeling useful. Nicholas Meyer is obsessed with Sherlock Holmes and compared Kirk to Holmes: Holmes without his cases becomes half a man; Kirk without his starship likewise. Anyway, it's a brave and good choice for Shatner, famously vain, to portray a man fearing his own age. Even so, I have to point out: William Shatner was 51 when this was made, and he looks amazing. I honestly would have believed you if you told me he was 40, perhaps even late thirties.

Two quick final thoughts: One, I recently saw Krull again, where James Horner recycles his gorgeous score pretty much piecemeal, and it's tainted the soundtrack for me with images of flying horses, solemn cyclops, and really bad acting. And two, Spock's death and Kirk's eulogy both still kind of get to me. They're great scenes. Easily one of the best screen deaths I can think of.

Star Trek

I thought they were cheating the ol' act structure paradigm by tacking on that twelve minute prologue (10-minute mark: Kirk is born, an interesting "inciting incident"), and we don't even meet our hero Young James Kirk until minute 17 -- but Orci and Kurtzman bring it around lickety-split, and smooth as butter we're entering Act Two right on time, between minutes 25 and 28. Nice work, fellas! I'm struggling to get a lot less info into my first act, and I am suddenly shamed.

Now, here's where I get geeky:

I've been a fan of Star Trek forever, and now they've gone and done this whole "rebooting" thing. But here's what they've done: they've made a whizbang show-stopping summer-movie door-opener. They've done the miraculous, they've respected a long and convoluted history (even an unnecessary nod to Star Trek: Quantum Leap Enterprise; classy) and at the same time they've thrown open the doors to newcomers. I would argue that the initial Star Trek series wasn't anything until Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Before that, it was just a series and a movie. After, with a trilogy of tightly-connected movies and the launch of The Next Generation on its heels (TNG and Voyage Home both came out the same year), it was a franchise. Likewise, I will argue that right now, the franchise hasn't been rebooted. Right now, it's a franchise and one outlier new movie.

Whatever they do next, it's all riding on Star Trek 2. Only then will the franchise have been rebooted and set in motion fresh and new. There is, in my opinion, way more pressure on 2 than there ever was on this one, and this one had a lot of pressure. Curious to see what happens next.