STAR TREK is my oldest fandom. It was my gateway drug to science fiction. And for that, it will always hold a special place in my heart, warts and all.
So here’s a review of Star Trek Beyond from an unreconstructed Trekkie: I thought it was great.
Even the title, especially if we’re gonna continue to do the colon-less thing started by Star Trek Into Darkness, lays the difference between the two movies bare.
My thoughts below in no particular order. Spoilers off the port bow, Captain!
Comrades in arms…and awesome jackets.
I appreciated the character moments and the camaraderie on display among the crew, something I felt was sorely lacking in the first two “Kelvin verse” flicks. I really, for the first time, felt like these actors really were the characters I loved. In particular Pegg, Pine, and yes, Quinto as Spock. I loved Karl Urban as Bones in the other flicks but I now kind of see his portrayal is the closest to caricature and was surpassed by the rest of the cast. Loved Anton Yelchin (RIP) and Cho (“Are you kidding me sir?”) for the first time. Really the most underserved was Zoe Saldana as Uhura…but Uhura being underserved in nothing new, unfortunately. She had some good moments but I thought she wasn’t really given much to work with. (Which, I mean, fine, it’s a big cast, but it always seems like the black woman is the one who falls by the wayside, doesn’t it? Unless of course she’s being defined by her relationship to Spock.)
Of all the pairings–Kirk/Chekov, Scotty/Jaylah, Spock/Bones (obvi)–I thought Uhura/Sulu was the weakest. I think the Krall reveal should have happened during this mid-point when they discovered that Krall had been watching Yorktown all along…that would have given time to explore and develop the idea more and helped a bit of a saggy middle.
Idris? Is that you?
Krall. There’s a kernel of an interesting idea there, but, as with most villains in Trek movies, they pay only lip service to his motivations and he’s a shallow character screaming for depth. I was initially baffled as to why they would hire an actor like Idris Elba only to bury him under one of the thickest latex appliances possible, but now I guess it makes sense cause they had to “hide” his face for the reveal to work. Though there was a certain degree of “Bane syndrome” with his voice.
I thought the design of the aliens were uninspired (including Jaylah, as good a character as she was) but I’ve never watched Star Trek for the exotic aliens and creatures…we have Star Wars for that. So I give it a pass.
My one quibble is the villain hell-bent on poorly-articulated revenge, trope. (See my post from last year on that subject.) I’m done with super villains and super weapons in my Star Trek. Absolutely done. I appreciate the difficulty of telling a compelling story when you’re firmly in big-budget, summer tentpole mode, but the fact that the last six Trek movies have had some variation on this same trope exposes its limits. At least this time the target wasn’t Earth, which is a step in the right direction…I guess.
Which brings me to Yorktown. I absolutely loved Yorktown. A wonderfully innovative design, beautifully realized. It was the first time in a long time that something in Star Trek really made me feel the excitement and optimism about humanity’s future in space that’s always talked about in EPKs but I never actually got. That, combined with some wonderful music during the docking sequence, actually gave me goosebumps. So kudos to Beyond for being able to approach that level of wonder and optimism, at least for me.
A shining beacon in space…all alone in the night.
That said, the name Yorktown, while I realize is an homage to Roddenberry’s original name for the Enterprise, is a little North American-centric for a multicultural (multispecies!) outpost. I would have given it a pass just for the homage, but then the derelict starship they find is called the USS FRANKLIN? Come on, guys. What about the USS Tiananmen? Or the USS Gagarin? Especially seeing that the movie was a co-production with Alibaba and they’re clearly going after the Chinese market something fierce with this. (Actually, scrub Tiananmen then. But anything less overtly Western would be welcome…it just seems like such a missed opportunity to demonstrate that humanity is beyond our nativist squabbles. Instead, it reinforces the idea that American hegemony will win the day. Though, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, Star Trek‘s Federation has always basically been a vision of American manifest destiny projected 300 years.
(It’s since been pointed out to me that the name USS Franklin was an homage to director Justin Lin’s father, Frank Lin. Which makes it much more palatable for me, but the point still stands.)
I actually enjoyed the destruction of the Enterprise sequence, and I was surprised that it actually tugged at my heartstrings a little bit (even though I’ve never been a big fan of the Ryan Church “hot rod” design…the proportions are all wrong and obscures the elegance of the original). I was disappointed that the 1701-A at the end didn’t depart a little more from the Church design, though I think the lines are a little different…it was hard to get a good look at her.
All in all, I had a lot of fun watching it. It’s a well-made film that entertained the hell out of me and pushed a lot of my Star Trek buttons that the previous outings hadn’t. We know that this was a rushed script, and I think it might have benefitted from a little more time in the oven (the saggy middle might have been saved by moving up the Krall reveal and the thematic threads better tied together with all the imprisoned races banding together).
Something interesting that Annalee Newitz (formerly of io9) pointed out:
In Star Trek Beyond, Kirk’s emotional issue was being bored with his job. His character arc was taken from a “manchild comes of age” comedy.
That’s an excellent point, but overall I’d say that this depiction of Kirk was closer to TOS Kirk than the XTREME Kirk we saw in last two movies.
All that said, I’m amazed the script was as good as it was given the time constraints. For me, it was an overall win. Kudos to director Justin Lin and writers Simon Pegg and Doug Jung. (Jung actually had a little cameo as Sulu’s husband, by the way.)
You kiddin’ me sir?
Oh, and the fact that this is an afterthought just speaks to how well it worked: I loved the moment where Sulu embraced his daughter and husband on Yorktown. Completely natural and understated and absolutely an awesome thing to do. I was a bit taken aback by George Takei’s objections, but I thought that Simon Pegg’s response was absolutely spot-on. As someone who is not a gay man, I had to pause and really consider where Takei was coming from. But in the final analysis, no, I think he was just wrong on this one.
(I know this is a semantic point, but it really rubs me the wrong way when people talk about how they “made” Sulu gay. Nobody made him anything. We never even really got a hint at Sulu’s sexuality in TOS, so to say that they made him gay is to assume that he was never gay until now. Which implies that in the absence of evidence he must be straight by default, cause straight simply is the default unless you’re, ya know, deviant.)
…we have cleared the spoilers.
That’s not how Kirk pronounces sabotage.
I’ve read a lot of knee-jerk reaction decrying Beyond as Fast and the Furious in space, which I think is unfair, and something I doubt they’d be saying if they didn’t know the two franchises now shared a director in Justin Lin. As I said before, if you’re going to try to do Star Trek as a big budget summer tentpole, this is pretty much how it should be done.
(You’d be forgiven for not wanting to read another thousand or so words on Star Trek written by some guy on the internet, but here it is anyway, ’cause my website.)
Frankly, I’m not really sure what Star Trek should be in 2016. Beyond is one mode: an action/adventure romp with Star Trek accoutrements. It’s the “theme park” version of Trek, which is fine, but I don’t know how much beyond that it can go. (Nice pun, I’ll keep it!)
You can’t really do Star Trek without the iconography of Star Trek, which means things like beam me up and aliens with pointed ears and funny foreheads. Things that I think science fiction has moved past since the 60s, but without them it’s not really Trek.
Star Trek is a fundamentally 1960s vision of the future, very much a piece with the Kennedy era of optimism and space as the new frontier, and that progress will be furthered by advances in technology. (This allowed it to present a classless vision of the future that ultimately sprang from a capitalist system, which has some interesting implications that Trek has never touched.)
It’s also interesting that the individual human being is still front and center in Trek’s future. There’s no AIs that have taken over the world, no transhumanist vision of man blurred with machine…no, people are still front and center, calling the shots. And while this is definitely a function of its 1960s origins (computers the size of buildings!), I think it’s an optimistic perspective that we can carry forward. It suggests that, at some point, we make a choice to value people and determined what our relationship to machines would be. We could have an AI running the ship, but we choose not to. We could have a neural network that links up all our brains, but we choose handheld communication devices instead. That’s not necessarily an anachronistic vision of the future, it can be read as a humanist one, which I think is pretty cool.
Here, Captain Kirk literally reads the Declaration of Independence to a space heathen. Thanks, Hodgkins.
Star Trek, the original vintage, is really an anthology series that poses ethical and moral questions through sci-fi action/adventure. (And often crosses over into fantasy. Hodgkin’s Law of Parallel Planetary Development, anyone? Omnipotent God-like beings floating around every other nebula? Fucking time travel, even? Things like this aren’t really palatable to a contemporary audience expecting science fiction, but they’re a part of what makes Star Trek STAR TREK. So you have to figure out how those elements factors in to a contemporary take.)
Gene Roddenberry never set out to create an overtly utopian vision of the future with the original series, but the progressive ideals that he (and many others) couldn’t help but inject into the show were embraced by fans who projected that vision on to it.
Roddenberry learned from them and built upon it, which leads us to TNG. Replacing the brash Captain Kirk is a bald, thoughtful European dude who values diplomacy over force. By any measure, TNG is definitely more overtly utopian than TOS, and doesn’t let you forget it. To the point where even having interpersonal conflict among the Starfleet crew was verboten. This does not necessarily make for good television, but as that show developed over the years, they took it as a challenge and figured out how to balance it out.
DS9 was a reaction to this. A more serialized show by its very nature, DS9 was in a lot of ways a deconstruction of the perfect human of the 24th century. (And mostly successful at doing so, in my opinion.) It’s also the beginning of 90s grimdark in Trek that worked so successfully in First Contact and reached its apex in the 2000s.
Voyager, in my estimation, was TNG-lite, only worse. I found it generally bland and consistently uninteresting. But it did have the first woman captain in the franchise, and I know many women who came of age in the 90s for whom Janeway was an inspiration. So it wasn’t entirely worthless, I just can’t stand it.
(As an aside, my favorite illustration of this is in the episode “Flashback,” which brings back George Takei as Sulu and revisits events from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Captain Janeway notes:
“Space must have seemed a whole lot bigger back then. It’s not surprising they had to bend the rules a little. They were a little slower to invoke the Prime Directive, and a little quicker to pull their phasers. Of course, the whole bunch of them would be booted out of Starfleet today. But I have to admit: I would have loved to ride shotgun at least once with a group of officers like that.”
Well, shit, I want to watch that show!)
Continuity porn. But hey, at least porn can be fun sometimes.
And then you get Enterprise in 2001. They tried something that could have been pretty daring in making a prequel to TOS, giving you Trek that still allows for recognizable and “relatable” 20th century humans, interpersonal conflict and all. Debuting two weeks after 9/11, Enterprise was defined by the grimdark, TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS kind of stuff that was being reflected in popular culture at that time. Eventually in its final season, it course corrected and became what some might call fanwank, essentially becoming a show overtly aboutStar Trek. (Which, as a fan, was fine by me, but I can acknowledge its shortcomings for a general audience.)
Then Star Trek goes away for a few years, only to be reborn as a big-budget summer movie franchise. Which is fine and good if you do it properly (bare-knuckle fistfights and pew pew space battles have been part and parcel of Trek since the beginning), but in retrospect, as decent a flick as JJ Abrams Star Trek was, it doesn’t amount much more than his demo reel for Star Wars.
So I come back to the question: what should a Star Trek series be in 2016? What we do know for sure about Star Trek: Discovery is that it’s going to be set in the so-called Prime Universe of the past series, and it’s going to be serialized as is de rigueur for television right now. So we don’t really know that much.
Hypothetically, if someone handed me the reins to Star Trek and told me to do whatever I wanted with, I’d probably do some version of the following: set it maybe a century after the TNG era to have a good buffer between it and established continuity. Have the ship look familiar enough to be of the same lineage as the Enterprise, have familiar looking alien races and such, but basically be far-removed from the continuity of the TNG era. (Kind of the same relationship that the first couple years of the revived Doctor Who had to its classic incarnation.)
Then I’d look to the best writers doing literary science fiction today, like Alistair Reynolds, James Corey, China Mieville, Liu Cixin, Charlie Jane Anders, and basically anybody writing for Tor Books, and set them loose. Like a Black Mirror but Star Trek, with some overarching continuity that comes together at the end of every season.
But no one asked me, of course. Time will tell what the future of Star Trek holds in the capable hands of Bryan Fuller.
I grew up with the Ghostbusters films. I love them to pieces. (Yes, even the second one.) I had a proton pack. “Egon Spengler” entertained at my fifth birthday party in lieu of a clown. When Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles became all the rage I clung to my Ghostbusters action figures in an early example of fan loyalty.
Basically, my Ghostbusters bonafides are pretty spectacular for someone who wasn’t of theater-going age when the original movie came out.
That said, I’ve never liked the idea of a Ghostbusters 3. Coming so long after the 80s films, it just seemed too likely to veer into nuke-the-fridge territory. Doubly so after the death of Harold Ramis. When most of the appeal of the movie is already predicated upon seeing the original cast together again, continuing without a major member of that cast would only make the loss more acute.
Nor did I like the idea of a reboot film. That is, I didn’t until the announcement of a reboot with an all-female cast. That, at least on the surface, seemed like a different enough take on the material that it might be something unique and special in its own right. And the notion of gender-bending a “boy’s movie” has the added bonus of being a somewhat progressive, even subversive proposition, which is always a good thing in my book. I’d even go as far to say that it’s worth doing on that basis alone.
…but now there’s come the news that there is another Ghostbusters film in the works, this one with a male cast. Coming so close on the heels of the announcement of the all-female reboot, and immediately staking out its territory as a “guy-centric” Ghostbusters film, it’s hard not to see this as anything other than a lack of confidence in the “girl movie.” And there’s an uncomfortable implication that the female-led film is somehow not worthy of carrying the Ghostbusters mantle on its own. That it’s not a “real” Ghostbusters movie.
Suffice to say, this is problematic at best. I know that Akroyd and director Ivan Reitman are protective of their franchise, and it seems to me that they either weren’t included or weren’t interested in the direction the studio wanted to go with it. I wasn’t in the room and I have no idea who objected to what and why. I just know that the end result is a situation that, well, looks pretty damn sexist. I’m not saying there was any conscious sexism on the part of anyone involved, but that’s the thing about sexism. It’s sneaky. And it doesn’t have to be conscious to exist.
I’m also sick of hearing people arguing against the movie on the basis that it’s “ruining their childhood.” Grow up. We’re living in a post-Star Wars prequels age. We know how to get over disappointment. Reboots and sequels get made and they don’t always live up to our expectations, but our childhoods are still there as we left them. (Assuming you have left, that is.)
This particular remake actually has something going for it, because there should be an all-female Ghostbusters in 2015. It’s sad that women have to fight to prove that they’re just as funny or capable as men, and this reboot is a statement that unfortunately still needs to be made as loudly and as clearly as possible.
But the best reason to make this reboot is that it’s going to be fucking funny. The boys are going to have their work cut out for them. I just wish we didn’t have to highlight and strengthen divisions between the sexes by feeling the need to make a “guy’s movie” in response.
I’m going to say something that will get me into trouble. So come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off, as Malcolm Tucker would say.
I don’t think I like Peter Capaldi’s Doctor.
It’s taken me some time to admit this. When his casting was announced I was ecstatic because, well, Peter Capaldi is awesome. I loved The Thick of It and Capaldi’s Malcolm Tucker is what elevated that show to instant classic status. And Capaldi’s inaugural Who season has been the best since, well, Matt Smith’s first season as the Eleventh Doctor.
It’s not because Doctor Twelve is grouchy. I like grouchy. And it’s not because he’s older than previous NuWho Doctors. No, the problem is that I have Malcolm Tucker to compare him to.
Malcolm Tucker and the Doctor should switch costumes next season. And there should be a next season of The Thick of It.
On Armando Iannuci’s The Thick of It, Capaldi’s Malcolm Tucker is a “Fixer.” When there’s a problem in the Prime Minister’s government, Tucker descends out of nowhere, takes control of the situation, prescribes and implements the proper solution and does it all before breakfast. He’s all-knowing and all-hearing. He shows up when he’s most needed and when he’s least expected. His origins are mysterious and the stories about him legendary. His enemies shudder at the mere mention of his name. And, sometimes, so do his friends.
Sound familiar? Malcolm Tucker’s Fixer is the Doctor with the sweary bits left in. And the sweary bits are what made Tucker’s chicanery so sublime. And the swearing is not just for yuks. No. It transcends potty humor. It’s poetry.
I fully admit that this has nothing to do with Capaldi as an actor and everything to do with me. For me, Capaldi’s defining role will always remain Malcolm Tucker and not the Doctor. And Doctor Who, today more than ever, is designed to operate as a cultural event. Anyone tasked with casting a new Doctor should know that, for better or worse, the cultural baggage an actor carries will precede them.
Which is partly why Matt Smith was such a revelation as Doctor Eleven. Smith had no such encumberances. Aside from a brief stint in a show called Party Animals, in which he played a very un-Doctor-ish character, Matt Smith came out of absolutely nowhere. And that allowed him to be the Doctor in a way nobody has since Tom Baker.
But there was a sense of inevitability to Peter Capaldi’s casting, wasn’t there? Capaldi’s own credentials as a Doctor Who fan are well established. (A 6 year-old Capaldi famously wrote to a fan publication declaring his intent to become an actor so he could play the Doctor one day, among other shameless acts of fandom.) Showrunner Steven Moffat had made it known that he already had Capaldi in mind to take over from David Tennant as Doctor number eleven before 26 year-old Matt Smith walked through the door, bowling him and everyone else in the room over (and quite right to). Capaldi himself had already guest-starred in an episode of NuWho, as well as playing a prominent character in Who-spinoff Torchwood as the cowering Frobisher, a very un-Tucker-like civil servant. (A role in which he shone, lest you think I’m questioning Capaldi’s ability to play anyone but Malcolm Tucker.)
And the kicker: we all wanted to see Malcolm Tucker be the Doctor, didn’t we? We all wanted the Doctor to show the Daleks his bollocking face. We just never imagined we’d get it. I’d venture to say that I liked the idea of Capaldi as Doctor more than the reality of it.
So call it a lack of imagination on my part. Peter Capaldi is, by most measures, a fantastic Doctor. It’s just that his tenure in the role will always be eclipsed by his turn as Malcolm Tucker (a distinction he doesn’t have to share with any other actor). Malcolm Tucker was the role that Peter Capaldi was born to play. Sorry, 6 year-old Peter.
But he still has (at least) two more seasons to change my mind.
You know what we need? We need Armando Iannucci to take over Doctor Who when Steven Moffat steps aside. Then the show can overthrow the government properly, just as Andrew Cartmel always wanted.
Anyone who knows me knows I’m a big Trek fan. But I don’t fall neatly into any of the Trekkie stereotypes. I’m the kind of guy who notices that Vulcan had a blue sky in JJ Trek when it’s always been red, but I don’t care as long as the movie is good. Which the first of the reboot series largely was, though a lot of my opinion of it has been colored by what came next. Into Darkness was largely a rehash of old ideas, and though some of them had the potential to be interesting and even clever, I couldn’t ignore that in the end the movie was really just another instance of big budget disaster porn in Star Trek clothing.
I feel like there’s a bit of a funereal air regarding Star Trek right now. It’s the combination of a few things, I think: JJ Abrams has left to reinvigorate the franchise he really loves, the relative “disappointment” of the last movie both financially and creatively, this being the last of the three films this cast are contracted for, and a sense of obligation to commemorate the franchise’s 50th anniversary in 2016. (Especially given the recent high profile golden anniversaries of both Doctor Who and James Bond, both of which set high expectations for a celebratory landmark like this.)
That’s really the word for it: obligated. It seems like everyone feels “obligated” to make a third movie. And in some ways, the lowered expectations might be a blessing in disguise. Maybe the next movie will do something interesting and different. I’m already interested to see what a JJ Abrams’ Trek movie looks like with another director. And they’ve set themselves up to begin the 5-year mission of the TV series at the end of the last movie, so maybe we’ll be getting to some more strange new worlds instead of threatening Earth with a vengeful villain this go-around. But unless Star Trek 3 happens to be some sort of gargantuan hit which, to be frank, I don’t think it will be, I have a feeling Trek is in for another little rest.
But probably not for too long. There will always be new Star Trek for one simple reason: the economics of the entertainment industry dictate that any pre-existing brand has inherent value. Star Trek’s problem is that it’s never been a big winner overseas as a movie franchise, and the overseas audience is where the money is for blockbusters. But there is and always has been a pretty sizable audience of hardcore Trekkers who can be depended on to flock to anything Star Trek. They’re just not enough to justify the cost of a $200,000,000 movie every three years. So whatever form it takes, it’s gotta be relatively cheap.
So Star Trek should return to television.
Star Trek was never really suited to be a film franchise anyway. Its home has always been on television, and that’s where it works best. It’s episodic in nature, and though any future incarnation would almost certainly include serialized elements, I’d argue it should remain mostly episodic. (Format-wise, modern Doctor Who has been doing exactly this very successfully and could be looked upon as a model.)
There are two approaches to doing new Star Trek. (Or, at least, two that will work. I think continuing on in the future of the “Prime Universe,” acknowledging the events of the existing television series, is a mistake. Even if it’s set in the far future ala Bryan Singer’s Federation concept. There’s simply too much baggage that raises the barrier to entry for a new viewer.)
First is the Iconographic approach, which places the emphasis on all of Trek’s familiar trappings. The new movies have largely relied on this. You have your Kirk and your Spock, you have your Enterprise, warp speed, beam me up Scotty Star Trek. They even kept those pretty insane primary colored uniforms that, frankly, look a bit ridiculous by contemporary standards. And why did they do that? Cause iconography. Cause nostalgia. Cause that’s what Trek is supposed to look like, and that’s what everyone remembers it looking like. This is also the reason they tried to shoehorn Khan into some kind of super nemesis role ala Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Night. Cause everybody knows about Khan and his wrath.
But Star Trek doesn’t really do super villains or nemeses. Big action movies do. And that’s what these last two movies have been: (mostly) entertaining action movies that look like Star Trek but are clearly doing their own action movie thing. Which is fine, if that’s what you’re satisfied with. My problem is that it Star Trek can be so much more than just another action movie franchise.
Which brings me to the second approach, what I’ll term the Fundamental. Basically, you take away all the trappings of Star Trek, everything that’s dated, everything that doesn’t jibe with how we’ve grown both socially and technologically in the last 50 years, and see what’s left. What is Star Trek actually about?
This is a tough question to answer, if for no other reason than it’s about lots of different things to lots of different people. It’s no surprise that the JJ movies went with the iconic approach, because in many ways that’s the safer way to go. (And they’re big budget spectacles to begin with, and big budget spectacles always emphasize style.) So a lot of JJ Trek is based on nostalgia, but Star Trek has always about looking forward. In so doing, a lot of the trappings the new movies chose to recognize were born from a very 1960s vision of the future with a 1960s television budget. Perhaps some of them could bear some re-evaluation. Things like the way we interact with computers. How every alien species is depicted as a monoculture.
So since I posed the question, here’s my version of the answer. Though Gene Roddenberry is often quoted as calling Trek “Horatio Hornblower in space,” it’s equal part Gulliver’s Travels in space. It’s about a group of diverse human beings, on a spaceship, who travel to new places and get into adventures every week. Most of the stories have an underlying allegory that makes a point about the human experience.
It’s set in a future where human beings still have center stage: our computers haven’t taken over, we’re still in charge, and people still act and behave largely as they do today. But these guys and gals are definitely ones with the “Right Stuff,” the ones who try to do the good and right thing no matter what, even if they end up failing in the end. They value discovery and seeking knowledge even as it puts them at risk. (And yes, the characters can and should sometimes have conflict with each other, something Roddenberry decided was not acceptable at some point between TOS and TNG.)
That’s really all it is.
You know what’s a great Star Trek movie? Master and Commander. I haven’t read the book series it’s based on, but that movie is basically what I think good Star Trek is. Except in space. And you’d probably better call the Navy the Starfleet and have starships that go to warp speed, otherwise you may as well call it something else.
So my answer, then, lies somewhere on the spectrum of Fundamental to Iconic, leaning more toward the Fundamental side. I think the real trick will be to create a future that’s as “futuristic” to a contemporary audience as classic Trek was to a 1960s/70s audience. Next Generation had touchscreen interfaces to illustrate 80 years of progress from Kirk’s time. And already we all have PADDs. But how far do you take it before it becomes unrelatable? That’s the balancing act.
One of the things that they hinted at in the beginning of TNG was the fact that this new Enterprise was on a 20-year mission of exploration. That’s why they brought their families and children along. Early on they seem to have abandoned that concept, probably because it was too expensive to realize in 1987. That’s not an issue with digital set extensions today. Maybe fully realizing that concept would be an interesting and sufficiently forward-looking take on humanity’s spacefaring future worthy of the name Star Trek.
Talk about nostalgia.
Or not. Trek really belongs to pop culture now, which makes any attempt to change it nearly sacrilege to a large number of people. Any new Star Trek will never be able to please everybody. I don’t envy the guy (or gal) who gets handed the reins next. (What am I saying, of course I do.)
You know what? Maybe the answer is this. Fans seem to be doing a fine job on their own of making more of the kind of Star Trek they want to see. Maybe that’s all Star Trek should be at this point. (Take a look at Star Trek Continues, by the way. It’s pretty damn close to the look and feel of the original show. They’re currently running a Kickstarter campaign to raise money for their next two or more episodes, and have cleared their goal by the time of this writing.)
Maybe Star Trek exists as a lot of different things now, not a slave to a one official canon production, every interpretation equally valid and legitimate. IDIC, as the Vulcans preach.
But regardless of where “official” Trek ends up post-2016, I’m cautiously optimistic for the next flick. With these new players, we’re at least going to get something a little different than the last two. And that means it has the potential to be better.
In the meantime, I hear there’s some new Star Wars movie coming out?