I have seen the new Star Trek movie twice, once on opening weekend and once, in IMAX, the following weekend. In short, I thought it was fantastic, and I would encourage everyone to see it. In this post, I will provide a rambling postmortem / braindump on what I thought worked, what I thought didn’t work, and a bit of the big picture. If you are interested in a more traditional review, you can find some aggregated reviews here, and I think this one most accurately reflects my feelings. Before I go any further though, I want to start with this short disclaimer:

This post contains spoilers. Do not read further if you have not seen the new Star Trek movie and you are planning on doing so (though at this point I have to ask: why are you waiting?).

Alright, with that disclaimer out of the way, I’ll move on to the movie. The creators of the new Star Trek were tasked with the challenge of making a movie that appeals to fans with over 40 years of history invested in the Star Trek universe as well as fans new to the series. In all, they did a fantastic job with this.

The primary reason for their success is the time travel plot device that splits the Star Trek universe in two. For me, this effectively eliminates arguments from longtime fans about the Star Trek canon and what did or did not happen in some third rate novel that only a faction of the people have heard about much less read. I can understand why someone would find the use of time travel a bad move. Star Trek movies have done time travel before. The science is fuzzy, but this is science fiction, Star Trek science has always been fuzzy, and I’m willing to suspend disbelief and accept the scenario as plausible for the sake of the franchise reboot.

Once you accept this plot device, you can more easily appreciate the characters and enjoy the creative ways in which they meet. Much of the success in this part of the film was due to the wonderful job in casting. It was clear that their goal was to cast young yet capable actors without established names in the industry. Right from the start, Chris Pine was a fantastic Kirk, and Zachary Quinto was an outstanding Spock. Also, I felt Scotty’s introduction fit extremely well. McCoy’s lines about how his wife divorced him leaving him with nothing but his bones were a bit iffy to me, but other than that I felt Karl Ubran did a pretty good job.

One of the things that stuck me as a somewhat unusual thought to have about a Star Trek movie was that I felt the music was extremely well done. Really, it was a highlight of the film. The songs chosen for various scenes like Kirk’s childhood rebellion and the scene at the bar were excellent choices. Moreover, the musical score for the rest of the film supported the story without getting in the way. The special effects for a movie like this can only hurt you if you do them wrong. It’s just hard to impress with visuals anymore, but I was definitely impressed with the music.

If you’re going to make reboot the Star Trek franchise, then you’ve got to have a great story. Much of the Star Trek franchise is based on deeper discussion-oriented themes like politics, sociology, and culture rather than on action-oriented themes. (As evidenced by The Ethics of Star Trek.) The primary writers (Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) for Star Trek had to focus on appeasing this fan base while bringing in a newer audience. They already had success rebooting the Transformers franchise, but I felt that script failed to have much long lasting appeal upon subsequent viewings.

There are several reasons to think that the Star Trek reboot will avoid this fate. First, they successfully incorporated one of the most interesting and enduring elements of the Star Trek franchise: the Kobayashi Maru. The Kobayashi Maru is a test taken at Star Fleet Academy that forces students to face a no-win scenario. It has been one of my personal favorite elements of Star Trek lore since I first saw Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Facing certain death is absolutely a test of character with all sorts of socio-political implications, and the Kobayashi Maru raises many of these questions: Is it even possible to test for a response to the no-win scenario? What is the proper response to a no-win scenario? What is the proper response to being asked to take a test that cannot reasonably be passed? Do you have to understand fear to be a leader?

Second, the movie masterfully follows a successful story pattern known as the Hero’s Journey. Essentially, the Hero’s Journey pattern works as follows:

  1. Our young hero is forced to choose between leaving everything comfortable behind and venturing into the unknown.
  2. Our hero must not only learn how to survive but also to thrive in the unknown.
  3. Our hero returns back to the comfortable world after vanquishing that which caused him to leave in the first place.

This pattern occurs in countless movies, myths, and stories throughout human history. It is something that resonates with people because it matches with our own lives at a deep level. We grow up, we leave the nest, and eventually we build a nest of our own. If you are interested in more information, check out Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Star Trek does an excellent job following this pattern without force feeding it to the audience. The writers wonderfully balanced hat tips to the original Star Trek world, action scenes, and comedy with this basic plot outline.

Third, the story took genuinely bold steps that will affect future movies in unpredictable ways. They destroyed Vulcan. Vulcan was a huge part of the Star Trek canon, and a primary ally in the Federation. This will undoubtedly affect future movies. There’s a romance between Spock and Uhura. Many people forget that the first televised inter-racial kiss was on November 22, 1968 (the five year anniversary of the JFK assassination) on the original Star Trek series between Kirk, not Spock, and Uhura in an episode called Plato’s Stepchildren. You can see it here on YouTube:

Read Nichelle Nichols’s thoughts on the kiss years later, including Dr. Martin Luther King’s role in making it happen. Of course, this post wouldn’t be complete without Spock’s thoughts on Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldana:

Frankly, I was extremely jealous of his scenes with Zoe Saldana, and I think it’s totally unfair that I never got to do that. I will never forgive the writers and the director, for having put me in this position, to have to be watching that, rather than participating.

Leonard Nimoy

Finally, there are many who might say that Star Trek has stopped breaking barriers and lost its moral relevance. It has certainly been financially relevant for the first time in quite a while. It will likely break the $200 million gross domestic revenue mark this weekend, making it the top earning movie of the year. This is encouraging news to people who want to see more Star Trek movies, but it doesn’t really help in the “moral relevance” category.

In the beginning of the movie, the crew of the USS Kelvin encounters a “lightening storm in space.” The captain is walking around part of the ship heading towards his chair. When he sits down, a crew member walks past his left shoulder from the left side of the screen to the right and says, “Captain, we have a visual.” That man was Randy Pausch. The scene takes about a second.

I should take a moment here to mention that the first time I saw Star Trek, I was watching it in the theater with Blayne, of Blane Sucks fame. After the movie, I mentioned Randy Pausch, and Blayne said, “Who is that?” Clearly, he does not read this blog because I have talked about Randy repeatedly on this blog.

I do not believe that Star Trek has lost its moral relevance. The moral tale of the Star Trek film is essentially this: What we choose do with our lives matters. It is important because, although there is no guarantee that we will make a difference, if we do not even try, then there is a guarantee we won’t make a difference. Sometimes, shit happens, and we can’t stop it from happening. It is how you react that matters.

Kirk grows up without a father and it affects him deeply. He is constantly told by people what a great man his father was. He becomes disillusioned with his own life. How could he ever live up to what his father did, particularly since his father wasn’t there to teach him? People view Kirk’s father as a noble hero, who’s life was worth of study, but his father wasn’t there for him. Captain Pike reminds Kirk that Kirk’s father was a captain in Starfleet for all of 12 minutes and saved 800 lives. Pike dares Kirk to be more than “the only genius-level repeat offender in the Midwest” because what we do with our lives matters. We can make a difference.

Think about this for a moment in the context of Randy Pausch’s family. Randy’s kids are, right now, growing up without a father. Perhaps they will be told by others what a great man their father was. For what it’s worth, I consider their father to have been a great man. I sincerely hope they don’t become disillusioned with their own lives, but I imagine it would be easy for this to happen under these circumstances. Their father lived almost two years with pancreatic cancer, and he impacted millions of lives with his Last Lecture. Growing up is hard. I can’t imagine the circumstances for Randy Pausch’s kids make it any easier. Of course, Randy might point out this:

We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.

Randy Pausch

We do get to choose how we react. We can, each of us, individually, make a difference. Our lives matter. The new Star Trek movie emphasizes this from Kirk’s decision to join Starfleet, to his decision to cheat at the no-win scenario where no one could make a difference, to his perseverance in the face of almost certain failure. In my mind, that makes Star Trek as morally relevant as movies come. If you haven’t seen it, go this weekend. You will not regret it.