Despite early polling data showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm toward the Star Trek movie reboot by J. J. Abrams (Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, Fringe, Felicity), the film had an excellent opening weekend at the U.S. movie box office.
The film took in an estimated $72.5 million over the weekend.
Even when adjusted for inflation, that’s far more than any of the previous Star Trek movies took in.
This has cultural significance beyond the fortunes of the Star Trek franchise and its studio. As I noted in writing about an Abrams interview last fall, Abrams said "he was drawn to the idealism behind the franchise. He hopes to make a more optimistic point of view as popular as the somewhat bleak vision of The Dark Knight was."
The story noted that Abrams explicitly intended to move the American culture in a different direction:
AP reports Abrams as saying, "In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as ‘The Dark Knight‘ is raking in gazillions of dollars, ‘Star Trek’ stands in stark contrast. It was important to me that optimism be cool again."
He has achieved the crucial first part of that goal, making a film that expresses that vision and getting audiences to fill theaters to see it.
—S. T. Karnick
I see where Jeff is coming from about The Dark Knight as it’s clearly trying to “say” something, and is a pretty fantastic film. Star Trek is a fantastic film, but isn’t really trying to say anything except, movies are supposed to entertain. But, I also agree with you S.T., that movies that don’t set out to be dark or gritty deserve praise and patronage. That’s the only way they’ll make movies like Breaking Away.
Thanks for your comment, Jeff. I think optimism/pessimism is a good way to identify some important distinctions between the two films, though of course not the only one. My description of Dark Knight as having a “bleak vision” is a factual statement, not a putdown. I enjoyed the film and found much good in it, including the dramatization of some important philosophical points, even though I prefer works with less self-consciously “dark” attitudes. See my article on Dark Knight for my analysis of the film.
Seems to me “optimistic” and “pessimistic” aren’t adequate categories for comparing Dark Knight and the new Trek. I can’t see that the “optimism” of Abrams’s movie amounts to anything more than a brighter color palette and some slapstick action (and a smart director seizing on one of the buzzwords still attaching to the Trek franchise). And FWIW I found Dark Knight to have a lot more cultural-conservative resonance: Batman does what he must to opppose the enemies of the social order (and does things that would give the ACLU the vapors), but he also recognizes the sanctity of life; his “one rule” is to refrain from killing, and he saves even the Joker from plunging to his death. In the Trek climax, on the other hand, Kirk first offers the defeated enemy sanctuary (for prudential rather than moral reasons, as the dialogue makes explicit) and, when the offer is refused, opens fire with relish (and a Bondian quip) rather than letting the enemy ship disintegrate on its own. The scene would have been ideal for one of the humanistic homilies the 60s series tended to conclude with: “Vengeance doesn’t only destroy our enemies, Spock; it destroys us,” yada yada. Instead, Abram’s Kirk assumes the role of generic action tough guy and proves less nuanced than Nolan’s Batman, who in the climax of Batman Begins takes his leave of the baddie with “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”
I think your point is well taken, R. J. However, I don’t think Abrams is claiming that he was going to change the culture by himself, only that he was going to try to do his part. It will take much more than one movie to effect cultural change, but that’s how it’s done: one thing at a time. Think about it as a cultural Fabianism….
Jim, that’s a very funny point, but I don’t see Obama as optimistic, nor do I think that is what his supporters mainly see in him. I think they value him as someone who will fight for them, who will save them from rapacious capitalists. I don’t see that in Star Trek, thank goodness.
The important thing to keep in mind, in my view, is the big picture regarding the culture. It’s possible for something to have resonance for the left or seem leftist on the surface while actually promulgating ideas conducive to the right.
Hope and Change … at a cineplex near you!
The transformational powers of Obama know no bounds.
I think Abrams is giving himself too much credit for bringing optimism back. I mean, it’s an optimistic movie if by that you mean, a movie that just wants to entertain you without hitting you with political allegory. But it’s not Slumdog Millionaire, or even Rocky.