Star Trek -- June 2009

TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE

Here’s a quiz for you Star Trek fans. Match the names with the descriptions:

Lt. Uhura                             A. Producer of the series
James Kirk                         B. The ship’s doctor
Pavel Chekhov                   C. A beamer
Enterprise                           D. Half human
Lt. Sulu                                E. Spock’s sweetie
Spock                                 F. Cannot pronounce the “v” sound
Bones                                 G. The captain
Scotty                                 H. The ship
Gene Roddenberry           I.  An Asian gentleman and ship’s navigator



Believe it or not, folks, there’s a new Star Trek movie out there to see. But why is a new Trekkie picture necessary or desirable? Well, the producers apparently saw the opportunity to make some big bucks (It’s already become number one at the box office.) while filling aficionados in on how the whole story got started. If you liked the TV series in its various incarnations and the ten or so movies that came out of it, you’ll probably appreciate this new Star Trek. If you didn’t, there still might be something to be gleaned from seeing the picture.

Here’s the plot: As the picture opens with a crisis situation involving a Romulan attack, Captain George (not James) Kirk is made captain of the Enterprise, a post he holds for 14 minutes. On another ship his wife is about to give birth to their son. Kirk senior dies, but his wife survives, and young James is born healthy. Flash forward 15 or more years: the brash James steals an ancient auto and nearly drives it off a cliff into a canyon. From all appearances, James is an undisciplined loser, but he is miraculously rescued by a friend and colleague of his father, who encourages him to attend Star Fleet Academy – which of course he does. Most of the movie is about Kirk’s rise to captain and his developing relationships with each of the key characters: Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu.


The film’s strengths:

• Special effects: Excellent.
• Action: It never slows down. Scenes are well edited.
• Acting: Quite accomplished, especially the roles of Spock and Kirk.
• Characterizations: The film’s best element. There’s something in most of us that likes to see what happens – or what previously happened – to characters we’ve come to know. The man from Vulcan is the most interesting. We see young Spock (who looks just like the Spock of the TV series) and old Spock (Leonard Nimoy is back to reprise his role.)
• Values: The winners are basically the good guys.

The film’s weaknesses:

• Poetic license with the plot: There’s a lot of sci-fi mumbo jumbo going on here; apparently the space-time continuum has been ripped, or something, with the result that the past intrudes on the future. Or does the future intrude on the past? Back to the Future was much cleaner and clearer.
• Theme: What does Star Trek have to say to the Christian? Is science fiction inimical to the Christian worldview? C. S. Lewis certainly didn’t think so, as witnessed by his space trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength. But Lewis’s books are underlyingly Christian. Star Trek isn’t. According to Plugged-In reviewer Paul Asay, series producer Gene Roddenberry said this about religion, including Christianity: "Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain." This is most unfortunate; as Proverbs reminds us, he who says there is no God is a fool. We might just say that Roddenberry’s efforts succeed in spite of rather than because of his views.
• Language: Unfortunate in places. The Lord’s name is abused.

Should you see it? Definitely yes if you’re a Star Trek fan. Possibly yes even if you’re not.


Film Rating: PG-13.
My rating: 2 ¾ stars.