I am as divided personally in my opinions about J.J. Abrams' Star Trek as the Trekkers'* community is collectively.
On the one hand, there are a lot of things that J.J. Abrams did slightly wrong with his re-boot of the franchise: Spock was a bit too emotional; the pacing is far too quick (scenes of ships travelling between distant worlds were shot in such a way as to make it seem as if they were in flight for only a few minutes before arriving at their destination, which was incredibly jarring); the guy who played Kirk doesn't have the correct eye colour; a scene which provided a crucial explanation for major plot points was deleted from the theatrical release, leaving viewers puzzled until it the scene was leaked on-line (my thanks to whoever leaked it, and shame on J.J. Abrams for not ensuring it was included in the theatrical cut); the security guard known as "Cupcake" displayed a level of professionalism so low that he should never have gotten posted to anything more prestigious than a freighter… which wasn't capable of warp… and which was assigned to haul ore from asteroids around in-system; most significantly, the film failed to include any of the ethical discussions which endeared Star Trek to its fan base; and lastly, there was that other thing…
… the man clearly has a problem.
That being said, there are many things that he did not just correctly, but well.
The concept of the film was a clever trick in many ways. An event occurred in the original Trek time-line, after the conclusion of Voyager, which resulted in several persons being sent back in time — to a date prior to the beginning of The Original Series. They were willing to alter history to achieve a goal (although in their defence, they only took that route after having their sanity compromised by years of torture — which, by the way, is covered in the deleted scene I mentioned). Their actions caused a separate timeline to diverge from the original one (for those of you who aren't science-fiction fans, think of what happened in Back To The Future, and you'll understand). That starting point gave Abrams a brand new continuity within which to work and significantly more creative freedom than he'd have had otherwise — his team neither had to completely ignore the original continuity to the point that calling his film Star Trek would be a misnomer, nor were they beholden to it in a way which would force them to merely remake the existing material. It was very smart to take that route, as it allowed them to make alterations to the back-stories of several major characters without being accused of betraying the fans (well, for the most part). I have to tip my hat to Abrams' team on that front.
The story itself holds up to the bar set for Star Trek stories by The Original Series (if not quite meeting the higher standard set by The Next Generation). As I try to maintain a no-spoilers policy for my reviews, I won't go into further details.
The characters themselves are still fundamentally the same people as they were in The Original Series, even if their traits are expressed differently due to the changes in their back-story. Spock is still a solid, stand-up guy. Uhura is still spunky and smart. McCoy is still a blunt-spoken, heart-on-his-sleeve country boy. Chekov is still an eager whiz kid. Pike is still reining the heart of a swashbuckler in with a sharp mind and seasoned experience. Sulu is still cooly competent. Kirk is still a jerk. The acting from the actors who play the characters is pretty solid, and the casting is almost perfect — for the most part, the actors nailed the parts flawlessly.
All in all, the film showed promise — in that it set up the rest of the new timeline in a way that built a solid foundation for future stories to be told in this timeline.
However, I'll be reserving my judgement on how well that foundation holds up over the next few films.
The entire point of science fiction is to ask "what if…?" and explore the possibilities implied by the answers. Those discussions I mentioned earlier — the long in-depth philosophical discussions about ethics and principles — are consequently very important for science fiction, and their absence from this movie could be felt.
The absence of such discussions will become a sticking point for many fans. If those discussions don't make an appearance in future films, then a lot of Trekkers may desert the new material and spend their money on new re-releases of the old series.
That said, the film is still more than worth watching.
~ STEELCAVER
* = yes, Trekkers. The phrase "Trekkies" is only used by etymologically-challenged half-wits who haven't bothered to ask Trek fans what they call themselves.
On The Web:
