Star Trek (2009)
The reinvention of any popular franchise certainly comes with many risks. Twelve years ago, Casino Royale was hailed as a triumph in rebooting the 007 brand. It was hard edged, back to basics movie that made the spy genre relevant to a contemporary audience, without diluting its source material excessively. Yet this process went a step too far with Quantum of Solace, with a film that simply didn't feel Bond enough. Needless to say, the rights holders corrected this error. The success of the BBC's relaunch of Doctor Who hinged on making the formula accessible to modern viewers. Yet the new format of standalone episodes, celebrity guest stars and an emphasis on action over story, can be difficult to maintain and requires the involvement of top writers to keep the momentum going. Then of course there are the fans.
The reinvention of any popular franchise certainly comes with many risks. Twelve years ago, Casino Royale was hailed as a triumph in rebooting the 007 brand. It was hard edged, back to basics movie that made the spy genre relevant to a contemporary audience, without diluting its source material excessively. Yet this process went a step too far with Quantum of Solace, with a film that simply didn't feel Bond enough. Needless to say, the rights holders corrected this error. The success of the BBC's relaunch of Doctor Who hinged on making the formula accessible to modern viewers. Yet the new format of standalone episodes, celebrity guest stars and an emphasis on action over story, can be difficult to maintain and requires the involvement of top writers to keep the momentum going. Then of course there are the fans.
Considering these points, the 2009 reboot of the Star Trek franchise was a substantial risk. Yet a recent third viewing has verified my initial assessment of a job well done. I personally thought that writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, were quite inventive in finding a way to circumnavigate the enormous wealth of existing lore and sundry baggage associated with the iconic franchise. The alternative time line concept certainly allows future sequels to wipe the slate clean if they so choose. Yet reinventing the wheel can be a double-edged sword and although purist fans do not determine the box office success of a movie, they can prove to be a very vocal and negative group to deal with. Hence despite a worldwide gross of $385,680,446 and broad mainstream critical approval, Star Trek has a clear group of detractors.
J.J. Abram certainly succeeded in casting actors that do more than just mimic the performances of the original series. The cast find the right balance between homage to the original cast and defining their own roles and making their own mark. This aspect of the production seems the least disputed and has managed to satisfy a lot of fans expectations. I personally felt that Karl Urban's Leornard "Bones"McCoy, was perhaps the most successful performance getting the tone exactly right. Zachary Quinto was a solid match fro Spock and I could not fault his interpretation of the role. However, the late Leonard Nimoy still remains the focus of every scene he is in. I don't know if it because the man and the character have become so interwoven, or because Spock is simply one of the most intriguing, well written and iconic fictional creations of the last forty years.
One of the outstanding aspects of the previous films in the franchise has been the superb scores, by such great composers as Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner. Michael Giacchino new soundtrack is bold and different but compliments the film exceptionally. He defies the obvious pitfall of utilising Alexander Courage's iconic original theme, too frequently in the movie and chooses to use it at the end. His new main theme is both dignified and portentous. It reinforces the sense of starting anew. The audio design for the entire film is very modern, yet veteran sound engineer Ben Burt still managed to ensure that certain aspects maintained a retro quality.
Star Trek is an integral part of popular culture and it its remarkable that the franchise has been revived so successfully, when you consider how much scope there was to get it wrong. However, the frenetic style of modern cinema is quite evident and the there’s predilection towards resolving conflicts by violence, which potentially flies in the face of Gene Roddenberry's original ideology. But the underlying theme of relationships, friendships, discovering ourselves though others and finding our place in the world still remain. I'm sure in the weeks to come the internet will be filled with information, dissections and pondering over the latest entry in the series, currently being developed by Quentin Tarantino. In the meantime, I am very pleased that something I have always enjoyed has so far been treated with respect and has remained thoroughly entertaining.
![Star Trek Discovery S01E01 The Vulcan Hello.mkv_snapshot_07.19_[2017.09.25_17.54.13].jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54e310f0e4b0f4a6ba3ac899/1506359625650-D976K1OBW47HSSSFN2S2/Star+Trek+Discovery+S01E01+The+Vulcan+Hello.mkv_snapshot_07.19_%5B2017.09.25_17.54.13%5D.jpg)
Super 8 (2011)
When you see the names of such cinematic luminaries as Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams together on the same movie poster, naturally your expectations are going to be high. Yet when watching the various trailers for Super 8, just prior to its release in 2011, I was somewhat cautious. I have discussed in the past at some length the ambiguous nature of trailers and that they can misrepresent a film. Yet even bearing this in mind at the time, I couldn’t help but feel that Super 8 seemed like a somewhat self-indulgent homage to Spielberg's earlier work. I subsequently saw the movie at the cinema in August that year and my suspicions were validated. However, over time I have spoken to several friends who are advocates of the movie, so I thought I’d watch it a second time. Sadly, I still find myself unable to label Super 8 as anything else other than adequate. Now I would hasten to add, that I use adequate within the context of both director’s body of work. An adequate film from either Mr Spielberg or Abrams is still superior to many of their competitors. But that's not the point. I simply expected better from such a project.
When you see the names of such cinematic luminaries as Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams together on the same movie poster, naturally your expectations are going to be high. Yet when watching the various trailers for Super 8, just prior to its release in 2011, I was somewhat cautious. I have discussed in the past at some length the ambiguous nature of trailers and that they can misrepresent a film. Yet even bearing this in mind at the time, I couldn’t help but feel that Super 8 seemed like a somewhat self-indulgent homage to Spielberg's earlier work. I subsequently saw the movie at the cinema in August that year and my suspicions were validated. However, over time I have spoken to several friends who are advocates of the movie, so I thought I’d watch it a second time. Sadly, I still find myself unable to label Super 8 as anything else other than adequate. Now I would hasten to add, that I use adequate within the context of both director’s body of work. An adequate film from either Mr Spielberg or Abrams is still superior to many of their competitors. But that's not the point. I simply expected better from such a project.
Super 8 is not a pure monster movie or creature feature. The alien aspect to the film is nothing more than a secondary plot device. This film is mainly about growing up in the seventies, adolescence and bereavement. A lot is done to try and recapture the look and feel of the decade, yet despite the production design and the cultural references, such as period music, CB radio and the use of period slang, the film doesn't quite work. Why? Because the central characters, although steeped in the superficial trappings of the time are a little bit too worldly, articulate, sensitive and thoughtful. They display to many modern sensibilities and concerns. Rather than producing an accurate portrayal of life at the times, Super 8 is very much Abrams homage to the era. And like most odes to a bygone era it paints a sentimental picture, rather than a credible one. That’s not to say that it is bad. It is simply unauthentic.
Don't get me wrong, the central characters played by Joel Courtney, Riley Griffiths and Elle Fanning, are very likeable. Too many movies churn out stereotypical depictions of children or go the opposite way and place them on pedestals. Super 8 features some amusing banter of the sort that kids of this era would have. All the actors involved give good performances. But they all seem a little too perfect, coming across more as archetypes rather than fully rounded characters. I am of a comparable age to J.J Abrams and my childhood was nowhere near as socially complex as that depicted in the movie. Nor were my friends overburdened with such talent or driven by such focused aspiration. What we have in Super 8 is very much an adult’s intellectual deconstruction of childhood, rather than a reflection of it. The boisterous shouting of The Goonies or the smart alec antics of The Monster Squad ring far truer to me.
However, looking beyond this tonal stumbling block, there are some very enjoyable cinematic references in Super 8, many of which seem to be from Mr Spielberg’s back catalogue. For example, a cars electrical system fails at a critical moment, only to come back on with a jolt. Then there's the iconic imagery of kids cycling round idyllic suburban neighbourhoods, free from parental control or interference. There are also subtle nods to films such as John Carpenter’s The Thing with electrical items vanishing, possibly to be utilised by the alien for some makeshift vehicle. There's also a nice theme that's developed in which all the local dogs flee the area. For me, it's these little creative anecdotes that if expanded upon would have given the movie more character and depth.
Yet director Abrams is content to leave these aspects unexplored, in favour of his child centric narrative. As this is the central theme of the film, I can understand why the adult characters are a lot less developed and given less screen time. As a plot device it actually strengthens the under lying theme of the lack of connection between father and son. However, Super 8 falls down quite considerably with regard to its lead villain, Airforce Colonel Nelec played by Noah Emmerich. He is purely arbitrary and denoted as evil purely by his military association and his penchant for killing people by lethal injection. Bad guys are often far more interesting than the virtuous heroes and it's a shame that we do not find out more about him in this instance.
J.J. Abrams has a strong visual sense, very much like Spielberg. There are some very clever images woven into Super 8 over its two-hour running time. The tanks driving through the children's playground for instance and the use of silhouettes. Michael Giacchino's score is very strong and underpins rather than overwhelms the proceedings. There is much to like about the film and if you are not disposed to be as analytical as I am, you will be entertained. But if it had broadened its remit and shied away from the perennial Hollywood trope of canonising beautiful, yet deceased mothers, it could have been a far more rewarding film. A more honest and less emotional depiction of the times, as well as a little more focus on characters and motive would have improved things greatly.
