We'll start with what's sure to be the biggest buzz of cyberspace this month, the first footage from J.J. Abrams' Star Trek requel -- that's "reboot prequel" for all you none-w00ties out there -- and to be honest, it's rather middling. We start with a 1960s Chevy Corvette thundering down a country road, and before long, it's driven right off a cliff by a previously unseen 11-year-old boy who leaps out at the last second. A space-cop hops off his hoverbike and asks in a gruff, Robocop tone, "What is your name?" The boy impolitely retorts, "My name is James Tiberius Kirk!" Lame.
We're gonna pretend that never happened...just like Star Trek VFrom there, it's a frenetic, souped-up expose of Star Trek's base values and impressive CGI. One of the movie's tastiest treats, Kirk's life before and at Starfleet Academy, is brushed upon early, with lifeless dialogue about struggling to fit in and being destined for bigger things delivered by Kirk's father (Chris Hemsworth), who doesn't even sound like he buys his own bullshit. Spock's treatment isn't much different, either. All trailers dumb down this kind of stuff to engage a larger audience, but seriously, who writes this crap?
Forgiving the cliches (including a shot of Chris Pine rebel-without-a-causing down a country road as an adult), the first Star Trek trailer has just enough goodies to keep Classic Trek fans encouraged. There's a great line by Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy about space, and the always-hilarious Simon Pegg nails Scotty's only line. The purported theme of "how a family comes together" is emphasized, there are hints of Zachary Quinto's vintage Vulcan learning to govern his emotions, we get to see the new Enterprise in action, and Eric Bana closes the trailer with scene-chewing goodness. Oh, and there's an irrevocably badass shot of Kirk and Spock together. You'll know it when you see it.
Because all other evidence supports it, I doubt the Top Gun stylings will dominate the movie like they dominate the trailer. I'm really looking forward to the final one.
Meanwhile, in the "JESUS MARY MOTHER OF GOD" category, the new Watchmen trailer is about as encouraging as Batman & Robin's teaser posters.
Remember those pieces of shit? Well, Zack Snyder's, ahem, "three-hour advertisement for the graphic novel" is looking more and more like a "three-hour advertisement against adapting Alan Moore's work altogether." First, we saw From Hell get a sincere effort from a fine cast and crew that ultimately couldn't translate its difficult ideology to the screen. Then, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was turned into a computer-generated snoozer and slapped on soft drink labels. Most recently, we saw V For Vendetta push aside the graphic novel's essence and play to stupid college kids who like The Matrix and don't like George W. Bush.
The new Watchmen trailer indicates that the film is going to scrape down to the novel's core, i.e. the masked killer conspiracy thread and the idea of who governs the governors. That's all they (mostly Rorschach) talk about in the trailer, while lifting the most cliched lines from the book to hook viewers. As I said before, that's to be expected. But whenever you trim the fat, you walk along the edge of bastardizing the material, and that's exactly the impression that boils to the surface in the new trailer.
I highly doubt most who watch it will have the same opinion, but speaking for fans of the graphic novel, trust me, it looks like Snyder is going to turn this thing into a superhero adventure with morally ambiguous overtones. He seems to think that replicating the look of the comic is what counts most, and in the meantime, he's given no indication whatsoever that he's going to include the palpable impact of masked adventurers, or the alarming disconnect between the generations who commit to something and the ideological perversions of their heirs, which is the most important subtext of "Watchmen."
I know what you're thinking. I'm taking this way too seriously. I should lighten up. The truth is, I believe that plenty of Alan Moore's work could translate successfully to the screen (I've been wailing for a serious adaptation of "Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" for years). But not "Watchmen." It stands, like The Godfather in cinema, as the dividing line between the old way and the new. It's the book that truly matured the medium. If you think for one second that a comic book opus like The Dark Knight doesn't owe a big nod to "Watchmen", you're off your rocker.
In my opinion -- and at the end of the argument, it's truly just a difference of opinion -- it's a crime to transfer something like "Watchmen" so briskly. Sure, it looks good. Sure, it may make money. But imagine someone novelizing Citizen Kane, or filming Highway 61 Revisited. There are some things that are just plain untouchable in every medium, and "Watchmen" is one of them. To borrow a line from Jeffrey Dean Morgan's interpretation of the Comedian:
God help us all.
