First impressions of a 'Star Trek' virgin

(Credit: Paramount)

Please note: Friendly seas ahead! This is a spoiler-free review.

NEW YORK--When I walked into a theater at Viacom's midtown headquarters for an advance screening of the new J.J. Abrams-directed "Star Trek" prequel on Wednesday night, I felt like that kid who hadn't done her homework--for an entire semester.

And yet that was crucial to my assignment: to see if it was possible for someone completely new to the "Star Trek" universe to understand, process, and more importantly enjoy this new film.

Here's my background. I had never seen any of the prior "Star Trek" films or television series. I knew little more than the fact that it's all about a bunch of people flying a spaceship called the Enterprise, that Leonard Nimoy played an extraterrestrial named Spock who had funny ears and liked to say "Live long and prosper," and that the Klingon language has such a rabid following that the Bible has been translated into it.

Technically, the closest I'd come to seeing anything related to "Star Trek" was the 1998 parody "Galaxy Quest," in which the actors from a washed-up Trek-like TV show are enlisted by benevolent aliens who think they're the real thing (Little-known fact: That was the first movie role for Justin "I'm a Mac" Long). But I'm also a huge fan of Abrams' hit series "Lost," so I suppose I had a leg up there.

So here is my verdict: This movie is awesome.

The new "Star Trek" film is less an homage to a legendary science fiction franchise than to storytelling in general, back through decades of cinema and television and beyond. A deep respect for literature, pop culture, and epic storytelling is something that Abrams has proven time and again to fans, from the litany of film-rooted "Sawyer nicknames" on "Lost" to the tradition of Japanese monster movies that powered last year's "Cloverfield." This is a movie that will probably be well-regarded by anyone with an appreciation for epic adventure and drama, not to mention fast-paced and often witty dialogue.

And that's what the "Star Trek" prequel needed, considering the hand-wringing that surrounded it from even before it was officially greenlit.

Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman was on hand before the screening to greet the audience and explain a bit about the film's origins: that Paramount, the Viacom-owned studio that is releasing the new film, was well aware of the complications and potential pratfalls of adapting "Star Trek, especially in a prequel form, and especially with the goal of reaching out to both "Trekkies" (or "Trekkers," as I hear there is a difference?) and potential new fans. He said that cinema luminaries, including Steven Spielberg, had warned Abrams that undertaking a project with such a history and legacy of loyal fans could be risky.

But the director went ahead, a second Abrams-helmed "Star Trek" picture was greenlit almost immediately, and his contract with Paramount was extended another five years. Obviously, this is a franchise in which the studio has some real faith.

Pretty early on, you can tell that this isn't the "Star Trek" of the '60s, even though I admittedly don't really know what that is. The first 20 minutes contain not only ear-splitting action sequences, but brand-drops of both Nokia and Budweiser (as well as 'Slusho,' a fictional brand from "Cloverfield"), one very Abrams-esque "gotcha" character reveal that will take most newbies like me by surprise, and the oddly effective use of the Beastie Boys' 1994 song "Sabotage."

There is a pivotal bar fight, which I first took as a nod to "Star Wars," but on second thought, the cinematic barroom confrontation really goes back much further than the Mos Eisley Cantina. (I need to brush up on my knowledge of Westerns.) Again, this is a movie deeply rooted in generations of storytelling both onscreen and off.

I can see why some hardcore "Star Trek" fans may have been nervous about the casting decisions: the Internet Movie Database informs me that Chris Pine, the young actor cast as Captain Kirk, was starring opposite Lindsay Lohan in some tepid romantic comedy a few years ago, and Sulu is played by John Cho, best known for playing Harold in the spliffed-up "Harold and Kumar" movies. I must say that Cho wields a retractable sword just as well as he does a joint, and Pine's Kirk keeps the frat-boy attitude to a relative minimum.

But more importantly, "Star Trek" is just plain fun. And I came to appreciate the fact that I was sitting in that theater without prejudice. I was concerned less about whether the cast would live up to the actors who originated their roles, and more about holy whoa, that spaceship just blew up!. There is, however, a flip side to the universality of the new "Star Trek" that Paramount might not love: The fact that it stands so well on its own might mean that it doesn't mint a new generation of Trekkies.

Like me, for one. As much as I enjoyed the prequel, I can't see myself Netflixing all the DVDs of the past "Star Trek" TV series and movies. I've already got "Lost" to deal with, and one fictional universe and canon is enough for me, thank you very much. Seriously--what does lie in the shadow of the statue? Losties, can you help me out here?

[pastrami0]

you mean, "What lies in the shadow of the statue?" ... as in the big, four-toed statue.

[ralfthedog]

I have always liked Star Trek (Not always what the writers have done to it) however I have yet to find time to get into Lost. I have the first two seasons and will watch them after I finish my next big project.

The thing about Star Trek is, it has always had a great deal of potential but many times the writers and directors kill it. Just watch Wrath of Khan, Voyage home and First Contact. You can skip the rest.

[jlt0x]

Watch all of the movies, including the most recent releases with The Next Generation cast. From Kirk & Spock to Picard & Riker....there has been some interesting stories to tell. The TV series, "Star Trek: Voyager" (with Capt. Janeway) included some very exciting storylines that involved the Borg and their nature of just making life very unpredictable.

Star Trek: The Next Generation is a bit ahead of its time with regard to the kind of technology that was available during its TV series run. They elaborated on many of the concepts & ideas from the original TV series and took them to levels that made your mind spin with the possibilities of the future.

I'm glad the writer liked the movie, as she's never fully experienced Star Trek. That means I can confidently drag my wife to see it know knowing that she'll appreciate the drama & action.

[ralfthedog]

One spoiler request, Does Spock turn evil and cut off the top of someones head by pointing at it?

[pwoon]

LOL.

[JadedGamer]

It is perhaps a good sign for the Heroes franchise that people look at that actor and think "Sylar!" before they 'see' Spock?

[karpenterskids]

I, too, am a Star Trek virgin.


I'm thinking of losing that virginity once the new movie hits theaters, though.

[ewelch]

What lies in the shadow of the stature of liberty? Charles Heston.


Oh, my God!

I'm back!

I'm home.

All the time, it was...

We finally really did it.

You maniacs!

You blew it up!

God dxxx you!

God dxxx you all to hell!

[terminalblue]

"A deep respect for literature, pop culture, and epic storytelling..."

didnt we find out last week that Hurley wrote Empire strikes Back?

[unc0nn3ct3d]

Lost? Oh dear lord, there is just so much better ways to waste away the precious time we have on this earth. What Star Trek, at least the old one's, and sci-fi in general brings to the table that popular drama doesn't is that it brings into question the very core of humanity. Not the core of human emotions mind you, although it does that too, not relationships, but to question the core of our collective humanity. You will never get that in Lost or any other Drama intended to reel you in with the egoic attractiveness that it offers.

Do yourself a favor, put down Lost(for good), go pick up BattleStar Galactica, for if you are going to spend that hour a day or two on your butt do it with something that will allow you to walk away richer than when you sat down

[sanenazok]

"the very core of humanity" - all of the programs are space-based soap operas, especially BSG. None of them "question" much of anything other than rehashing the same old TV mysticism and philosophy kinda like a cable access show about reincarnation only with a budget. Sure these programs and movies are fun. I never got into ST or BSG but liked the first few seasons of SG1 where I could actually relate to some of the characters. That went away pretty fast.

[Dalkorian]

My favorite sci-fi show can kick your favorite sci-fi show's butt!
Pew! Pew! Pew!
;-)

Seriously, Star Trek kicked some serious booty. TNG was my favorite, Picard rocked and nothing could compare to the NCC-1701-D! A saucer section that could separate from the drive section - how kewl was that?

Can't say anything about Lost, since I've never once been tempted to bother watching even a minute of that.

I just wish reading the spoiler alert Caroline gave us made me want to see this new movie. Actually it made me NOT want to see it - ear splitting action scenes, product placements, a "gotcha" character reveal, the Beastie Boy's "Sabotage" and a bar fight? This doesn't sound like much of a sci-fi movie to me at all, let alone worthy of the Star Trek label.

Fascinating.

[cnedd]

Think Lost doesn't measure up to BSG? Dead wrong, and I love BSG. It slumped a bit on season 2, but it recovered, and the current season is the best one yet. They've set new standards in sophisticated storytelling and character development on TV. Each episode is like watching a movie.

[Thunderbuck]

The only real problem with Lost is that it was such a hit in its first season, that the writers and producers wound up in a scramble to extend the overall story arc (there are so many questions posed in the course of the story that there's no WAY this doesn't get resolved).

The problem was, in stretching the plot out, it got pretty thin in places. Episodes--whole scads of them--would pass with NOTHING resolved or revealed; very frustrating. I came very close to giving up on the series after the third season.

With the current season's late start, I managed to forget my frustration with the meandering storyline enough to give the show one last chance. I was pleasantly surprised to find the plot being moved along much faster than it had in the previous seasons. It's still pretty impenetrable, but it actually seems to be moving toward a conclusion.

So, yes, I'm watching again. I'm even enjoying it.

[dlauber]

Sounds like the new Star Trek flick will be the best one since Star Trek IV (actually the only really good Star Trek movie). If Ms. McCarthy would really like to have some fun, she ought to check out Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, regarded by many critics and fans as the best Star Trek series on so many different levels (writing, directing, acting, roster of guest stars, plots, sense of humor, special effects). "The Visitor" episode has been voted the most beloved episode of any Star Trek series (it was the "Field of Dreams" of science fiction). Deep Space Nine was the most thoughtful of all the Star Treks, with many of its multi-episode story arcs far exceeding the quality of any Star Trek movie. It had the best series finale of any Star Trek series (actually critics hailed it as one of the best series finales of any television series) and the only Star Trek captain who really should record an album. I saw Avery Brooks do his one-man show of Paul Robeson a few years ago, and his live singing performance is even better than his singing performances at Deep Space Nine's holosuite bar.

All in all, Deep Space Nine is a great antidote to the campiness of the original Star Trek (which I admit I watched with reverence when it first aired, but I cannot bear to watch now). It really took off at the end of Season 3 and turned into one of the genuinely fine dramas in television history.

[harry_ness]

Star Trek IV - the only really good Star Trek movie? Sure, if you throw logic out the window and don't get too caught up in the hokey whale story, it's a fun movie to watch. The best is clearly The Wrath of Kahn.

[Dalkorian]

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!

;-)

Quite possibly the best Star Trek movie ever, but most definitely the worst overacted scene in movie history. Don't get me wrong, *THAT* was Kirk. I'm having a difficult time even acknowledging this new movie is supposed to be Kirk's Enterprise - only Shatner could do Kirk and honestly Shatner couldn't do much else other than Captain James Tiberius Kirk. Maybe that's why I still think Picard could kick Kirk's butt any day.

Fascinating. ]:-)

[JadedGamer]

"First Contact" - Star Trek VII - sure has the upper hand? That was the last one to also entertain non-trekkers and -trekkies if memory serves.

But what do I know, I even liked "Insurrection".

[TogetherinParis]

Hi,
I am the fount of Lost, proposing it in place of Robinson Caruso for my old friend, Stevie Spielberg. (See my book Hillary's Angel by Ross Nicholson on googlebooks dot com) I told the first Lost story as far as the hatch and then gave them their heads with some general pergatorial guidelines. I'm sorry if you don't like Lost, but then, actually, you're not really supposed to like it, are you? You're just supposed to watch it. I also concepted & storied both Cloverfield and Galaxy Quest (Star Wars was my idea, so was Titanic & Forrest Gump). Have a nice day.

[jaxstephens]

Um, half of this comment makes no sense. Are you sure you're really fluent in English?

[viper396]

You can barely write English let alone be the creative source behind Star Wars, Titanic, and Forrest Gump.

On the other hand you have succesfully made yourself look like a fool.

[dlcusa]

The key to Star Trek appreciation is understanding the world in which it grew up as a prime-time television series--that it was not popular and highly controversial; e.g., television's first interracial kiss. Even with all its faults, most induced by the realities of being a commercial enterprise delivering one hour a week of broadcastable entertainment, it offered hope for the future. We're still in the market for that.

[JonathonStriker]

And you know, I have to believe that the new Star Trek movie can only be reviewed by the ignorant or 'virgin'. Many people who grew up on the old Star Trek series, or at least The Next Generation, could understand what the original creator had intended of the series. Artists, whether playwrights, composers, painters, and others who understand such people, understand that they would be disgusted with how someone has decided to change the image of their creation, and for the pursuit of profit.
I may give this movie a chance, when it comes out as a $1 rental DVD, but I watch the trailers, and think of how someone ruined my childhood love for Speed Racer with that stupid movie.

[jCounsel]

Jonathon:

I agree. I do understand why the current "Prequel" was written, but it is not authentic to the original purpose.

Star Trek has been about understanding differences that exist between people or "peoples." I am afraid, not having seen the prequel yet, that the new movie is adopting the current fad of "action and "male toughness" rather than focusing on, at least an attempt, at meeting the "prime directive..."

While I loved the Bourne movies, those too were a wild divergent view from the books (I simply saw them as, perhaps, an younger Bourne). However, Bourne was violent and suffering from doubt and uncertainty. I would hate to see the new Star Trek be a big departure form the previous shows/films. While it may be a great film, it might have been better as a new movie franchise.

Why the directors/producers think you need to have "star trek" in the title to make a space film successful is beyond me--certainly the reviewer thinks the movie stands on its own.

[DigitalAngelic]

@jCounsel:

And a movie that stands on its own doesn't necessarily have to be a new movie franchise. A film like this is a great way to attract newcomers to the series. Many consider Star Trek to be geeky, for example, but they could see the preview and think "Oh wow, this looks pretty awesome".

And... I'll admit... I've never seen Star Trek, so... I just may have to check this out. :P

[sting7k]

I like this review. Every other thing I read tries to compare it to Star Trek lore already out there and does it live up to the old stuff and fit. But I think it's best to stand on it's own. And I'm glad to hear that someone who has never seen other Trek shows/movies can still enjoy it. Sounds like a good action/sci-fi movie. I've seen a few of the old Trek movies and a bunch of the TV shows but I'm not that versed in everything about it.

[crenstrom]

sting7k - If the move was designed to stand on its own, Abrams shouldn't have used the name 'Star Trek'. By using the name he is implying that it is part of the whole series. It's like owning a taco stand, calling it McDonald's, and calling your tastey burrito a Big Mac. People who have never been to a real McDonald's would think it was fantastic, folks who have been to McDonald's would find it insulting even though it could be better than a real Big Mac. Or it's like your mom buying store-brand cereal or clothes (choose your preference). I'm worried that Abrams is taking the easy route and using a universe that was already created and putting his story in it. Could have had much less controversy if he paid homage to the franchise in the trailer or if was in a new universe.

[k9jdk]

Welcome.

Your review was "fascinating".

May you get **lost** in all things Star Trek. Let's see what's out there.

[Dalkorian]

"Course heading, Captain?"
"Second star to the right and straight on 'till morning."

[setgo]

I'll have to admit that the new movie trailer turns me off from wanting to see the movie. I hate when they re-make a TV series and make the whole cast young and beautiful. It looses credibility for me right there. Everyone doesn't have to look like a model, just hire good actors. I did like the review however, especially from the perspective of a "star trek virgin". I don't know. There are some shows from my childhood that I hold sacred. Til this day I won't give Johnny Depp a chance as Willy Wonka. :)

[MammothCave]

Caroline, great review. I love hearing it from your perspective as someone who has never seen another Star Trek movie or TV show (and I doubt there are many people in America that could fit that bill). I am now more excited than ever to see it. Thanks!!!

[bottle12am]

Do any other Star Wars fans, besides me, want to steal the film reels of Star Trek, head on over to Skywalker Ranch, and beat George Lucas over the head with them so badly that the cadaver dogs wouldn't recognize him, all the while screaming "This is how you do a prequel! This is how you do a prequel!"

[paris74]

No.

[ralfthedog]

Yes.

[Dalkorian]

Actually ... no. But the demented side of me laughed while reading your post. Does that help?

[d3vildog69]

lmao. Truth... How could you destroy an epic series such as star wars?

Oh i know... see episodes 1-3 lol

[zhakidd532]

My brother is a big fan of Star Trek, I might go with him to see this movie. I'm a Zachary Quinto fan because he's just epic on Heroes. That's one of the reasons I'll go see it.

[d3vildog69]

Slyar Pwns

[NJScoundrel]

Well that seals it. I now have ZERO interest in seeing this movie. A Star Trek movie with "brand-drops of both Nokia and Budweiser?" ***? A Beastie Boys song? Are you kidding me? This must be the parallel universe Trek where the overhyped, network television director gets a big budget and is given the keys to the franchise only to destroy everthing that the series & movies were ever about just to cash in at the box office.

This is a movie that I should be excited to seee but the fact that Abrams' fangirls & boys are all a quiver about it makes me want to wretch. Cloverfield was an unwatchable monster movie and after all the Losties cleared out of the theater after the first week, the movie tanked. I can only hope the same for this movie.

[ralfthedog]

Cloverfield had some of the best character development of any move. He started with shallow characters that you cared noting for. Then he put them in stressful circumstances, let you see the heroes they had inside. Then he let you see the rest of their insides as they were ripped apart and eaten.

Truly brilliant movie.

[harry_ness]

Get over yourself. Nobody is forcing you to watch anything. What were you expecting, another lame movie with the next generation cast? I'm a huge fan of the original series and am excited as hell to see this film, and will give it a chance on its own merits, not because (unlike you), I have some personal issue Abrams.

Also, I agree with ralfthedog - Cloverfield was a brilliant movie. The fact that you didn't get it speaks volumes.

[Dalkorian]

I'm with NJ regarding this new "Star Trek" movie, Caroline's review didn't make it sound much like a Star Trek movie at all. I can't say much about Cloverfield because I wasn't ever really interested in seeing it - until I read Ralf's summary. See the heros they had inside, then the rest of their insides as they were ripped apart and eaten. I ROFL'd at that one! Maybe I missed something in missing that flick after all!

[Balloonknot]

Interesting take from someone who's never seen any of the previous movies or shows. I'm really looking forward to this; even moreso now that I've read a lot of good reviews, this one included. Heck, I might be able to drag my wife to it as well. Although, truthfully, she's extremely fortunate just to be the woman lucky enough to hang out with and be married to me. Sorry gals, this one's taken.

[dynot]

This is incredible! I never would have expected it! Amazing....truely amazing!

There are actually people who are still watching Lost.

[maxthedork]

Funny, I feel the same way about Survivor and American Idol.