I love movies. Not only are they fun, but they give me plenty of opportunity to engage in my favorite pastime of making the simple complex. Many people strongly disdain subjecting movies to such treatment, usually with the refrain "it's only a movie." But movies speak volumes about the audiences who flock to see them, for what is popular or unpopular shows what resonates with the public mind.
The 2009 reboot of the Star Trek film series was enjoyable but full of plot holes and two-dimensional characters that left me disappointed. I am not a "Trekkie," and I don't care whether Hollywood adheres to Star Trek canon. However, the film struck me as pure kinetic energy lacking any of the depth or feeling in the older Trek universe. In this sense, the film is quite standard of modern cinema and did nothing to impede the film's wild popularity, which today centers on the hind brain rather than the frontal lobe.
A serious problem with the film is its lack of scientific plausibility, an essential trait of good science fiction. For example, we learn that a star near Romulus goes supernova, prompting the Vulcans to send Spock to siphon away the supernova's energy with an artificial black hole. Only supergiant stars have enough mass to go supernova. These supergiants are often too large, hot, and short-lived to sustain orbiting planets with life. It's unclear whether the star in question was at the center of the Romulan solar system (highly unlikely); regardless, if this was just a nearby star, even modern science could detect the serious danger it posed. It boggles the mind that the futuristic science of Star Trek was caught flat-footed by a supernova, especially one so close to Romulus that it posed a threat of annihilation rather than just radiation. Any sentient beings with the technology on display here would have fled Romulus long ago.
Spock's mission to contain the supernova after the fact poses another problem. The shockwave, gas, and energy of the supernova would have expanded in all directions very fast, placing them far beyond the event horizon of a new black hole. In point of fact, many supernovae leave natural black holes behind, a side effect of the star's collapse. Perhaps Spock planned to locate the black hole between Romulus and the oncoming shock wave, but it would hardly do Romulus much good to have a black hole nearby. Even if the black hole didn't suck Romulus in, it would seriously disrupt the equilibrium of the Romulan solar system. Once again, it would make much more sense for the Romulans to have evacuated instead of just sitting and waiting for Spock to deliver a black hole. Even as a precaution, one would expect a mass evacuation until after the mission had been attempted.
We also learn that a vengeful Romulan (Nero, cleverly named after the emperor who fiddled while Rome burned) witnessed his planet's destruction and had his massive ship sucked through the black hole, placing him over 100 years in the past. Spock's ship followed shortly later but emerged 25 years after Nero's did. No way. Even before reaching the event horizon, the ships would have been stretched and incinerated by the black hole's incredible tidal forces (i.e., the differential pull along the ships' length). Once inside the event horizon, the ships would have been crushed into nothing.
Overlooking all that, we still confront a time-travel plot that Hollywood just loves but which makes no sense. We are told that a "new timeline" now exists because Nero and Spock have emerged from the future and are altering events. Doesn't work that way. In the original timeline of the old Star Trek universe, Nero and Spock went into the black hole and did what they did -- there is only one series of events. If the timeline truly is new and splices away from the old one, then Nero and Spock will not go through the black hole, and none of what we just watched could have happened. (It's a foregone conclusion that in this new timeline, people will take preventive measures against the supernova that they now know will occur, though I still wonder why they didn't figure it out through normal scientific observation the first time.) And this new timeline poses all kinds of problems with Nero and the elderly Spock, who have a lifetime of memories of events that now did not happen and never will. They have become walking paradoxes.
And this new timeline is rather selective. Even though Kirk's father is now killed at birth, Kirk still grows up in Iowa; he still joins Starfleet; he still cheats on the Kobayashi Maru test; he still befriends the exact same crew; and he still becomes captain of the Enterprise. How convenient. The most familiar aspects of Star Trek are preserved, but all ensuing storylines are jettisoned. While I appreciate the filmmakers' desire to wipe the slate clean, this is incredibly inconsistent.
Then there is Nero, a Romulan so angry over the destruction of his planet that he spends 25 years plotting death and revenge -- even though his planet is now perfectly fine and has over a century to prepare for the supernova that he can warn everyone about. I can understand his being out of sorts right at the beginning, but behavior of this sort after having 25 years to figure things out makes no sense.
Then there is James T. Kirk and the youngish crew of the newly christened Enterprise. It's obvious that Hollywood has gone out of its way to make its youngish audience identify with these characters and conclude that yes, being a loudmouth punk is the key to excellence and leadership. Showing teenagers and twenty-somethings shove aside their elders and save the galaxy is gratifying, but self-serving and ridiculous.
And then, of course, there is Spock. He is offered not as a sophisticated Vulcan foil for the brash Earthlings, but rather as a piñata to be bludgeoned and re-configured to act more like his Earthling mother and crew members. For a series that prides itself on celebrating diversity, Star Trek shows incredible ethnocentrism toward Spock and tells him that yielding to his passions makes him more enlightened. Yet this is exactly what the Romulans thought when splitting away from the Vulcans, and the entire movie shows the devastation that a passionate Romulan (Nero) can wreak. It's a little-known fact that "passion" stems from the term "passive," since a passionate man is one who allows himself to be dominated by his id. Spock as Vulcan is active because he refuses to allow blind impulse to control him, and it's unfortunate that Star Trek is telling hordes of passive moviegoers exactly what their ids want to hear.
In the final analysis, the new Star Trek is fun but annoying to those of us who like to think. The old Star Trek was meant for thinking persons, but most cinema today surely is not, and Star Trek has been sucked into the black hole of mindless entertainment. We can only hope that the series, like the Enterprise itself, manages to escape.
The 2009 reboot of the Star Trek film series was enjoyable but full of plot holes and two-dimensional characters that left me disappointed. I am not a "Trekkie," and I don't care whether Hollywood adheres to Star Trek canon. However, the film struck me as pure kinetic energy lacking any of the depth or feeling in the older Trek universe. In this sense, the film is quite standard of modern cinema and did nothing to impede the film's wild popularity, which today centers on the hind brain rather than the frontal lobe.
A serious problem with the film is its lack of scientific plausibility, an essential trait of good science fiction. For example, we learn that a star near Romulus goes supernova, prompting the Vulcans to send Spock to siphon away the supernova's energy with an artificial black hole. Only supergiant stars have enough mass to go supernova. These supergiants are often too large, hot, and short-lived to sustain orbiting planets with life. It's unclear whether the star in question was at the center of the Romulan solar system (highly unlikely); regardless, if this was just a nearby star, even modern science could detect the serious danger it posed. It boggles the mind that the futuristic science of Star Trek was caught flat-footed by a supernova, especially one so close to Romulus that it posed a threat of annihilation rather than just radiation. Any sentient beings with the technology on display here would have fled Romulus long ago.
Spock's mission to contain the supernova after the fact poses another problem. The shockwave, gas, and energy of the supernova would have expanded in all directions very fast, placing them far beyond the event horizon of a new black hole. In point of fact, many supernovae leave natural black holes behind, a side effect of the star's collapse. Perhaps Spock planned to locate the black hole between Romulus and the oncoming shock wave, but it would hardly do Romulus much good to have a black hole nearby. Even if the black hole didn't suck Romulus in, it would seriously disrupt the equilibrium of the Romulan solar system. Once again, it would make much more sense for the Romulans to have evacuated instead of just sitting and waiting for Spock to deliver a black hole. Even as a precaution, one would expect a mass evacuation until after the mission had been attempted.
We also learn that a vengeful Romulan (Nero, cleverly named after the emperor who fiddled while Rome burned) witnessed his planet's destruction and had his massive ship sucked through the black hole, placing him over 100 years in the past. Spock's ship followed shortly later but emerged 25 years after Nero's did. No way. Even before reaching the event horizon, the ships would have been stretched and incinerated by the black hole's incredible tidal forces (i.e., the differential pull along the ships' length). Once inside the event horizon, the ships would have been crushed into nothing.
Overlooking all that, we still confront a time-travel plot that Hollywood just loves but which makes no sense. We are told that a "new timeline" now exists because Nero and Spock have emerged from the future and are altering events. Doesn't work that way. In the original timeline of the old Star Trek universe, Nero and Spock went into the black hole and did what they did -- there is only one series of events. If the timeline truly is new and splices away from the old one, then Nero and Spock will not go through the black hole, and none of what we just watched could have happened. (It's a foregone conclusion that in this new timeline, people will take preventive measures against the supernova that they now know will occur, though I still wonder why they didn't figure it out through normal scientific observation the first time.) And this new timeline poses all kinds of problems with Nero and the elderly Spock, who have a lifetime of memories of events that now did not happen and never will. They have become walking paradoxes.
And this new timeline is rather selective. Even though Kirk's father is now killed at birth, Kirk still grows up in Iowa; he still joins Starfleet; he still cheats on the Kobayashi Maru test; he still befriends the exact same crew; and he still becomes captain of the Enterprise. How convenient. The most familiar aspects of Star Trek are preserved, but all ensuing storylines are jettisoned. While I appreciate the filmmakers' desire to wipe the slate clean, this is incredibly inconsistent.
Then there is Nero, a Romulan so angry over the destruction of his planet that he spends 25 years plotting death and revenge -- even though his planet is now perfectly fine and has over a century to prepare for the supernova that he can warn everyone about. I can understand his being out of sorts right at the beginning, but behavior of this sort after having 25 years to figure things out makes no sense.
Then there is James T. Kirk and the youngish crew of the newly christened Enterprise. It's obvious that Hollywood has gone out of its way to make its youngish audience identify with these characters and conclude that yes, being a loudmouth punk is the key to excellence and leadership. Showing teenagers and twenty-somethings shove aside their elders and save the galaxy is gratifying, but self-serving and ridiculous.
And then, of course, there is Spock. He is offered not as a sophisticated Vulcan foil for the brash Earthlings, but rather as a piñata to be bludgeoned and re-configured to act more like his Earthling mother and crew members. For a series that prides itself on celebrating diversity, Star Trek shows incredible ethnocentrism toward Spock and tells him that yielding to his passions makes him more enlightened. Yet this is exactly what the Romulans thought when splitting away from the Vulcans, and the entire movie shows the devastation that a passionate Romulan (Nero) can wreak. It's a little-known fact that "passion" stems from the term "passive," since a passionate man is one who allows himself to be dominated by his id. Spock as Vulcan is active because he refuses to allow blind impulse to control him, and it's unfortunate that Star Trek is telling hordes of passive moviegoers exactly what their ids want to hear.
In the final analysis, the new Star Trek is fun but annoying to those of us who like to think. The old Star Trek was meant for thinking persons, but most cinema today surely is not, and Star Trek has been sucked into the black hole of mindless entertainment. We can only hope that the series, like the Enterprise itself, manages to escape.
No comments:
Post a Comment