Now that the new Star Trek trailer is out, it’s not surprising that the haters are out as well. And their numbers include not just sci-fi fans, but mainstream columnists like conservative Atlantic scribe Ross Douthat. And, sure, there’s plenty to dislike, from young Kirk’s opening joyride (come on, a mid-20th century ‘vette in the 23rd century? That would be like a kid of today taking a spin in a stagecoach) to the gratuitous flash of Zoe Soldana’s bra. And canon purists can find even more to hate, including the Pike-Kirk teamup, Chekov’s early arrival on the Enterprise and, of course, the appearance of Romulans several years before they’re meant to show their pointy ears. And, sure, some of those things bother me, too. But they don’t bother me nearly as much as Q, the holodeck, Sybok, the Nexus, and the entirety of Voyager (except for the Doctor, of course). I grew up on Trek, and have enjoyed many of the movies and latter-day series as well. But there’s also been a lot of dross over the years, and in the end, I’m willing to cut the new Trek a lot of slack. As TOS purist James Cawley says:

Right now as I write this there are no less than 4 different versions of Batman available to the mainstream viewing audience. ... They are all wildly different interpretations of the character, and no one confuses one with the other, they are all Batman! … So, why can’t Star Trek do the same? No one will confuse this new feature with The Original, or vice versa. This new feature will hopefully be a slam-bang adventure with some of Gene’s morals thrown in for good measure. This is simply another take on Trek. No one will punish the die hard fans, if in the end they enjoy it. This New Trek, will hopefully serve to remind people why they Loved Star Trek so much to begin with. I believe it will re-awaken people to the fact that The Original Series was so good … It will also, more importantly, introduce those legendary characters to a new generation of kids who have no idea who Kirk and Spock are, and what the heck is Star Trek.

Based on the trailer, there’s plenty to like about the new Trek, including the cast, which looks perfect (well, I’ll reserve judgment on Winona for now); the CGI, which looks hot; and the uniforms, which look enough like the originals to fill in for them, without being dorky (and they’re light years better than the TMP jammies!). Oh, and the bridge is way cool. I’ve heard that wags are comparing it to an Apple store, but they’re about two generations removed from the reality. It’s Saarinen! Even the Captain’s Chair. It takes the best mid-century modern design elements from the original sets (which included some Saarinen pieces) and blows it out across the board. Another nice touch: the goose-neck reading lamps as a subtle homage to Pike’s bridge. So, yes, beam me up, J.J. I’ll forgive almost any canon-busting loopiness if you stay true to the spirit of Trek. And if you don’t, there may just be some room for you on Rura Penthe.

One spring day during my junior year of high school, a friend came up to me and said, “Did you hear? Ian Curtis killed himself.” Dumbfounded, I replied, “Who?” At the time, my musical tastes were evolving, and this friend, who was always a step ahead of me, briefed me about Joy Division’s history, and lamented that he wouldn’t get to see them at Hurrah as he had planned (if memory serves correctly, he kept his tickets to the canceled show as a memento mori, rather than turning them in for a refund). Over the next few months, I would come to fully embrace Joy Division’s small, powerful ouevre, along with that of New Order, which rose almost too rapidly from the band’s ashes.

I’ve been thinking about those days a lot lately, as the Joy Division revival launches into high gear. In the past three days alone, The New York Times has had three articles about the group, culminating in today’s glowing review of the biopic “Control,” which is, of course, the driving force behind the newfound interest in Joy Division. And, not to let an opportunity pass it by, Apple has released its “iTunes Originals” New Order album, which includes mostly interview clips, along with versions of “Transmission” and “Love Will Tear Us Apart.”

The most striking thing about the New Order versions of these songs is how ordinary they sound. When Ian Curtis sang, “Dance, dance, dance, dance, dance, to the radio,” each “dance” was a sharply punctuated, like a hammer hitting a nail. Curtis wasn’t singing about dancing; he was singing about using music as a blunt instrument to blot out painful memories. When Bernard Sumner sings the same lyrics, he’s, well, singing about dancing. That’s not exactly surprising. New Order, has, after all, always been a dance band, focused more on finding the perfect beat than a meaningful turn of phrase. Even the group’s best song, the Curtis tribute “The Perfect Kiss,” features such inane, wince-worth lyrics as “I have always thought about/staying here or going out.” That doesn’t mean I don’t like New Order. The group’s early singles sound as fresh to me today as they did over 25 years ago, and I certainly listen to “Temptation” more often than, say, “Komakino.” But when I want more substance, I’ll return to Joy Division, as I suspect many fans, old and new, will do in the coming weeks.