Green Orion Slave Girls...

...are supposed to be irresistible to man. The question I am asking is whether the same will be true of the new Star Trek movie. With only a month or so to go the first reviews are very positive. So, why do I still have great concerns over the film? JJ Abrams has a good track record as a show creator: Alias and Lost. Mission Impossible III was a solid film for his directorial debut. Yet, I am still wary.

I grew up watching the original series and have the three seasons on DVD. They aren't quite in pride of place because I have the bulky plastic cases which need a sturdy shelf beneath them. I have seen all the episodes numerous times. For me the characters are iconic and have been developed over the span of the first six Trek films as well. The actors and the characters have proven to be a perfect match. Now I can appreciate the argument that other characters have been played by a multitude of actors. For example, James Bond, Batman, Superman, Hulk, Dr Who and so forth. On the other hand some characters are so tied up with the actor that to reboot with a different actor seems wrong. Would anyone else play Indiana Jones as well as Harrison Ford? (Isn't commutation testing fun?)

I could understand a relaunch of the Trek franchise with a new cast and a new direction, but to recast iconic roles that have been established for 43 years is, to my mind, a strange decision. To reboot the franchise is, however, more likely to be financially viable for the studio. They have an existing universe, characters and ships. To start from scratch with everything shiny and new would be a tougher sell and a bigger risk. They have an existing fan base and brand recognition by using existing lore in an origin story.

The trailer looks action packed and the consensus from reviews is that the film is fast paced and, yes, action packed. The one thing that is also mentioned is that there is not much room in the film for issues of morality and humanity to come through and that these elements are likely to be seen in a sequel. But, I would argue that one of the key components of Trek in it's many incarnations is the ability to look at the human condition through the prism of SF. I worry that in going for a mass appeal and targeting a mainstream demographic the filmmakers will have dumbed down some of the reasons Trek has had such a lasting legacy.

I understand that the film has many nods to established lore and things that fans will enjoy. Obviously, the involvement of Leonard Nimoy as an older Spock indicates that the film has some legitimacy. Whether it is an advantage or not that Abrams wasn't a Star Trek fan remains to be seen. In some respects he has the advantage of approaching the material from a fresh and unbiased perspective. The possible downside of this is that the essence of what makes the original so special might be diluted.

It would be too easy to nitpick things like the Enterprise being assembled on Earth and so on before I have seen the film. So, I am trying to keep an open mind. I want to be wowed and feel the same affinity and passion for a new version of Star Trek as I do for the old. Let's face facts the franchise has constantly managed to reinvent itself and adapt to the times. The Next Generation moved the universe forward and made Trek even more popular. DS9 took things off on interesting tangents and a dramatic new directions. Voyager, well... Even Enterprise had some very strong episodes. Star Trek won't ever die and that is something to be grateful for. It existed before I was born and will continue to seek out new worlds and new civilisations long after I am space dust.

My fingers and toes are crossed. I want the film to be a success. I don't want it to spoil what Trek is all about. We will always have the original series. It is always there. But I hope this is a loving and respectful reboot that is worthy of the name

STAR TREK