It's time to settle an important issue

I brought this up in my closing remarks in the opening ceremonies at Balticon 51 (trust me: it fit), so I thought I'd share it here. Zoe Saldana does a fine job as Uhura in the new Star Trek movies, but for me, now and forever, that part will always belong to Nichelle Nichols.

That's just how it goes.

Well, damn: R.I.P., Leonard Nimoy

I'm sitting in the Admirals Club at DFW.  The day started rough and continued rough, with my sinuses plaguing me with either a cold or an allergic reaction, little sleep leaving me exhausted, and a rough first flight making me feel only worse.  None of that got me down. 

Then I read that Leonard Nimoy had died.  That got me down. 

Nimoy accomplished many things, but like so many SF fans, I loved most his work as Spock on the original Star Trek series, which I watched as a boy.  Spock was tailor-made for a geek boy like me to love.  Brighter than those around him, but poorly socialized.  Stronger than anyone else--but only when they really needed it, so his powers were hidden.  Clearly more interesting than Kirk, but never getting the girls--though one could argue that was his choice.  He said he had no emotions and acted most of the time as if he didn't, but you could always see them, just below the surface.  Every geek boy I knew wanted to be Spock.  I sure did. 

I know the Star Trek reboot made no sense, and Nimoy's presence in it as the original Spock caused some of those plot problems, but I didn't care; I loved seeing him in the role again.  Ditto the second J.J. Abrams movie. 

I am sad that Nimoy has died, but as long as anyone who remembers the original Star Trek is alive, his Spock will live. 

At the risk of being another cliche--no, with the certainty of being another cliche--here am I, in the DFW Admirals Club, remembering Leonard Nimoy and Mr. Spock.

Yeah, I am that big a geek and that big a Spock fan, and I'm okay with that.

Damn.

The other side: Star Trek's failures

I wanted to do the positive review of Star Trek before I discussed its weaknesses, because I truly enjoyed the movie tremendously and recommend it strongly.

That said, the film is weak in two key areas that are normally essential to good SF: science and plot.

That science was a tertiary consideration of the filmmakers is clearest in the treatment of black holes, which can not only eat a planet and not touch its star but also be caused by a drop of a mysterious "red matter." The level of the science is so inconsistent, in fact, that it's tempting to critique it as a major problem on its own, but I don't think that's the right analysis. Instead, I believe the science is weak because the writers manipulated it as necessary to serve the plot, the true central problem of the film.

The issue with the plot is that some key events do not occur because they reflect the motivations of the characters or are inevitable consequences of previous events or for any of the other valid reasons for fictional things to happen. Instead, some parts of the story occur simply because the filmmakers needed them to happen. I could give examples, but I don't want to spoil the movie if you haven't seen it.

Okay, one example, which I'll keep vague: the means by which one key character meets a major player from the past is utterly nonsensical, both on its own and in light of later vital events in the plot.

If you've read both this post and my previous one, and if you haven't seen the movie, you may be wondering how an SF film can have bad science and weak plotting and still be such a joy. I've wondered that a bit myself, and I've concluded that the answer is partly that we expect weak plotting and weak science from Star Trek and partly that there is so much joy, so much energy, and so much good in the characters that the movie overcomes its weaknesses and makes you love it.

So, despite these problems, go see it.

Star Trek: I loved it

I really did. Based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I thought I'd like it, but I walked out loving it. J.J. Abrams took a moribund, if not completely dead, franchise and brought it back to live as a younger, sexier version of itself--but without abandoning any of the basic tenets and the fundamental optimism of Roddenberry's original.

For those who'd seen the original series, as most folks in my group had, the movie was full of little in-jokes and touches that rewarded our knowledge. At least from the comments of many in our audience and of Scott, those who'd never watched a full episode of the first show also greatly enjoyed this new version.

The first sight of the Enterprise, always a challenge for a film given the ship's near-legendary status among fans, was perfect, as inspiring as it should be.

I don't like giving spoilers, but I believe because of all the trailers the following comment won't unveil any secrets: at the very end, when Leonard Nimoy read the Star Trek mission statement, I teared up. Other long-time fans did, too. I'm sure that was part of the goal, but I don't care; it was an act of manipulation that worked.

I'll see this one again, and I'll watch for the sequel, which Abrams' IMDB entry mentions.

Star Trek is the first absolutely must-see SF movie of the year. Don't miss it.