Star Trek vs Star Trek

Star Trek Into Darkness is out this week and… What? People are actually looking forward to it?? Praise Rodenberry, it’s a Star Trek miracle! It’s not an exaggeration to say there hasn’t been much interest in a Star Trek film, since, well, the one where the crew had to rescue the whales. Since the sea mammals, the Original Series had a break in interest for about twenty or thirty years and then J. J Abrams picked it up to give the crew a new lease of life.


It’s been four years since the J.J. Abrams’-helmed Star Trek film made the franchise successful again. Of course, seeing as it was a reboot (new actors playing old characters), it was inevitable that it was compared to the old. Finally, Trekkies had a new argument to come to blows over “which is your favourite Kirk?” instead of the pedestrian “which is your favourite Captain – Kirk/Picard/Sisko/Janeway/Archer?”.

The original Star Trek is a cultural icon - even if you’ve not watched it, you’ve witnessed George Takei relive his sword-wielding, shirtless moment to any film crew he can. The Original Series can be described as a campy space show where William Shatner hammed it up but it is so much more – a mix of comedy, tragedy and horror encompassed in the human condition. It’s definitely a strange mix: there’s lots of fighting (think John Wayne) and scantily clad women (because Gene Rodenberry was a pervert an enlightened visionary), though not usually in the same scene.

The new film had the pressure of living up to the old series and, despite its success, it’s still being criticised. People claim that the first film was just another dumb action movie that masqueraded as Star Trek to get success. Maybe this is true but the original Kirk didn’t just sit around talking for forty-five minutes – they’re confusing him with Picard – bam, Star Trek burn! Similarly, the cast of the film is criticised for being “pretty” and “unable to act” – which is exactly what they criticised the original cast for 40-something years ago. The new Trek does suffer from having to be faithful to multiple timelines in a 90 minutes-long film but that doesn’t stop it from being fun. The last film does capture the old Star Trek spirit, even if it is a bit all over the place.

It’s difficult to say which is better, though. It’s like trying to compare Adam West Batman with Christian Bale Batman or David Tennant Doctor Who with the Doctor Who with the long scarf – the different re-imaginings of a character not only use different mediums but draw in different audiences. The similarities they do have are that they use the setting, name and premise. Any new Star Trek film could be better by drawing on Gene Rodenberry’s original plan – make it a big science fiction story involving the human condition, future optimism and women only being seen by the soft focus of a Vaseline-smeared camera. Then, it’d really be Star Trek.

Featured image: Paramount Pictures