In Defense of 2009's Star Trek: JJ Abrams' Take is Closer to the Original Series Than You Want to Admit

Star Trek

Directed by J.J. Abrams

Starring Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana


4 out of 5 Arnolds

It’s hard to avoid a cultural phenomenon like Star Trek. I’ve never seen an entire episode of any Star Trek series (I have, however, seen most of the movies) and yet, despite it all, I know more about Gene Roddenberry’s creation than I want to admit.

For example:

• I know that Vulcans are a species fueled on logic, not emotion.
• I know that there was a Captain Sisqo, a Captain Jane, and a Captain Picard.
• I know what a mirror universe is.
• I know that the Klingons have some sort of honor system that defines them.
• I know that Data is a humanoid artificial intelligence.
• I know what a “Tribble” is, and that they are indeed trouble.
• I know that the guy with the visor was on Reading Rainbow (Jordi?).
• I know that everyone loves Wrath of Khan.
• I know that Kirk died falling from a bridge in Generations.
• I know that Spock learned to embrace his emotions by serving on the USS Enterprise.
• I know George Takei (Sulu) is gay in real life.
• I know “The Borg” assimilated with Captain Picard.
• I know that Captain Kirk was a p@ssyhound, who shared the first interracial kiss on television with Lt. Uhura.

I also know that creator Gene Roddenberry intended for Star Trek to be a “space-western,” a kind of Bonanza by way of science fiction. It’s that space-western angle that has always made me want to watch Star Trek, but the overt sci-fi-ness of the original’s predecessors (Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, etc.) always kept me away. What can I say? I'm a lizard brain that writes for an action movie blog. I want less philosophy, less of that aliens-are people-too crap, and less stationary spaceships shooting at each other while the actors throw their bodies from right to left. Basically, I wanted less sci-fi and more western. I guess director J.J. Abrams must have felt the same way, because this new, simply named Star Trek film is exactly that.

Mandatory Maxim: Zoe Saldana. between AVATAR,
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, and this...
she makes sci-fi look sexy.

Abrams, along with the screenwriting team of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, make their intentions very clear early on. In an action sequence seen millions of times before with a stagecoach, we’re reintroduced to a young James T. Kirk. He’s involved in some pre-teen grand theft auto (read: horses) and narrowly avoids death by letting his dad's sports car drive right off the cliff. For discerning viewers who aren't preoccupied with their skewed version of Trek lore, you'll appreciate the small nods similar to this one throughout the film --- from saloon fights to old west shoot-outs on Romulan ships.

Action A Go Go or Action A No No? ACTION A GO GO!

Yes, there is a lot of action in Star Trek, almost to the point of interfering with it’s nimble comic book-styled plot, but never at the risk of under-characterizing the film’s magnificent seven. Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), John Chu (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Chekov), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Simon Pegg (Scotty), and Karl Urban (Bones), all glisten with charisma.

Abrams and his Bad Robot crew prove that they are adept at writing for ensembles, and the actors all manage to tightrope that line between pop impersonator and personal interpretation (though, Urban’s take on Deforest Kelly is so spot-on that you never want him to leave a scene). Surprisingly, the only small disappointment is Eric Bana as the heavy, but you’ll be too concerned with when the sequels coming out to think about that. This non-Trekkie sure was.