Thoughts on "Star Trek" with spoilers (#star_trek)
Warning: spoilers ahead.
Let me say first, at the outset, that I loved this movie. I found it exciting, thought-provoking and satisfying. The characters were believiable and innovative, despite being grounded in the original performances, and the action, technology and story were all true to my recollection of the Star Trek universe.
My first Trek love is the Original Series, but I liked this movie and its feel far more than Voyager, Deep Space 9 and the later seasons of The Next Generation. The film has received lots of well-deserved praise so I don’t need to continue in that vein. But I do have an issue.
(Last warning: Spoilers ahead!)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I just don’t understand why Abrams and his creative team felt the need to reinvent the history of the Enterprise A rather than just retell it. For example:
- Why the need to destroy Vulcan?
- Why make Spock responsible for the annihilation of either of the two planets?
- Why eliminate Jim Kirk’s relationship with his father?
- Why create a romantic relationship between bridge crew members that never existed before?
- I know this is a niggling detail, but why does young Scotty need to know about technological breakthroughs he won’t make until later in his life?
I guess what I am asking is this: new and existing fans are both responding well to the movie - we all would have loved to see a straight origins story. Why did the film need the time-travel maguffin to initiate action?
