Star Trek XI – The Anticipation Grows . . .

In North America, tonight is the night that many of us will finally have the chance to see Abrams’ take on the Star Trek franchise. Perhaps it’s a reflection of my change in social internet circles, but it’s nice to see that the last few days leading into tomorrow’s official release has been marked by a sense of anticipation and enthusiasm. I know I’ve been feeling more and more excited by this film’s arrival as opening day edges ever closer that “Star Trek” might finally mature into something more contemporary, instead of being relegated into being a vehicle for Trekkies to latch their childhood memories onto.

Of course, that’s not to say I’m not a fan of the original version featuring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley in the iconic roles of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. On the contrary, of all the variations of Trek that have been made, the first one, now referred to as “The Original Series” or TOS for short, is still my favourite simply because I enjoy watching the interaction between these characters. In fact, it’s my belief that the only reason Star Trek has maintained interest for so long is not the often-repeated notion that it presented hope for the future; rather, it had to do with its charismatic and engaging characters presented within tales that peaked the imagination and, when it was really good, offered us glimpses into humanity’s drives and motivations. Indeed, this is the reason why Shakespeare’s plays, set in time periods and social settings far removed from our own, as well as other literary works written centuries ago still hold up today – the characters that exist in these works cast light on the nature of humanity and our interpersonal relationships, something today’s audience can still relate to and find much relevance in.

Sure, many Trekkies have complained that Abrams has mutated Trek’s aesthetics into something that doesn’t match what we’ve seen before. But honestly, how could he not? And why would anyone think that the 60s aesthetic is the end-all/be-all of futuristic visual interpretations? For me, this isn’t a question of taking an Elizabethan play and having the characters walking around sending posts to Twitter on their iPhone; rather, Star Trek is a postulation of the future and as such, it requires a fluidity in its storytelling canvas so we can truly appreciate these people exist in some futuristic version of our reality. After all, if one were to watch the original Star Trek today, one has to ignore all the obvious technological gaffes, like small CRT screens and two handheld devices for communication and information retrieval, in order to appreciate the true magic of this series – the characters that live within the stories and their relationships with each other.

Unfortunately, Star Trek has suffered under the weight of clichéd notions which, in some cases, are being sustained and fueled by fans of the show’s various incarnations. With Abrams’ film, I hope we’ll see the franchise not only return to those elements that first drew many of us into this fictional, futuristic universe, but that it will also help the series take the next step forward so it can once again have some social and entertainment relevance. Among the dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie subset, I’m sure my stance is an unfavourable one, which is fine by me since I’m more interested in seeing Star Trek evolve as a storytelling vehicle and return to being an adult-oriented drama as it was when it first aired in 1966, than worry about any perceived impact on my childhood memories of the series.

Trekkies like to claim that Star Trek is at its best when it challenges the viewers to think and ponder their preconceptions. Sounds to me like that’s just what this fan subset is about to undergo with Abrams’ film.

And if you ask me, it’s about frakkin’ time.

NOTE: For those who’ve enjoyed my BSG reviews, I’ll be posting my thoughts on Abrams’ Trek film this weekend. With no more BSG episodes to review, it’s going to be nice to slip on that hat again.