ABRAMS "REPORT"

I know - those of you who read this blog (thanks, both of you!) are probably sick of the repetitiveness of the most recent entries - how they all focus on similar themes - i.e. "Hate," "Foam," "Bigot," Bush bashing, etc.

You know what? I don't give a shit!

Actually, I do :-)

I don't want to bore both of you - or none of you, as the case may be, not to mention myself (why bore oneself when the universe does it so well?)

So, on to a new topic... For now.

Several weeks ago, a friend asked me if I was planning on seeing "Mission Impossible 3," or whatever its pseudo-hieroglyphic title is. "You mean in a theater, which implies that I'd actually have to purchase a ticket?" "Yeah," the friend said. "No way." "I may SEE it, but I'm not paying for it." (Wink. Nod. Smile).

But a funny thing happened on the (non) way to the theater. It seems - in a rare display of ignorance in my part - that at the time of the conversation - that I did not know who was directing MI:3. About a week later, I happened to be reading an article about the film, which stated that J.J. Abrams (creator of and writer for Lost, Felicity and Alias) was directing the film and had co-written the screenplay. "Hmmm," I said to myself. "These are all good shows from what I've seen." "Joyride, a film that Abrams co-wrote, was good too. Sure, he also co-wrote Armageddon and Regarding Henry, but those came out before any of the other titles." For a second, I thought to myself, "Self, maybe I should actually see this movie." (Surely it need not be explained why I was not planning on seeing it up to that point. Hint: I had seen the first two Mission: Impossible movies, and thought they were decent-pretty good; had nothing against the franchise; am not a pauper; still enjoy seeing movies in movie theaters; and was not offended by the movie's plot, and was, indeed, impressed with the good reviews it had received to date. The two words that explained my refusal need not be spelled out).

A few seconds later, though, I thought to myself, "Self, come on. Get serious. You'll probably be laughing or groaning every time he's mugging on screen. And believe you, self, that's what he does - mug. He may be a hard-working - and hard-mouthing - actor, but he, as much as any actor alive, is a little too aware of the fact, during every second of filming, that a camera is pointed on him. And, self, remember: it's not the substance of his unseemly remarks that's offensive - everyone's entitled to an opinion (but not to his own facts), but how one chooses to deliver that opinion can be quite offensive, and this person is, simply put, offensive."

So, I concluded, "Self, you, me and I are staying home."

But then a strange thing happened on or about May 1. Plans for Star Trek XI (which had been left for dead just a week earlier) came screaming back to life, when on or about May 1, Variety reported that Paramount had greenlit the movie, and had signed J.J. Abrams to direct, write and produce the film, a "prequel" Starfleet Academy film focusing on the training days of Kirk and Spock.

Self was again conflicted. "Well, MI:3 is Abrams' first feature film, Self. Isn't it important, for Star Trek's sake, for you to see MI:3 to get an idea of how good a "fit" Abrams might be for the Star Trek franchise? To see if he has the ability to prevent XI from being an embarrassment? To see if he has the potential for making it great?"

Self, finally fed up with being addressed, and wanting very badly to go to sleep, said, "Fine. I'll do it. But the whole time. But I'll have to say to myself the whole time, "I know it's horrible, self. But just close your eyes and think of Star Trek.: (This is an old movie joke).

So, on Friday, May 12, I saw MI:3, heeding self's monologue and internalizing it as best I could, and guess what? The film was very good. A strong B+ and a strong 3 stars. The equivalent, in the Star Trek canon, of Star Trek VI, which I believed was the fourth best of the ten films thus far (there were only four that I would recommend to ANYONE without reservation, and Star Trek VI passed the "recommendation" test ever so slightly).

So, I am now psyched. Abrams can indeed, I think, make a Star Trek film to the extent that he has proven through MI:3 that he can balance action and drama with reasonably good editing, a reasonably not completely ludicrous script, and, GET THIS - to the extent that he has proven that he actually has a sense of FUN! (Something which most Star Trek directors have failed to demonstrate). The MI:3 script even included shards of occassional wit and intelligence amidst the carnage and explosions, and only became completely incoherent (within the rules the movie laid out for itself, that is; the entire thing was incoherent and implausible) in the last twenty minutes. Performances were pretty good, tech credits were excellent, and the thing never dragged.

As to whether Abrams "gets" Star Trek (whatever that means), who can say? He "got" Mission Impossible, from what I have seen of the TV show, better than either Brian DePalma or John Woo, so based on all of the above, 2008 (when Star Trek XI is scheduled to premiere) may indeed be the "Blue Skies" that the end of Star Trek X melodically (if not precipitously) promised.

As for he who must not be named, well.... self's advice and the shock helmet worked wonders (the latter even resulted in my getting a discounted ticket! Sometimes trauma is its own monetary reward!)