Bayside resident Mark Metcalf is an actor who has worked in movies, TV and on the stage. He is best known for his work in "Animal House," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Seinfeld."

In addition to his work on screen, Metcalf is involved with Milwaukee Film, First Stage Children's Theater and a number of other projects, including comicwonder.com.

He also finds time to write about movies for OnMilwaukee.com. This week, Metcalf weighs in on "Star Trek."

STAR TREK (2009)

I have never been a big "Star Trek" fan. It's not that I am against it, I'm just not a fan, don't know much about it, in any of its many incarnations, and often develop a glazed look in my eye when confronted with someone who does know about it.

From the original "Star Trek," which lasted, I think, three seasons, to "Generations," "Deep Space Nine," "Voyager," and then "Enterprise" on television, through all the movies, of which there must have been at least 10, I think I can honestly say I have seen maybe two episodes of the original and nothing else.

I know it is probably a serious void in my education, but, as I have often said about popular music, "I haven't paid much attention since Beethoven died." The same may be said of space movies. Since "2001: A Space Odyssey," I'd almost rather go get root canal than watch something that takes place where you can't go outside unless you put on a suit with a helmet.

But I went and I watched "Star Trek." I thought I might expand my son's horizons a bit beyond Star Wars and I had heard from Trekkie and non-Trekkies alike that it was a great film. Now, I want to go back and rent all the series and watch them in order to fill myself up with the infinite universe of knowledge that is "Star Trek." I acted in a two episode arc of "Star Trek: Voyager" and was amazed at the depth and detail of the back-story of that universe, most of which seemed to be known by every crewmember and regular cast member. I was wearing about fifty pounds of foam body makeup as a Hirogen Medic, so I didn't pay very much attention.

This film is one of many prequels that have come out of the popular literature of films lately: "Batman Begins," "Casino Royale," which quite successfully brought James Bond out of the late '50s and into a contemporary universe, the recent "Terminator Salvation," which is about the future but happens before the first "Terminator," which took place in 1984 (figure that one out), "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," which seems to threaten a never ending series of films about all the X-Men characters and where they came from, even "Enterprise," the last of the Star Trek television series, which went back to the beginnings of the journey, and "Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Beginning," which was a prequel to the re-make of the original.

All of these go back to the beginnings and pick up and unite threads of stories and start anew with the aid of all the special effects that filmmakers now have at their disposal, with new, more vigorous acting styles, and with the freedom to re-imagine the core styles of the stories themselves. Much of the time, it feels as though the only reason for these films to exist is to make money for people without an original idea in their heads, but occasionally someone is able to re-invent the wheel and it runs better. This is the case with "Star Trek: The Future Begins."

 Page 1 of 2 (view all on one page)

Next >>

4 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...

Posted by devidia on July 13, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. (report)

I agree with MIL_WI, Shatner's the man when it comes to Kirk. Even though I can totally accept the new incarnation as the face of Trek going forward for a new generation, Shatner and company will always be my favorites. And I enjoyed Bob Cobb's, er, I mean Mr. Metcalf's review of the film (I still haven't seen it yet but I'm really expecting to at least like it.) I'm a longtime Trek fan who's happy to help, Mr. Metcalf, if you have any questions.

Posted by Mil_WI on July 13, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (report)

As a Star Trek fan for many years, I was pleased to read that the franchise can still bring people into the lore such as Mr. Metcalf - even if it's by way of the newest incarnation, which I too enjoyed. (His new-found appreciation for ST is especially interesting after having appeard in 2 episodes of "Voyager!") I respectfully disagree with his assessment of W. Shatner's acting of the original Kirk; to me it was his very stiffness that perpetuated his Kirk-esque gravitas. *** A note to JKrunken: I hope that edw_74 is a friend and you both had a chuckle about your comment. Otherwise, you're sad. It was a fair correction, and to take the time out of your day to post a comment to call someone a nerd is actually nerdy.

Posted by JKrunken on July 11, 2009 at 7:05 p.m. (report)

edw_74 is a nerd.

Posted by edw_74 on July 11, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. (report)

I believe the film is just called "Star Trek", not "Star Trek: The Future Begins".