Star Trek with no spoilers whatsoever

[trinityvixen]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that movies are made in order to make money. With all the various outlets for media, it's easy to lose track of the bottom line behind movies. Or, perhaps I should say that it's all too easy to see that and only that when you see a bad movie. We've gotten cynical in this age of the pre-sold audience; we recognize that we're seeing the same thing over and over because Hollywood has determined that they make the most money off of imitations of things we liked versus taking chances on ideas not yet validated by billions of box office dollars. So while they desperately try to cater to our whims, our whims become more whimsical and hard to please because we're, frankly, bored of the things we like. We want to like new things. It's a very awful sort of cycle we've perpetuated as the investment in a movie becomes more costly and risk, well, more risky.

The point is that we know, no matter how good, how enjoyable (a better term than "good," I find) a movie is, it's only there to make money. Yes, there are auteurs, artists, etc., but the bottom line is money. Part of that vicious cycle I mentioned is that we are savvy to this fact and ignorant of it at the same time: when the movie is moving or engaging, we imagine it was made to entertain us, first and foremost; when it is bad (especially when it is poorly adapted from the pre-sold material), all we can think of is that the creators only wanted our money and duped us with the promise of a good flick that they couldn't care less about developing.

The point of all the pontificating under that cut is this: when a movie comes along that is so transparently a vehicle for making lots of money and yet you watch it and you don't care--nay, you are pleased at the idea of it making money, and even gasp! sequels!--that is a very special movie indeed.

Star Trek was that movie, folks. I was lucky enough to see it yesterday, and I was absolutely floored. Not since Iron Man has a movie caught me so completely and pleasantly by surprise. Perhaps more so than Iron Man given that my expectations for it were high and were met, whereas Star Trek looked like a freeway pile-up from its trailers and turned out wonderful.

There's plenty I can say about individual aspects of the movie that I liked or disliked, but to say anything other than I enjoyed it would be to spoil it for those who haven't gone. Suffice to say my marketing spider-sense was totally bamboozled; I forgot about how this film was supposed to be a starter for a franchise and just went along for the ride. It was a great ride.

Perhaps it helps that I'm not a Trekkie/Trekker. Your mileage, depending on your Trek-love, may vary. Overall? This was the best way I could think of them doing this reboot, and it was made with such respect and gratitude to the source material and the fans, which I consider the most important part. Because the Trekkies/Trekkers rescued the world of Star Trek from oblivion more than once, and really, you guys deserve the standing ovation. So I hope that this is what the new movie feels like to you. I hope it feels like JJ Abrams and Co. going, "We love you. We love what you love." Because that's the impression I got.

Part of what makes the comparison to Iron Man so apt for me--apart from the fact that I left both it and Star Trek with my face sore from smiling--is that sense of reverence for the source material. Even though I know this movie was given the go-ahead because someone thought it would make money, in the end, the people who made it preserved and respected the source material at heart even as they made it their own. That's movie magic.

So, if you've not already made plans, make some. I'm probably going to end up seeing it again this weekend with my mother for Mother's Day (if my sister doesn't get her to the theater today). It's totally worth it. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the only other movies that look like they will be even half as good this summer are Up and, maybe, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. We'll see what the rest of the summer brings us.

Comments

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

Not since Iron Man has a movie caught me so completely and pleasantly by surprise. Toldja! ;)

I'm gonna go see it tonight.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I said I would be happy to be proven wrong, and I have been. I'm glad I was. Have lots of fun. I hope I haven't hyped it too much, but I'm quite certain it will win you (and just about everyone else) over.

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

I was more referring to the fact that I said it would be "this year's Iron Man".

[saturn-shumba.livejournal.com]

Ah this makes me so happy to hear that it's good :)

And I too am going with my Mom for Mother's Day, ha. I'm glad my mother's a nerd.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Nerd moms are awesome. My mother is the reason I watch sci-fi. She was watching Buffy before I was. The reason I ever knew Star Trek at all was from watching the movies and the odd episode of the original series with her.

In fact, for the past two Mother's Days, I've given her a volume of the original series on DVD. Alas, they stopped making the set without the "remastered" special effects, which she doesn't want. (She, quite rightly, prefers the old effects because they are what work for the time the show was made.) She was disappointed on her birthday when she unwrapped the gift, expecting it to be the third original series DVD set. She liked what she got, but it wasn't Star Trek, and I had to tell her they didn't make the DVDs any more.

...which makes Mother's Day this year all the better because I've scored her a gently used copy. She's going to be surprised! Nerd-surprised!

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

The "remastered" DVDs offer both versions, as far as I know (the Blu-Ray versions do for sure). Paramount is not George Lucas.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Last I heard, on the super-DVD versions--the HD-DVD sets as were and the Blu-Ray had them. Either way, I have the set my mother wants and I'm happy to borrow them from her if needs be.

[avram]

Alas, they stopped making the set without the "remastered" special effects, which she doesn't want. (She, quite rightly, prefers the old effects because they are what work for the time the show was made.)

Actually, I've been watching the "remastered" episodes on Channel 11 Saturday nights (1 AM), and I think the new special effects work pretty well. They're better than the original effects, but not so much better that they look out of place, if you get what I mean.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Regardless, it's a nostalgia thing for my mother, so she doesn't want any new effects. They would ruin it for her.

[saturn-shumba.livejournal.com]

I think I read about those remastered versions once, but I had no idea they took over. Why do people do that? I like it to look the way it did (AHEM Lucas).

Speaking of Lucas, he even fucked up my favorite movie of his: THX 1138. WHICH JUST PROVES THAT HE'S RIDICULOUS.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it kills me when creators don't understand the appeal of their own creations. It doesn't change the fact that a work was groundbreaking just because it hasn't aged well. No one wants new effects, they don't want new stuff. They want the old stuff they enjoyed.

Why do creators do it? Because they can't come up with equally good new stuff, sez I.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

I'm convinced. I'll ask Mom & Dad if they want to see it on Mother's Day.

Not since Iron Man has a movie caught me so completely and pleasantly by surprise.

Apropos of nothing at all ... I remember looking at your face during the after-credit sequence in that movie. I later told shell524 how delighted I was "seeing D have a nerdgasm."

Shell: "No, I think that was the regular kind."

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Take 'em out to the movies. They will have a good time, Trek-fans or not.

As for ms.shell524's comment, I'll say that this time it was definitely the nerd-splosion. But that's not to say there wasn't a lot of drool for Dr. McCoy in this one.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

I disagree, particularly with your bits about reverence for the source material. That's just total bull, sorry. And the new movie did not make me feel like JJ Abrams loved me. It made me feel like JJ Abrams really didn't give a shit about me.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That's too bad. But I did say your degree of Trek-love may cause the film to read as better or worse depending. I do understand some of your frustration with it not bringing new characters to the forefront. I don't think they could have sold the characters over such a short stint as a movie, though. If what I've been told about the various series is true, the characters get better with time and investment in them, something the movie would never have been able to do justice to.

As for what it did with the characters that are already established...well, in this case, I think it helps that I saw Wolverine first. Because that was a prequel of sorts, too, and it was pretty dull in parts. It felt very constrained by the need to match up with exactly what the series that came before did. Star Trek made some space to get into Trek without entirely displacing the old stuff. There's so much flexibility with an alternate history type deal that they could do new and different stuff and maybe get to some of those more morality-centric stories that are what make some of the series so wonderful.

I think it can only get better, is what I think. I mean, it can get worse, obviously, but it could start to add the depth that was, admittedly, a tad lacking.