For Star Trek, I forget if you approve or disapprove of Director Abrams. I acknowledge he has directorial talent, loved Lost, liked Cloverfield (I think he produced that one), Super 8, Star Trek reboot, but sorely dissapointed (as we all know, lol) with Episode 7.
Perhaps, surprisingly, I didn't - and don't - have a strong view, one way or the other, on whether the appointment of Director Abrams was a Good Idea.
Actually, to be honest, I have long been of the opinion, that few, if any, of the movies in the Star Trek franchise (including the original ST movies, most certainly the STNG movies, or now, with J. J. Abrams) are as good as the best of the episodes of the respective TV series.
In fact, J. J. Abrams, in a way, has been quite fortunate. Most of the previous movies in the franchise had been so underwhelming - and downright dismal - that if he even made a half way decent, or a mediocre movie, it was bound to have been a marked improvement on what had "gone before" to coin a phrase.
Anyway, I thought the Star Trek movie of 2009 was excellent and very enjoyable. Yes, there are plot holes, and yes, somewhat suspicious alternative time lines, but it is a rollicking romp paying homage to, yet subtly subverting, the original franchise.
The cast are terrific, and in roles that have themselves become iconic, and, as such, are roles which run the risk of being portrayed with reverence rather than with respect and a sly yet grinning good humour - which was what was done here - there wasn't one with whom I could find fault.
Wisely, the movie used special effects when the story called for it, rather than allowing the movie to become lost in pyrotechnics and special effects for the sake of it, especially at the expense of character and plot.
For, while Star Trek and its universe has been set in space, and deals with exploration and the excitement of discovery, the strength of the franchise has always been ensemble acting and character studies, and character development.
ST (the original), STNG, and indeed, DS9 - when they worked - always worked because while it was about a group of people exploring space, what they came across, how they dealt with danger, strange cultures, intellectual curiosity, forbidden love, challenging and different cultures, loathsome cultures, exiled gods, unimaginable disease and infection, bizarre lifeforms, cabin fever, death, eternal life, the past, present and future, - among many other things - it was also - above all - about how they dealt with each other. For these were stories about character development in a challenging - and largely sealed - environment; Columbus and Magellan might have recognised a slightly similar setting.
For that matter, even the original Star Trek was not just about Captain Kirk and Mr Spock; Bones and Scotty also featured (not to mention Lt Uhuru), while STNG was most certainly a great example of ensemble playing. Even DS9 didn't make the mistake of focusing on two or three main characters all of the time - a major mistake, which, along with excessive action sequences, threadbare plots, and insufficient character development that the movies, especially, seem prone to.
