<<SPOILER ALERT>>
Just to be clear, I don’t think the new Star Trek was a bad movie. I think it was a bad Star Trek movie. There is a difference.
As Science Fiction films go it was a bang up, knock out success. It had an interesting story line, thrills and spills, wonderful special effects and an interesting villain. Even if one were to go so far as to consider it an homage to the Trek universe it might be palatable. But as a Star Trek film it’s a completely atrocious, god awful, pathetic, train wreck, disaster of a film. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s talk about why this film doesn’t measure up.
First a Little History…
The Star Trek universe, originally created and helmed by Gene Roddenberry, has always followed a basic set of rules that, over time, has become more vast and detailed thanks to approved contributions to the universe’s mythology in the form of user manuals, ship guides, and other paraphernalia not commonplace to most fiction. The Star Trek genre has inspired scientists and science fiction authors alike to compile books analyzing the functional limitations of the science used by the characters within this universe. Star Trek is governed by this set of principles that act as the operating manual for this universe.
Over the forty plus years that this fictional universe has been in existence these rules, principles, and documents have become canonical code of conduct for people seeking to create new content within this universe. The Star Trek universe is so vast and varied that it needs these rules so that there is a consistency of theme, message, and focus between all the many disparate parts that make up the tapestry that is Star Trek. The franchise as a whole has generated TV shows, movies, books, comic books, RPG’s, video games, card games, table-top games, action figures, and various other merchandise that are all interconnected through a common bond.
Initial Response… Temporal Prime Directive? Anyone??
So you understand that what we’re dealing with here is a 40 year old multi-faceted franchise with a huge fan base. Right… What strikes me as completely absurd, is that in one swift moment, through the decision of a single content contributor to this genre, the entire legacy of the Star Trek universe has been completely and utterly annihilated, and no one seems to be complaining. No one is even questioning the decision… and I’m confused.
One the key components of the Star Trek universe, the rule of law that governs all characters actions is something called, “The Prime Directive.” Or, as it pertains to the newest Star Trek move, the Temporal Prime Directive. See the reference materials available on the web for this term:
“The Temporal Prime Directive is intended to prevent a time traveler from interfering in the natural development of a timeline. The TPD was formally created by the 29th Century, and was enforced through an agency of Starfleet called the Temporal Integrity Commission, which monitored and restricted deviations from the natural flow of history.” Wikipedia – "Prime Directive"
“The Temporal Prime Directive is a fundamental Starfleet principle. All Starfleet personnel were strictly forbidden from directly interfering with historical events and were required to maintain the timeline and prevent history from being altered. It also restricts people from telling too much about the future, so as not to cause paradoxes or alter the timeline.” Memory Alpha, Star Trek Wiki – “Temporal Prime Directive”
According to the above information on these directives, the entire concept that predicates the supposed “parallel universe” created in the movie, “Star Trek”, should not be allowed to persist as it damages and alters the existing (proper) timeline. This directive is already in existence in the future when Spock fails in his attempt to save the Romulan home planet, creates a black-hole, and is subsequently pulled back into the past. All actions taken by Spock, and Captain Nero, should be reconciled by Spock prior to the conclusion of the film. Restoring the proper time-line is the logical course of action. It protects the universe from any number of unknown, and possibly disastrous, variations in the future that could now occur due to the destruction of the planet Vulcan.
This decision, made by the writing, directing, and producing staff, to leave the broken time-line as it is and create a new story-line for existing characters in a “rebooted universe” is absolutely counter-intuitive to the 40 years of existing canon in this universe, and begs the question: What the fuck were they thinking?
What the Hell is a Reboot Anyway?
The term “Reboot” has been bandied about by the production staff, and director JJ Abrams, to make sure that existing fans, and prospective new fans to the Star Trek universe understand that this, “Isn’t your Father’s Star Trek.” The concept of “rebooting” the Star Trek universe to garner new fans is a perfectly reasonable and welcome method to introduce new fans to an existing science fiction universe that hasn’t generated a lot of new fans in the past ten years. The managers of the Star Trek brand were desperately looking for a way to inject some young blood into this universe and attract a new breed of fans to the universe. Again, this is all perfectly reasonable and acceptable in order to preserve and maintain the Star Trek universe. So the next appropriate question is obvious: What is not acceptable? That too is simple: It’s not acceptable to make the decision to create a story-line that breaks one of the most basic tenets of the Star Trek universe, then leave it broken in order to make it possible to create new content without the limitations that are imposed by existing canon doctrine. This is what people “in the business” refer to as a “Cop-out.”
Rather than embrace the existing canon, and rebooting the universe using the rules that pre-exist the new film, the production team of “Star Trek” made the decision to completely toss everything that came before this new film, and move forward uninhibited. Why is this a mistake? The answer is simple enough, but requires a little analysis of what has kept the Star Trek franchise going for the past forty years: Trekkies, Trekkers, and Fan-boys. The true life-blood of the Star Trek franchise has always been the fans. They are the guaranteed selling base for every new franchise decision. New movies, TV shows, books, comics, you name it… they buy it. But there’s a condition to the relationship that dictates how the existing fan-base operates. You can’t screw with a good thing and not expect repercussions. Specifically, you can’t make the decision to throw out everything that the fans know and love simply because it makes the process of developing a new movie within the universe easier. This decision, while it may have garnered new fans, will ultimately result in existing fans, (the die-hard hardcore lovers of the Trek universe), to be less inclined to support future franchise endeavors because they don’t feel that their interests are being represented by those helming the new content being created within the universe they knew so well.
When Does a Reboot Work?
Let’s take a look at some examples of reboots that took existing franchises and improved on them in a way that supported the existing fan base, and had the potential to garner new fans. Ever heard of a guy named Bruce Wayne? How about Clark Kent? The DC Comics, “Batman” and “Superman” franchises were created in 1939 and 1932 respectively. They have been depicted in countless comic books, TV shows, movies, cartoons, lunch boxes, action figures… you name and these two characters have done it. Most recently these two franchises made the decision to “reboot” and start a new series of films using new actors, with the intent to show a new side of these dynamic comic book folk heroes.
In June of 2005 we saw the release of, “Batman Begins”, a reboot to the Bruce Wayne chronicle starring Christian Bale. This film scored huge success with both existing fans of the Batman franchise in addition to garnering new fans. It was a success because it struck a balance between the old and the new that resulted in an effective and exciting film. In June of 2006, DC Comics followed up their previous year’s success with the release of, “Superman Returns”, a reboot to the Clark Kent saga using an unknown actor to play the iconic American hero in a film that was met with tremendous success, and huge accolades from the fans. Both of these movies did things within their respective universes that were new, different, and challenged some of our existing understanding of these characters and their world view. But in the case of each of these films, the production teams made the decision to conform to existing canon enough that their strong fan-base was not alienated by changes that would result in an entirely new set of rules for these well known characters. Batman did not develop the ability to fly, or use sonar to see in the dark unaided through bat-eyes. Superman did not suddenly have green skin, or gills, or live under water. The basic rules that govern how these characters conduct themselves remained the same, because their history is well known and documented.
Why is it, that the above is true of both the Superman and Batman franchises, but the people who manage the Star Trek universe think it’s okay to make the decision to completely throw out everything that the Federation, and Starfleet, have done. Why do they think that it is acceptable to throw out everything that defines the universe in favor of making a (supposedly) more interesting, unique, or exciting film?
Simply put: Destroying the planet Vulcan is just as absurd as giving Superman green skin and gills. It doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t accomplish anything good within the story-line, and ultimately contaminates everything that comes after such an ill conceived decision.
The Star Trek Legacy…
Many of the existing fans of the Star Trek universe like to believe that Gene Roddenberry had a very specific vision for the Star Trek universe. His vision was principled based on an ideal of how the future should turn out. Were he alive today, it is my argument that he would not support some of the decisions made in this new film. Here’s a list of some of the things that I imagine would seriously bother the creator of this universe:
1) Creating an alternate time line due to a scientific miscalculation, then allowing that timeline to persist rather than simply going to the point in time when things went wrong and fixing it. Allowing an entire planet to be destroyed because of a time-traveling incident is unacceptable. When the Federation knows that time has been altered, and that has resulted in an entire planet being destroyed they fix it.
2) Not fixing the above outlined scenario is a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive. No amount of interesting story-line or new franchise opportunities can make up for the destruction of Vulcan. It violates the Prime Directive. It’s as simple as that. It may be true that Kirk, Picard, and Janeway were okay with bending the rules here and there when it comes to the Prime Directive, but when inaction results in the destruction of a planet, and the near extinction of a race… they don’t simply throw their hands up in the air and say: "We must now be living an alternate reality, or parallel universe.” Arguing that the story now taking place is within a new time-line, or a branch-point is not a valid argument. If the Federation is aware that a change in the time-line has resulted in a serious change in the universe they would take whatever action necessary to resolve it.
The Federation makes the decision to violate the prime directive for Earth, (SEE STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME), but somehow it’s okay to bring whales back from the past to save future Earth, but it’s not okay to save the planet Vulcan from total annihilation because of one crazy Romulan? Here’s an interesting point for you: to fix the timeline so that the previous history is restored would only require Spock to travel to the point in time where he failed to save Romulus from the super-nova. Saving Romulus fixes the entire universe. Why wouldn’t they do that? What motivated that decision? There’s no reason NOT to do that. The answer is that this “Isn’t your Father’s Star Trek.” I would take it one step further and argue that what happened in this movie is not Star Trek at all… It doesn’t follow existing canon on time travel. This film took audiences into a non-Star Trek universe, one that I’m not particularly interested in seeing anything more from.
3) For the sake of argument, let’s play along with JJ Abramms’ vision of the Star Trek universe… Let’s pretend neither of the two above arguments are reasonable, and I’m simply geeking out like a fan-boy… Done. Explain this to me: The Planet Vulcan has been destroyed, the Vulcan high council has been reduced to 4 of its 10 members… and the remaining Vulcans in the universe are refugees without a home world. FINE. The time-line in this new alter-reality universe is now screwed up to the point that none of the future that we know from The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager can or will ever happen. We’ve now so thoroughly screwed up the universe that none of the future histories, (the legacy on which this film is supposedly based,) will EVER TAKE PLACE. So effectively, JJ Abramms single handedly took the entire Star Trek universe, crumpled it up, and dumped it in the garbage. Am I the ONLY Trek fan that has a problem with this?
4) Here’s something to ponder: The planet Vulcan has been destroyed, and the action was taken by the Romulans; who’s to say the entire Trek universe and the Federation specifically won’t shift gears, and focus on the annihilation of the Romulans and the Klingons? Let’s take a closer look: Nero’s ship reportedly destroyed 43 of the Klingon Empires war-birds. Would this not incite the Klingons to a harsher position within the universe? Who’s to say the NEW future won’t result in a completely Militaristic Federation dedicated to conquering rather than exploration? In this vision of Star Trek, the Klingon Empire will NEVER reach a functional peace with the Federation. Gene Roddenberry would never allow this to happen in his universe.
One could argue that this film could be the source of the alternate reality from the "Dark Mirror" episodes and books from TOS and TNG. This universe is so tragically backwards from the ones we know from the films, TV show, and books that it might as well be the branch point that spawned that Dark alter-reality. A reality where the Federation doesn’t seek out new life and civilizations based on the prime directive, but rather based on the concept of conquering and occupation. There’s a reason why they called it DARK Mirror.
5) No amount of cool nostalgic moments can make up for the fact that the most significant message that we’re left with at the end of this film is that nothing is the same, and everything we knew is gone. The Butterfly Effect doesn’t even apply here… the Star Trek universe lost the Planet Vulcan… the future as we knew it is GONE FOREVER.
Final Analysis…
I am not interested in supporting, endorsing, or furthering any film that suggests the time-line for the entire Star Trek universe should been completely scrubbed. Consider the implications… I’ll give you one… I’m sure you can come up with more on your own:
Who’s going to be humanities ambassador to Q now that we can no longer guarantee that Jean Luc Picard will be 1) Born, 2) Join Star Fleet, or 3) End up on the future Enterprise D at Far Point? We already know that simple decisions, minor changes in action can have far reaching implications within the universe. (See ST:TNG Episode, “Tapestry”).
In the Star Trek universe many things are inevitable. It is only a matter of time until the Federation will have to face off against Q, The Borg, the Nexus… the list goes on and on! Frankly, I’m not interested in a new time-line where we figure all of these things out a different way with new people.
Like every other pure blood Trek fan out there I enjoyed the Original Series… I enjoyed TNG… I put up with DS9 and Voyager… but those universes are fully developed and they were successful. Ignoring the future implications this movie has in the Star Trek universe is short sighted at best, and disastrously stupid at worst. Again, “Star Trek” is NOT a bad movie. Simply put: it isn’t a Star Trek movie at all… and that’s particularly ironic considering the title.
There’s nothing wrong with enjoying this film, or with taking a lot of joy from the references to all the Original Series characters. This movie was a lot of fun. Unfortunately it also fell victim to such an enormous blunder that I don’t think I’ll be interested in seeing any future movies that follow this one… I just don’t see any point in continuing in a universe that, based on existing Star Trek doctrine, simply shouldn’t exist.
