Since the Trek universe had long been established, the writers had to think up ways to mix it up and what better way to do that than inserting time travel into the mix? That always messes up what was established before and the writers are free to do whatever they want! My only problem with time travel is this: If you come from the future to alter the past – well, wasn’t your past predetermined by the time travel in the future and therefore really wasn’t altered in the first place as the past you knew was meant to change anyway? Answers and theories welcome.
Insert Abrams' fascination with the big red ball as the catalyst for time travel and you have yourself a hit movie!
While none of the actors tried to duplicate their predecessors – Pine didn’t attempt Shatner’s uneven staccato vocals (thank God, though it would make for a bit of comedy in a future film) – the actors made the characters their own and have a long future ahead of them in the Trek franchise. Wrath of Khan re-do, anyone?
And while Quinto did a good job as Spock, any fan of Heroes can’t help but wonder if Sylar would appear and logically slice open someone’s head to see what’s inside. He did appear to absorb all that is Leonard Nimoy’s Spock – looks like Spock, smells like Spock, thinks like Spock – must be Spock, right? And with Leonard Nimoy on board, you can’t stray too far from the established.
The central storyline revolves around Kirk and Spock. The rest of the characters are secondary and really only there to round out the original cast from the series. John Cho is underused as Sulu (and did I see Kumar - Kal Penn - as a member of Starfleet?) and Karl Urban is surprisingly charming as Dr. McCoy (dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, I’m not charming!). Zoë Saldana is simply cast as eye candy as Uhura – much to my dismay. The only female officer in that group and they can’t give her something more substantial to do than peel off her already skimpy uniform down to her skivvies and be the love interest? The film might be set in the future but the gender roles were definitely from the past. At least Sigourney Weaver’s character in Galaxy Quest poked fun at the role of the lone female officer and resident sex kitten. Uhura is just… disappointing. Simon Pegg’s Scotty is predictably the comic relief, while Anton Yelchin’s Pavel Chekhov is unpredictably funny as well.
![Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1 [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41W1M2S%2B4-L._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - Kyle
This is like the 5th time I've read about how people keep believing Uhura is only eye candy. I'm beginning to believe that her stripping off her uniform actually blinded the rest of you from her role in the movie. Look, Zoe is gorgeous, you're not going to get around that and its going to get marketed that way. But they didn't stop there. The entire plot practically revolved around her ability to decode and translate a klingon transmission. Without that they would have rushed straight into Nero with no shields or anything. Also she replaced a male member on the bridge. Uh... look people who sit on the bridge are the best at what they do. Period. Even on modern day naval ships thats the way the cookie crumbles. We also see her as a huge emotional support to Spock in a time when normally he would have no one to find comfort in because of the loss of his mother and planet. You're also dealing with a new and very independent Uhura who is no longer the girl the Kirk can get, but has now become the girl that Kirk CAN'T get. Yes all of this happened early on the movie, but as you stated, this movie revolves around Kirk and Spock, but to say that Uhura was only eye candy is absurd.