Awww, SHUT UP!!!

Obama’s casual fan review of the flick was a nice White House precedence.

After watching J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek.film, I was impressed that the movie was exciting, action-packed and true to Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future in many ways. However, there were some major inconsistencies and affronts to the Star Trek universe—a 43-year old genre enjoyed by millions of fans spread throughout the world. But more on that later.

One can certainly not fault J.J. Abrams and the scriptwriters and actors as well for their fine portrayal of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Chekov, Uhura, and Sulu. In myriad ways the younger actors nailed their characters and gave the audience, especially those of us with longer memories (as a 10 year old I watched the original series and later wrote letters to NBC appealing for the studio execs not to cancel the show) plenty of reasons to smile or chuckle. Spock’s (Zachary Quinto) raised eyebrow being one of the prime examples.

Hiring Leonard Nimoy to reprise the older Spock was also a very welcome sight to us loyal Star Trek fans. Abrams gets a huge toast with Romulan ale for this move.

And the special effects were certainly astounding and impressive. The “techno-babble” as the actors often refer to StarTrekSpeak (warp drive, phasers, transporters, inertial dampers, etc) was true to the original series as well. Nevertheless, some more technical devotees of the show may be upset that certain technical changes or inadvertent tweaking imposed by the film’s creators might have gone a bit too far.

However, the greatest affront inflicted by Abrams’ movie to long-time Star Trek fans (be they Trekkers, Trekkies, or whatever) was unforgiveable.

Destroying the planet Vulcan (even with Spock’s line that as many as 10,000 of its six billion inhabitants may have evacuated in time) was a back breaker—to say the least. Not to mention the killing off of Spock’s mother Amanda Grayson (played by Winona Rider)! Such inconsistencies and wholesale disregard of the history of the Trek universe are unconscionable to most fans of the genre.

To those that protest that these are merely Abrams’ signature plot devices or creative drama enhancers—take note that we Star Trek fans heartily and vehemently disagree.

After all, Spock’s mother played a major role in an original episode of Star Trek (when Kirk is injured and Spock takes command, the Vulcan first officer refuses, at first, to donate an organ to his dying father despite his mother’s pleas) and her character played a significant role in molding Spock into the human-Vulcan hybrid we’ve all learned to respect and admire.

But, in some ways, that death pales in significance to the destruction of one of the Federation’s founding member planets—Vulcan. We should note that J.J. Abrams has admitted publicly that he was never a fan of Star Trek but instead enjoyed George Lucas’ Star Wars universe. Hey, J.J.—it is just not cool to destroy Vulcan and you’re really barking up the wrong tree if you find an analogy here to the destruction of Princess Leia’s home planet Aldaran in the first Star Wars film. That planetary catastrophe may have worked in Lucas’ film, but by example, the offing of Vulcan in this movie is the equivalent of killing off Darth Vader in the same film. Not a good idea!

In addition to the original episode with Spock’s parents, the classic 1960s episode (chosen by some fans as recently as a few years ago as the best ever episode of the genre) “Amok Time” is no longer possible in J.J. Abram’s Star Trek universe. In this episode, Spock must return to Vulcan to mate or die trying. And by the way, what happens to that biological fact about Vulcans now that there is no planet to return to?

The plot device of destroying Spock’s home planet does a major disservice to the four decades-long Star Trek universe. Are we to believe that fan favorites like Vulcan science officer Tuvok (Star Trek Voyager) and T’Pol (Star Trek Enterprise) are now relegated to “alternative time-line”stories? If not, it seems unlikely that they or their antecedents were some of those lucky 10,000 survivors of Vulcan’s demise (which means they beat the odds of 1 survivor in every 600,000 inhabitants). And even if somehow those characters manage to exist in Abram’s Trek universe, what about all the other episodes of Star Trek that focus on events occurring on the planet Vulcan or involving Vulcan science, diplomacy, military forces, etc?

More perplexing is the fact that this movie could have chosen another founding Federation member planet to destroy—such as Andoria. This would have had a less powerful impact on the consistency of 43 years of Trek drama and history (encompassing six Star Trek series). Simply adding an Andorian friend/lover of Spock to the plot would have ensured a powerful enough dramatic purpose to the film, especially if Vulcan (or Earth) had remained the second target of Nero. While some might complain this would dilute the dramatic intensity of the plot, many Star Trek fans disagree and accuse Abrams and his scriptwriters of intellectual laziness for disregarding the impact of the destruction of the planet Vulcan.

An analogy may be necessary here. Imagine how fans would have taken the death of Spock at the end of the film “Wrath of Khan” if there were no plans to bring him back to life in a future movie. In fact, if Spock’s demise had been made permanent there probably would not have been any further “successful” Star Trek films.

In fact, Abrams could have easily repaired the damage at the end of the film! Nimoy’s 24th century Spock rightfully should have informed that era’s Spock that it was too risky for him to stay in the past time-line (even with the consideration that his time-traveling vessel had been destroyed in the penultimate battle with Nero). Consistent with past Star Trek time-traveling plots and ethos, the older Spock should have informed Quinto’s Spock that he was planning on leaving Earth and returning to his own era with the goal of acquiring a ship that could return to the past (which is technically possible as we learn in another original 1960s episode). Spock’s mission: Prevent his mother’s demise at the very least and ultimately prevent the destruction of Vulcan. Abrams’ scriptwriters should heed this advice and resolve this matter in the first few moments of the next film by setting the opening scenes on the planet Vulcan!

Another problem with the film is the incredulity of a lieutenant just out of Star Fleet Academy being promoted to command the Enterprise. This represents another affront to the consistency of 40+ years of Star Trek. And believability was always a major quest of Gene Roddenberry’s vision. So this, by all means, is not a minor concern. In the original Star Trek series we learned that Kirk was a quick study—but we also learned that like all naval (and probably all future spacecraft commanders) he first had to pay his dues. In Kirk’s case that meant serving for several years on the U.S.S. Farragut. Again, Abrams’ quick-fix-to-restore-the-genre has backfired. Several original series episodes are tied in to this important fact and Kirk’s character is significantly altered by these experiences (for example—see the episode “Obsession”).

Alas, these inconsistencies and flaws can predominantly be “fixed” when the second Abrams’ Star Trek film premieres in two years. With just a few creative script lines or quick explanations (Kirk served as captain-in-training for a time period under the mentorship of Christopher Pike [including a tour of duty on Farragut] until actually receiving his captain’s bars) the continuing adventures of Star Trek can continue unabated.

However, Mr. Abrams must get the message, loud and clear, from us fans—“we like what you’ve done with Star Trek, but with a major caveat—you’ve got to repair the figurative damage to the warp nacelles or a core breach is imminent!” Translation: “Please restore Vulcan (and hopefully Amanda Grayson).” This is not merely the desire of a handful of some oddball Trekkies—it is as imperative as mouthing the Roddenberry mantra…”Space, the final frontier…”

And remember Obamarock of Vulcan is Watching!

We know you’ll do the right thing, J.J.

HereHere!

I couldn’t care less about Obama’s opinion concerning Star Trek either…….and a lot of other things too. I really dislike that picture of him as Spock, it’s “illogical”.
.-.-. .-.-.
_ \ \ \ / / /
‘-.’-.| |
`-…….-`

How interesting that you don’t understand.

You want precise? I don’t care about his opinion. It means nothing to me concerning Star Trek. Absolutely nothing. Is that clear enough for you?

Interesting you don’t understand the phase. Haven’t you heard it before?

I guess you needed clarification.

“I could care less what Obama thinks of Star Trek.”

Learn the english language. That means that you do care.