Yap vs. Yap: "Star Trek"

Christopher Lloyd: Well Joe, it's time for another "Yap vs. Yap" feature in which we go to war over a movie. And this week's is a big one: "Star Trek," the reboot of the venerable sci-fi franchise by J.J. Abrams. Based on the crowd reaction at the screening on Saturday, Trekkers are going to go nuts for this fast-paced reimagining of the original Trek cast featuring Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest.

But not me. Based on the previews, I was worried that this will be an all-guts, no brains version of Star Trek, and I'm afraid my worst fears were proven true. There's so many action scenes, the cast doesn't have a chance to stop and catch their breaths, let alone build their characters or have cerebral conversations about the Prime Directive. For old-school Trek fans, this movie has phasers set on Lame.

Joe Shearer: I have to say I couldn't disagree more. There was plenty of action, and except for a couple of minor digressions, I thought the film was fantastic. There's a lot more swagger to this film, as the iconic crew are just out of the academy, and full of cockiness (especially Kirk). It doesn't tread into the more cerebral aspects of Trek, but I have to say it didn't bother me.

This is a relaunch for the 21st century, and as a first film in what is presumably a new franchise, I thought they did well introducing the characters and their relationships, and an attempt to drop in a lot of heady ethical discussions are best left for a later film. The opening sequence, where we see Jim Kirk's birth as his father is heroically taking command of his own starship during an attack, is fantastic both visually and emotionally.

Chris: I will agree that the opening sequence with Daddy Kirk is pretty amazing. But I don't think J.J. Abrams is planning to have slower, more intellectual stuff in future "Trek" movies -- he thinks audiences want all action, all the time.

Don't get me wrong, I like my phaser fights and space battles. But if that's all you have, it becomes more like a video game than a story. For me, what made the original Trek so compelling was the triad of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and the great dynamic between the three of them, by a trio of actors who spent decades working together. The action scenes were always subservient to plot and character. In the new "Star Trek," the only character IS action.

Joe: But there was some emphasis on relationships. Kirk had a running gag with Uhura, and there was quite a shocking relationship between her and another crew member. The groundwork for the McCoy/Kirk relationship was there as well, and even McCoy and Spock, though to a lesser degree. And I have to say also that the casting was outstanding for this film as well. Chris Pine was a less introspective Kirk, but it fit for his time; Zachary Quinto was spot-on as Spock, and Karl Urban may have even exceeded DeForrest Kelley as Bones.

My point is at this time of their lives these guys are a bunch of intergalactic swashbucklers, and that's what these early films should be about. Would I like to see something in the sequel where Kirk goes off half-cocked on something and sparks an ethical debate? Absolutely. That's a lot of what Star Trek is all about. But for the purposes of restarting a franchise that was pretty much dead after 40 years of dry ethics and impassioned speeches, it was refreshing and fun to see them cut loose a little bit. Let the franchise grow with the characters.

Now if we get to Star Trek 4.0 and we're still blowing things up, we'll be in complete agreement. But there was quite a bit of stuff crammed in with character backstories, trying to shoehorn in the ethics of time travel, or the workings of intergalactic politics would probably have been too much, too soon.

Chris: I think the transporter beam may have warped your brain, buddy. Quinto makes for an excellent Spock successor, but Pine comes across as a bratty, smirking lothario more suited for a guest spot on MTV's "Real Life" than as captain of Starfleet's flagship. The rest of the cast doesn't get much of a chance to delve into their characters. How can they, when there's an explosion or hand-to-hand combat every four minutes?

And I really didn't like them re-using some of the best bits of old Trek movies and TV episodes -- the creepy ear bug from "Wrath of Khan" (though this time it goes in the mouth), Kirk vs. Spock fisticuffs, Sulu doing some swordplay, etc.

I'd like to think that the cast and Abrams are going to grow with successive movies. But I fear that if "Star Trek" is financially successful with a menu of kinetic thrills -- and it probably will be -- we'll keep getting more of the same

Joe: I can see we're not going to agree here, so before I wrap up, I'm going to concede a couple of points. I did think Kirk meeting the older Spock (and later Scotty, then returning to the Enterprise) was ridiculous, and it could have done 1,000 different ways to make it seem plausible. And the entire sequence was just an excuse for them to say "this is an alternate timeline, so we can do whatever we want," which they virtually said verbatim.

The Abrams "Trek" is a game-changer in the "Trek" universe, it's brawny and brash, fitting with the long-established "Trek" ideals, where captains Kirk and Picard especially lamented (or sometimes embraced) their wilder youths. Here we're seeing those particular hormones come to the surface. Pine is a good young Kirk for me because he's cocky, young, and charming, and yes, to use your term, bratty.

Put it this way: though it's been done in each and every "Trek" film, I still got chills when the new/old Enterprise first hit the screen, and when it heroically swoops in to save the day during the film's climax.

I also really enjoyed Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike. Greenwood is one of those unsung character actors who has done some excellent work over the years with little attention for it.

And finally, be on the lookout for a few Easter eggs, including Scotty's admission that he got in trouble for experimenting on "Admiral Archer's beagle," which is a reference to Scott Bakula's character in "Star Trek: Enterprise," chronologically fallacious as it may be.

Joe's rating: 5 Yaps out of 5 Chris' rating: 2.5 Yaps