The New Star Trek Film - A Clue for Lost Viewers Inside?

I went to see the new Star Trek film last night. Thankfully, I was warned off wasting the $5 extra for the fake "IMAX" screen.

I'm a big fan of Star Trek, love the original series and was addicted to the next generation when it originally aired. In the past few years I've been re-watching Trek occasionally when it airs on TV Land and enjoying it again. So you would think I might be offended by the concept of a 'reboot' of Star Trek in the manner done in this film. Not so.

I have long believed that the greatness of the original series, not replicated since in any spinoff, even the Next Generation, was the fantastic juxtaposition of characters, specifically the amazing three-way relationship of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but also the contributions made by the other members of the crew. Spock's logic, McCoy's emotion, and Kirk's brutish dynamic strength were almost a perfect Ego-Id-Superego confluence. Better still, the excellent writing and acting involved in the creation and development of the characters and their relationship with each other made for terrific chemistry.

Of course, the thirst for exploration and aventure and succeeding in high pressure situations were also key components of Trek's appeal, and I don't mean to understate them here. I do think, however, that without the depth and contrapunture of the characters, the show wouldn't have succeeded nearly to the extent it has.

The new Star Trek film, manned by J.J. Abrams, aptly captures the essence of the characters in the original series. Much has been made about the new "Kirk" acting nothing like Shatner, and this is true, he doesn't. Nevertheless, his personality and actions do make you think of James Kirk, albeit, a younger version. The essence of Kirk survives, and I think that's all that matters. It's too much to expect a new actor to step into the larger-than-life shoes of Shatner, and besides, Kirk is not about Shatner, he's a character played by Shatner, and this movie proves that these two entitites are separable.

Zacahry Quinto is of course, amazing, as young Spock (I'm still convinced someone saw him on "Heroes," thought he'd be an amazing young Spock, and from there developed the picture). Quintero has much less pressure on him than Chris Pine because while Leonard Nimoy's acting as Spock will forever associate him with the character, the nature of Spock and of Vulcans casts a smaller shadow for Quinto to operate in. Also, Quinto is simply a fantastic actor.

The rest of the cast inhabits their roles admirably. Most notable for me were the always terrific Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as Bones. Urban was terrific. The scene in which his character is introduced begins with him speaking off-camera, and it is at least a full minute before he reveals that he is McCoy. Nevertheless, I knew exactly who he was from the moment I heard his voice and what he was saying. Terrific job. Simon Pegg was so great, I wish they could go back in time and have him replace James Doohan. He's a BETTER Scotty! Eric Bana is also wonderful, if barely recognizable, as Nero, a Romulan bad guy.

So, besides J.J. Abrams, what's the connection to "Lost" I mention in the title of this blog?

(SPOILER ALERT)













The film's main conceit is that, 130 years from the time the film takes place, an old Spock fails in an attempt to save Romulus, the home planet of the Romulans from destruction. Bana's character Nero blames Spock, and the two travel back in time through a black hole, though they end up 25 years apart. Trying to find Spock in Starfleet, Nero attacks a federation vessel, which turns out to be the ship James T is about to be born on, and one that is commanded by his dad George. George is killed saving James T and the Mom.

Flash forward twenty years and 45 minutes of the plot and Nero draws the federation into another trap, which only Kirk realizes. To torture Spock, Nero destroys Vulcan and makes him watch the destruction so that he will feel what Nero felt when Romulus burned ...er was destroyed. Oh yea, Spock has now appeared in the past, though Nero bans him to a nearby winter planet which looks a little like Hoth. After being banished from the Enterprise via shuttlecraft, Kirk finds old Spock there, old Spock explains the above, and also states that Kirk's dad had been alive and had been the main inspiration for Kirk's entry into Starfleet. Time travel contradictions and illogic seem to fly, until Spock suggests an answer: the time travel caused an alternate reality.

When Nero went back in time and changed the past, he created an alternate reality separate and apart from the one he began in. In this alternate reality, Kirk and Spock's lives are different, but they still have the opportunity to work together - which they ultimately do. Spock makes up some story about why he can't see young Spock or blah blah blah end of the universe. Later old Spock meets young Spock and explains this to him, essentially implying that although he and young Spock are 'the same,' they are actually different, albeit very similar, entitites. This is the reason that old Spock does not seem to remember the conversation with young Spock.

Time travel? The ability to change the past and its effect (?) on the future? Aren't these staple "Lost" issues, particularly in this season? I submit that the Abrams direction is not a coincidence. The alternate reality theory is the only clean way to explain the time travel conceit. That is to say that it is the only explanation that doesn't result in painful mental gymnastics when considering time travel as a narrative device.

If entering into the past, or the future, creates a new branch on the tree of time, the idea that the characters are experiencing their present in the past or future is not contradictory, because the 'past' or 'future' are not really 'past' or 'future' but present. Moreover, any and all concerns about changing the past and the effect it would have on the future, and hence, presumably, on characters from the present now in the past, become moot. The Back to the Future 'disappearing from a picture' time travel stuff goes away, which is good, because while it worked great in that trilogy, its a theory of time travel narrative that's full of holes and questions.

So when Jack and the rest of the Losties go into 1978, they actually enter another reality rather than the 1978 that they know. In that new reality, there is no future yet, and the acts they take can directly change the 'future' and make it different than what they have experienced without causing a brain-cramping contradiction and without deleting their own past. In essence, then, the Island is not so much a bizarre place where the rules of time do not apply, so much as a bizarre place where the rules of time and space do not apply.

This has many implications, obviously, the most striking one being that even if the Losties can detonate the bomb, contrary to Jack and Sayid's wishes, it will not reboot their lives and erase the past several years.

Moreover, the 'alternate reality' line offers a possible explanation for the appearance of 'dead' characters to Hugo and other characters. In one reality they are dead, in another they are not, and the Island provides a way to communicate between these realities.

Just a few thoughts.