Star Trek Teaser Trailer In The Works |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Teaser Trailer In The Works November 2, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Today Latino Review reported that there is a teaser for Star Trek in the works and that it will show the construction of the Enterprise. has confirmed this with multiple sources. In addition, one source revealed that parts of the teaser have already been shot. Dates for release are under discussion and two possibilities are for it to be shown with Cloverfield (Jan 18, 2008), or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (May 22, 2008).

Remember Teaser trailers ‘tease’
It is not uncommon for teaser trailers to come out well before a film is released. However they often don’t reveal a whole lot. A good example is the teaser for this summers Transformers movie which came out a year before release, but didn’t show you much of the actual ‘transformers.’

The Teaser
While we wait for the real teaser…feel free to watch the one made by

( LiveVideo  |  MOV   |   WMV  ) 


1. Pragmaticus - November 2, 2007

Finally, confirmation from Anthony!

2. JCool - November 2, 2007




3. Pragmaticus - November 2, 2007

I’m guessing, since it’s just a teaser, presumably all CGI, that it will be attached to Cloverfield, with a full trailer attached to Indiana Jones.

4. CmdrR - November 2, 2007

Can’t wait to see the E in her full glory! (Even without her skin — ha.)

5. Jeff - November 2, 2007

I’d rather see the crew in action…if not even for a couple seconds.

6. Bobby - November 2, 2007


7. Dr. Image - November 2, 2007

Well, it had better LOOK like the early E., not some revisionist mutation, or a lot of people are gonna be turned very much OFF very EARLY on.

8. JCool - November 2, 2007

I absolutely LOVE the trailer.

9. Pragmaticus - November 2, 2007

Yeah, the trailer is absolutely amazing!

10. Chain of Command - November 2, 2007


Is anyone else hoping this movie has some awesome Bass when the Enterprise does anything? LOL I mean, I want to hear this ship rumble and sound huge! LOL

11. ety3 - November 2, 2007

“Construction of the Enterprise?”

Unless this is some sort of retrospective teaser, I hope they meant “refit of the Enterprise,” because Pike was its captain for some time before Kirk. (And April before him.)

12. DavidJ - November 2, 2007


Well I’m sure they wouldn’t center their teaser around the construction of the ship if they weren’t VERY happy with what it looks like.

I think it’s a cool idea myself. Although they should probably find a way to highlight some of the cast too (even if it’s in quick flashes at the end). Otherwise it might look a little too geeky and insidery to mainstream audiences.

13. Bronto Dan - November 2, 2007

Why not a teaser with Cloverfield on Jan 18, 2008 and a trailer with Indiana Jones May 22, 2008? that would be sweet :)

And I agree, Trek Movie teaser is great!!!!!

14. roberto Orci - November 2, 2007


How would you feel about flames on the side?

15. CmdrR - November 2, 2007

roberto —
Then, the E could transform into a giant robot, find a 20-something Kirk and help him win the love of a young Carol Marcus.

16. Shatner_Fan_2000 - November 2, 2007

#14 “How would you feel about flames on the side?”

Phaser on stun at close range.

17. Diabolik - November 2, 2007

Construction of the ship could be accurate, if some sequence is shown as a narrative early in the film, about the ship’s history.

18. Chain of Command - November 2, 2007

It’s just gonna be a teaser, nothing more.

I’m sure the “construction of the Enterprise” is just meant to represent Star Trek being reborn and the “back to basics” idea behind it’s rebirth.

I mean really, there are a lot of teasers out there that have nothing to do with the scenes in the actual movie.

19. Danya Romulus - November 2, 2007

Now, you know that I love and the work all its employees do, but I have to say…I’m not a big fan of their teaser. For two reasons:

1. I think it’s too, I don’t know how to say this, happy, corny, Spielbergian. Of course Trek ultimately has a positive message, but I’d want something a little more…you know…badass for this.

2. I think It emphasizes the “prequel” idea too much. The “everything must have a beginning” theme is almost exactly the same as the teaser for The Phantom Menace. The reason I want to see this film is not because I need to see what happened before TOS, it’s because I want to see a sweet reboot of the classic with modern actors and production values. But maybe that’s just me?

The piece of music I would like to see emphasized the most in the teaser would be the slow four-note repetition that played before both the TOS and TNG themes…you know, the “DUM….dum…DUM…dum…” twice. I could envision, for instance, the sort of neutral long tone before that playing for a long time before you really know what the teaser is for, and then it would go into that, and everyone would be like ooooooooh yeah! THAT would be badass, I think :-).

20. Chain of Command - November 2, 2007

That could be cool to!

In any event I’m looking forward to seeing a Star Trek movie without colons LOL.

21. Ron Mosher - November 2, 2007

Re: 11
I agree. It would just kill a major piece of cannon if they do that. Unless they make it clear that when she is being built…..Anyone know when 1701 was constructed?

22. CmdrR - November 2, 2007

21 – Anyone know when 1701 was constructed?

That’s easy: 1701 was built 13 years before the incidents of The Menagerie, and 15 years before the incidents of TSFS, which happened after the 5 year mission.

23. JCool - November 2, 2007

Forget about Carol Marcus…the enterprise is Kirk’s first and only love.

She’s a classic beauty.

24. Daniel Broadway - November 2, 2007

I am studying to be a CG artist in college. I love the TrekMovie trailer, and I’ve been trying to contact Anthony about using ideas from it, with creating my own trailer, with my own CGI. I can’t seem to e-mail him. Anyone know a way?

25. STFAN - November 2, 2007

Mr Ocri: Is the footage in the trailer a standalone or part of the movie?

26. RDL - November 2, 2007

According to the ST Chronology…they put the commissioning date of the
1701 sometime in 2245…so, figure a few years I guess to build it, which would mean 2242…that would mean Kirk would be about 9 years old.

27. KennyB - November 2, 2007

Sweet Jesus……..I hope it is with Cloverfield…..can someone please get me a Kleenex? :-o

28. Scott Gammans - November 2, 2007

AWWRIGHT! Glad to hear this isn’t just a rumor. Thanks for tracking this down, Anthony!

29. Dennis Bailey - November 2, 2007

Just reading tea leaves…the phrase “parts of the teaser have already been *shot*” suggests that it’s not all CG. You shoot models, you shoot live action, you shoot horses when they break their legs – generally people don’t speak of “shooting” CG.

30. TreMadeMeWonder - November 2, 2007

KUDOS again on the TrekMovie trailer Buckaroohawk!
I know you put alot of effort onto it.

Good job on the Trailer remix, TrekMovie. Perhaps some advertising
residuals could go to Buckaroohawk for the effort.

Personally, I am up for a slightly revised ship design.
Yeah, its the gravity thing again.

31. ety3 - November 2, 2007

#22 & 26 —

Enterprise was built and christened in 2245.


32. Bobby - November 2, 2007

hey #19

since you seem to know exactly how the trailer should go, why don’t you do your own?

put your money where your mouth is.

33. Driver - November 2, 2007

Guess I’ll have to see Cloverfield on the big screen for THAT!

34. FlyingTigress - November 2, 2007


“Flames on the side”?

Only if the seats on the Big E have tuck and roll upholstery

35. jon1701 - November 2, 2007

I think the Enterpise should shoot fire out the nacelle caps.

That would be cool. I mean kewl.

36. FlyingTigress - November 2, 2007

…or, the lead engineer is identified as Dr. Ed Roth

37. Viking - November 2, 2007

#14 Roberto – I suggested about a month ago that she ought to get tricked out with mag wheels and dual exhast. I can live with the flames as long as you don’t give her an Earl Scheib Special. ;-)

38. Cizzy - November 2, 2007

Mr. Orci, i hope that WGA strike won’t stop you from posting here at least. I don’t imagine you are one of the sources Anthony used to confirm LR story :) Oh well we wont tell JJ.

Anyway, yeah it makes sense that teaser will be attached to Cloverfield, and full trailer to Indiana Jones. Paramount has some other pretty big movies next year, they might use them as well to promote Star Trek. And then there is CBS of course with it’s highest rated shows on tv. And MTV. Perhaps a tv commercial here and there. Although i doubt mr Moonves would approve.

The one thing i would like to most see right now is a picture from sets or something, perhaps Chris and Zachary in their costumes.

Bye everybody!

39. last o' the timelords - November 2, 2007

Big fins on the engines and a huge chrome grill on the front of the saucer section.

40. Ship Shape - November 2, 2007

That’s one way to get Trek fans to see Cloverfield.

41. FlyingTigress - November 2, 2007


Candy-apple red dilithium dust paint? LOL

42. CmdrR. - November 2, 2007

Bigger E, teensie windows. Give her some size!

43. Sean4000 - November 2, 2007

“The Constitution-class lineage was launched sometime prior to 2245, and served as Starfleet’s front-line vessels for the rest of the century. The Constitution-class also served as a mighty deterrent to both the Klingon and Romulan Empires, several times taking part in combat actions which determined the fate of the entire Federation if not the Alpha Quadrant itself. (Star Trek Encyclopedia)”

I am guessing that this is going to be the first revision of the ship, Pike’s was second, Kirk’s was 3rd, then the TWOK through TUC was the 4th and last revision before decommissioning.

Am I close Mr. Orci??

44. Thorny - November 2, 2007


Except, of course the Big E was lost in ST3:TSFS. That’s a new ship from ST4 on.

45. Ty Webb - November 2, 2007

This could be a very cool teaser. Reminds me of that early T2 teaser where you see the Terminator being put together in the factory.

I think there’s going to be some revisionism, to an extent. I hope it doesn’t look too over detailed, I always hated that aspect of the TNG era ships. Actually I never liked the Enterprise D.

46. Viking - November 2, 2007

#45 – Enterprise D reminded me of a fuggin’ fern bar in space. Once they decomm’d The Big E at the end of TUC, it took them until ST:FC to get it right again. Problem was, they forgot to give the scripts the same treatment. LMAO :D (FC excepted, of course – that was TNG’s TWOK.)

47. RDL - November 2, 2007

#31…Well, for what it is worth…commissioning a vessel is the act/ceremony of putting it into service. To do that, it would have to have been built already.

It takes 21st century technology about five-to-seven years to build a nuclear powered carrier. As advanced as 23rd century might be in ST terms, I doubt the Enterprise could be built in a year.

Even if they could, that would mean it was under construction in 2244, so James T. Kirk would have been 11, Spock 14.

All I’m saying is that if we buy what is considered canon, and if Kirk and Company are in their 20s and early 30s, showing the E under construction has to be a flashback — just for the teaser, or a flashback
within the actual film.

I could see a teaser being done showing the E under construction with Don LaFontaine’s booming voice over…”In 2244, Starfleet would create a new vessel to take us to the stars…a starship that would make history and make the names Pike, Spock and Kirk legendary. On December 25, 2008, join us…as the future visits the past…and the adventure begins again.”

48. Bald is Beautiful - Picard for President! - November 2, 2007

^7 roberto Orci

I always thought the Starfleet “star” is no star at all.

Take a look at a burning candle — and tell me if the flame doesn’t bear a striking resemlance to that emblem!

49. Rick - November 2, 2007

The teaser could very well be a symbolism of sorts for the rebuilding of TREK while going back to the classic feel. A building and soon to be launch of the ENTERPRISE gearing up the viewer of what is to come . Just my 2 cents on it. Or maybe it is a quick glimpse of a ship retrofit for Kirk and crew. Sounds like things are building up though. I am so curious of the designs and style of this film. I really want some the style of the pilot TOS shows. While sure with new tech/21st century viewers you adjust, update to a degree. But it would be cool to keep as close to the look and feel of these early shows. It is weird as I really in the last few years have gotten back into retro TREK big time. Well we will just have to wait and see what does happen on the big screen!

50. Bald is Beautiful - Picard for President! - November 2, 2007

^49 Rick

The old Trek was tabula rasa in many ways. How many television viewers ever actually saw a computer with their own eyes? Statistically speaking, close to zero! How many had ever seen a space vessel or rocketship with their own eyes? Same answer. Trek was free to build the Enterprise with very little audience expectation and very little existing “technology” to prejudice their design.

The spinoffs had to play to audience understanding of current technology, since everyone owns a few computers and everyone has seen the Saturn V at Kennedy Space Center and the Space Shuttle at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum.

In a way, the later Treks are less advanced, less visionary, and less likely to predict actual future design ethics because they must play to 20th C. prejudices and comfort zones with EXISTING technology.

51. Johnny Ice. - November 2, 2007

#19; I think It emphasizes the “prequel” idea too much
I agree, i find Trek movie trailer not that good specially sticking with outdated original Enterprise.

52. Sean4000 - November 2, 2007

Hmm. Yes that’s true. Let me clarify.

The constitution class ship lineage is what I am getting at. I suspect we’ll see the first original version of that line of vessel in this movie. Then it got a refit and became Pike’s design, then Kirk’s classic TOS style, then the TMP refit through TSFS. Then the Enterprise 1701 officially was lost. Then the same constitution style ship was rechristened Enterprise 1701-A in STIV-STVI. After STVI the Constitution gave way to the Excelsior Class Enterprise B, then the Ambassador Class Enterprise C, then the famous Galaxy Class Enterprise D, then lastly my favorite Sovereign Enterprise-E!

The only question I think will be adressed is “what did the Constitution class ship look like when it was first launched?”

53. Sam Belil - November 2, 2007

Better be the classic Enterprise from Cage/Where No Man Has Gone Before era. As well as the unfiforms — I guess that means no mini-dresses. Oh well, Sally Kellerman was pretty hot back in the day, certainly looked pretty damn good in WNMHGB.

54. Greg2600 - November 2, 2007

Following canon, I would expect construction to mean the original one in conjectured 2245 or thereabouts. At this time period, Kirk and Spock were teenagers and just getting to Academy age, which I guess makes sense.

55. Viking - November 2, 2007

Ya gotta love these conjectural threads – somewhere out in Cali, Senor Orci is sitting there and giggling his ass off at some of this stuff…….. :D

56. billg - November 2, 2007

Well… whatever is in the trailer, we won’t see the Enterprise until the last scene, when the camera pans across a recognizable piece of the ship and we see “NC-1701″.

Now, I think, the plot can build up to Kirk and his new crew taking the ship out for its first mission, or that first mission can be the core element in the plot. I vote for the latter. We will see a newly-promoted Kirk given command of the Enterprise and ordered to go fix some seemingly unsolvable probblem.

57. KennyB - November 2, 2007

55. Indeed he is….hell, so am I and I don’t even know a damn thing!!!!

58. Viking - November 2, 2007

55 – I’m just putting myself in his shoes. His thoughts must range from “You are out of your friggin’ mind!” to “Man, you don’t know how close to the truth you are…..”. And unless somebody throws us some crumbs, we won’t know for another year. I’m not sure I’d be able to keep my mouth shut that long, and I used to have government security clearances out the yin-yang. :D

59. billg - November 2, 2007

Actually, since most humans in the known universe won’t recognize NC-1701, they’ll show the name “USS Enterprise”.

Spock might also appear for a few seconds. (He should be wearing a gentle smile, I think.) Apart from the ship, he’s the only character in the movie that the general public might recognize before the script tells us who they are.

60. Shatner for president - November 2, 2007

That was wonderful Anthony, truley awesome. You should work on the real one.

61. JCool - November 2, 2007

I got chills from that fan-made trailer!


62. trektacular - November 2, 2007

To the people who think this isn’t a prequel to TOS I just have to say huh? What did you think this was?

63. GaryS - November 2, 2007

flames are OK, as long they are plasma flames!

64. David - November 2, 2007

Whether is shows the construction of the E, or a refit in progress (would explain the changes in the pointy nacelles) – it really doesn’t matter.

I’ll bet you 500 quatloos that having just the ship in the teaser will be enough to meltdown more than a few blogs and chatrooms.

IMO the original series was as much about the ship and the efforts they made to keep her alive as it was about the crew. For me at least, growing up with Trek, She was as big a crew member as anyone else. Seeing STMP for the first time as a teenager brought back many memories as they very slowly revealed the refit enterprise to Admiral Kirk. Looking back on it now the excessively long reveal turned off the non-fans, but totally satiated we geeky few (or many).

The effect of showing us the E in the teaser will have the saem effect. It will give the hardcore guys & gals something to debate and hopefully praise, while building excitement for a whole new generation of Trek.

I hope they keep the E under wraps until then.

65. billg - November 2, 2007

>> “… that would mean it was under construction in 2244, so James T. Kirk would have been 11, Spock 14.”

That’s assuming we see the ship through a the eyes of Krik, Spock, or a contemporary. That’s not necessarily required. I’d be surprised if this movie does not open with a scene that occured years before Kirk, et al, became Starfleet officers.

66. Anthony Pascale - November 2, 2007

I have also added the transformers teaser to provide some context to ‘teasers’ Knowning JJA I don’t expect the teaser to give away much…just wet your appetite

thanks for the comments on our trailer. bear in mind it was made months ago before any casting and before some of the latest plot rumors and such. I edited the trailer and CGI was from another trailer made by Buckaroohawk (used with permission). I had one already planned out and his cgi sequence was so close that it saved me the trouble of finding someone to make it…so thanks dude…I also had help and advice from Kelvington and Spockboy . Music is from ST VI (and all of that info is also in the tiny type at the end)

RE: Flames on the E!
will it have mudflaps too?

67. Jon (30) - November 2, 2007

Maybe we’ll find out what NCC stands for in NCC 1701 since they’re showing it being built.

68. Oregon Trek Geek - November 2, 2007

The camera can slowly focus in on two construction techs in spacesuits near the bridge area. One tech says to the other via radio, “Dude, I can’t believe this thing has only one bathroom!”

69. Classic trek - November 2, 2007

i love this trailer. it brought a tear to my eye. i love the ghost like images of capt kirk throughout and the shats voice over too. amazing. watched dozens of times now. how good is it to see the old enterprise again.

the old crew returning for another mission….to save the franchise!!

very excited by this trailer. well done
United kingdom

70. CanuckLou - November 2, 2007

OK nice to know there is a trailer next year but how about right now? Pictures, sketches, come on folks throw us a bone here!

71. Viking - November 2, 2007

Oooooo, Anthony, wicked idea. Make it the Yosemite Sam ‘Back Off’ mudflaps, and I’m there. And let’s add some fuzzy dice hanging from the viewscreen. And cover the helm/nav console with fake fur. And install those fake walnut JC Whitney aircraft lights inside, and the bulging aquarium windows for viewports, and we can airbrush a girl in a bikini on the side and…….:D

72. TreMadeMeWonder - November 2, 2007

NCC = Naval Construction Contract #

Yeah, they had contracts!

That means they had a money system (period.)

Please, explain this stuff in the new movie Mr. Orci.

73. TreMadeMeWonder - November 2, 2007

Please give the “franchise” a breath of fresh air! Reinvision the H_ll
out of the Star Trek concept. It’s been getting a bit boring. I believe
it’s the “We’ve seen it before” factor.

Frankly, I am a bit disapointed that Nimoy WILL play Spock again.
The whole Star Trek concept needs a new look. Also, If you really care
about Star Trek then please have some moments in the film where you
can REALLY explain how things actually work in the ST universe.

Some of my complaints about the current/ previous ST Universe are:

1. Currency. WTF? I think all fans are still mystified by this. Currency is an
important part of all civilized societies. WHY not Star Trek?

2. The global political system. After 40+ years of Trek we still only have
a vague understanding of what Starfleet is. A branch of the Navy?
If so, then what is the prevailing Earth Government system?
Is there a world President? Basic stuff.

3. Technology.
Please explain the Tech. better. The transporters should not scramble
and decode molecules. Most of us understand that would take
computers and hardware that is magical. Not technological.
How about this…
The Transporter uses the ships main engines and deflector the create
a Warp field to deposit people and things there and back again.

4. Wonder.
Bring back the awe and wonder factor of the original writing.
For example, if you watch any original episode there will be four or five
plot points that stop you and make you think. That’s the wonder factor.
An example would be The Apple. A bad episode in my opinion, but
there are a few gems there in the plot. Kirk telling Scott to separate
the ship. A society controlled by machines (with the need for implants
even). A paradise, with no children, and controlled by a Snake god?!!

Just do not write/use stupid plot elements please! Make sure everything works well together emotinally AND scientifically. This could be the
only thing that saves this movie.

IMHO Writers should be paid the top dollar.

Just give us a NEW updated look that TOS deserves along with GREAT
writing. Once we hear this is accomplished we’ll fill the seats and
bring others.

Note to studio execs… It’s not all about the money guys. Star Trek has inspired countless scientists and engineers. Take a look at your cell
phone. It’s OK to go the extra mile to be (what was the word they used
way back when) CEREBRAL. It really inspires us all to greatness.

To finish…I say say NO to the Shat (not needed) and YES to the
Star Trek vision. Only please, massivally upgrade the ST look, and please
keep it logical. A good help may be to envision that you are watching
your completed film on Mystery Science 2000.

Reposted. Because I can.

74. Classic trek - November 2, 2007


i agree it probably may not bring in extra money but if old spock is in it then old kirk needs to be at his side. there would always be something missing from this film without him. it need not be a long appearance but an appearance none the less. i would feel sad if he were not there. i grew up with shatner as capt kirk – my hero and i want to see him once once handing the baton over to the new james t kirk. the film would feel complete with these two LEGENDS in their famous roles.
united kingdom.

75. Snake - November 2, 2007

The construction of The Ent?

nice – abit like the T2 teaser trailer..(construction of a T 800)

76. Devon - November 2, 2007

“14. roberto Orci – November 2, 2007


How would you feel about flames on the side?”

Then get Paul Tuttle and the guys at OCC on this PRONTO! It’s the only true way to OCC Canon.

77. CmdrR. - November 2, 2007

will it have mudflaps too?

Yeah, no you’re talkin’! Get some o’ them mudflaps on her bigass nacelles, the kind with the naked ladies on em. And make sure she has a phaser rifle rack, and a flatbed, and a seat for ole Blue, so he can hang his head out the window. (We’ll have to get him a space helmet, course.) Woo-hoo, finally a Star Track we in the south can enjoy!

(ps- I was born in RI)

78. Thomas Jensen - November 2, 2007

#74… Well, if they can have, or should have, old Spock & Kirk, then they should have old ship, too!

79. NCC-73515 - November 2, 2007

Re: Flames on the Enterprise…

Give it a flux capacitor, the two coolant towers and the blue glowing stripes that the BTTF DeLorean had… and let it leave FLAME TRAILS when it goes to warp!!!! :D :D :D :D

80. Noleuser - November 2, 2007

Yeah, I agree the teaser will be on Cloverfield, and the trailer will be on Indiana for all to see!

81. Ralph - November 2, 2007

#64 David

I agree David. The Enterprise is as much as the crew. She is beautiful. As Capt Kirk said… Save the Ship, I am expendable.
By the way Anthony. Great trailer. I think it was so good, that they will accept yours as the emotion for the movie. And JJ will bring a clip to give a personality to the ship.

82. Anthony Pascale - November 2, 2007


warning for spamming and for hijacking

comments to

83. AJ - November 2, 2007

The Enterprise must be preserved as is, and made as beautiful as possible via CG, All the new details can be revealed inside, but give us the classic design, please. And make it so public soon, so that we can stop worrying about it!

84. Avi Chapman - November 2, 2007

#73: You know the difference between ‘technical’ and ‘magical’? 200 years.

85. Greg2600 - November 2, 2007

83 – AJ, I don’t know if the refit Enterprise opening of Star Trek: The Motion Picture can be topped? Call me old fashioned, but there’s just more realism and substance to actual models rather than CGI. I would prefer to see the Enterprise only at the end, like some have said. After all, the most popular ST movie of all time didn’t even take place in outer space.

86. Pragmaticus - November 2, 2007

Come on people, some of you guys are taking this too literally. The construction of the Enterprise could be just a metaphor, and I suspect that it is. We don’t need to know when it was built and whether it fits canon because it doesn’t matter, it’s purely metaphorical.

87. 2muchtime - November 2, 2007

Welcome to geekville USA!

88. Jim J - November 2, 2007

I just want to be able to recognize it without it looking to “abnormal”. The movie Enterprise was about perfect in the subtle yet noticeable changes. It needs to be kinda on that order, but not necessarily look like THAT particular ship.

Maybe someday we’ll look back at the TV show version and say…look at how “plain” that ship looks. But, as of right now, the original (no bloody A, B, C, D, or e) is still the best.

89. Star Trekker - November 2, 2007

If they show any ships in the movie it should be done with a model not CGI. I don’t have anything against CGI but some of the remastered trek dosen’t look right.

90. raulpetersen - November 2, 2007

here is the best trailer for STAR TREK 11

91. raulpetersen - November 2, 2007

anyway my mates who cannot stand trek asked me what to expect from the new movie (see its already got non trekkies talking!!!)
i said ‘”well hopefully strange new worlds, new life and new civilisations”

something we havent had since star trek 4 with the probe and the whales, and sorry insurrection doesny count as it was a remake of a tng episode and it was poo!

star trek has always filled me with wonder and hope, ufortunatley for the last couple of years the i only thing i was wondering was wtf was happening to it and hoping for berman and braga to get the chop!!!

#7 please all i ask is that you take us somewhere alien please,
do that and the enterprise could e pink for all i care!

92. Jason Lee - November 2, 2007

Point of interest: I can’t say for sure from the brief glimpse in the trailer but I’m about 90% certain the “Enterprise” model that flies out of the sun is actually the Franz Joseph USS Constitution model I created several years ago. Not that I object, just felt like pointing it out.

93. Etha Williams - November 3, 2007

I know it’s so very early, but I’m still holding out for something before the Menagerie screenings…I’m not even talking about a real preview…just a cast photo…news…SOMETHING…seems like the perfect opportunity :).

94. TJ Trek - November 3, 2007

I would not be surprised if the thing came out with cloverfield. I mean, that’s one of JJ’s projects too. All That aside. I am kinda excited to see cloverfield too. That looks like a cool movie. I hope it doesn’t get all Godzilla on us though. that’s just cheese to the max.

95. TJ Trek - November 3, 2007

As too remastered trek. I am sure that they could do a great job with a CGI TOS enterprise. They just didn’t with the remastered stuff. Just look at the rest of the CGI work. None if it is up to par with even the ENTERPRISE series. now that series got CGI right, most of the time

96. Bryan - November 3, 2007

The Enterprise should be Pikes Enterprise. Gold spikes on the nacelle caps, taller bridge dome on the saucer with appropriate markings and large sensor disk. If you need to show Capt. Robert Aprils Enterprise, take a look at the concept drawings in Stephen Whitfield “Making of Star trek” paperback.
Remember in TNG finale “All Good Things” when captain Beverly Crusher has her own hospital ship the USS Pastuer…..that was one of the early Enterprise incarnations with the sphere replacing the main saucer.
God DO NOT RE-RE-ENGINEER the classic design. Enbellish it, map hull plating if you must…do not change her like was done for Enterprise (NX-01).

97. gord - November 3, 2007

Even though that’s an unofficial Star Trek trailer – it gives me goosebumps like you wouldn’t believe.

Can’t frickin’ wait.

98. Star Trek: The Journey » Blog Archiv » Teaser-Trailer für “Star Trek” - November 3, 2007

[…] Wie TrekMovie berichtet, wird der erste Trailer zum neuen “Star Trek” voraussichtlich im Vorprogramm von “Cloverfield” oder “Indiana Jones IV” zu sehen sein. Damit wäre der früheste Veröffentlichungstermin der 18.01.2008. […]

99. Cervantes - November 3, 2007

Anthony, it seems a coincidence that the Latino Review article also notes that the teaser is codenamed ‘Central Headquarters’, considering that you eventually plan to rename this site as ‘’…

I love trailers and am disappointed when they are omitted from any Movie DVDs I purchase, but I have learned not to take anything from them in any way after the excellent one for ‘Star Wars:The Phantom Menace’ a few years ago lured me into high expectations…

It should have read ‘Every journey has a MISstep…’

100. Benjamin - November 3, 2007

The TrekMovie teaser just gave me chills.

Just like it should.

101. RDL - November 3, 2007

I remember in an interview I read, Roddenberry said NCC didn’t really stand for anything, but Naval Construction Contract became accepted.

There are apparently engineering tubes on TNG and maybe some of the other series that have GNDN on them. That did stand for something,
“Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing.”

102. Leonel - November 3, 2007

Re: Flames On The E..

Don’t forget hydraulics on the dorsal connecting the saucer section, to make the saucer bob up and down when the bass gets turned up.. ;-)

103. Mark Lynch - November 3, 2007

I was wondering what kind of warp entry effect will they use. I really hope that it is the one from ST-TMP that was always the best one in my opinion.

Oh yeah, keep the Enterprise roughly as she is but with more detailing and give her a sense of scale.

104. Rhett Coates - November 3, 2007

#101 — Yeah, that “Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing” is from more back-story on the making of TOS, according to those who built the sets. That’s so funny! And, NAVAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT is the “accepted” prefix naming according to Gene Roddenberry; YES. Ship designer Matt Jeffries had considered it to be Naval & Civilian Craft, but Gene thought otherwise—and Matt didn’t seem to mind at all. If we consider the potential there, NCC-1701 might indicate Earth’s space navy (Starfleet?) contract series 17, with Enterprise being the first ship beyond the prototype, NCC-1700, the USS Constitution (Constitution Class, or “Starship Class” as was seen on the bridge plaque).

ONE OTHER THING: If canon is truly adheared to, then perhaps Orci & Co. will reveal what Mike Sussman wrote into the back-story of the ST:ENT series mirror-universe episode: that one day before his death in up-state New York, Jonathan Archer was the man who christened the USS Enterprise. (They could even have Robert April there, looking on as the champaign bottle tumbles through space to hit the bow…….)

#103 — That was called a “STAR-BOW” effect, and I agree, it was simply AMAZING. At first, I was shocked at how fast the ship “jumped to warp,” but then they did it in Star Wars (but with no “warp effect”), and that was even more abrupt. If that kind of technology ever comes to fruition in real life, they’ll certainly need “IDF” systems: Inertia Dampening Field technology. Otherwise, like was always stated in The Making of Star Trek” book(s), the crew would have become smears of red on the back walls the first time the ship entered warp. (Yikes!)

105. Oregon Trek Geek - November 3, 2007

The teaser is perfect. It gave me the same kind of chills I got from the STVI teaser.

106. IrishTrekkie - November 3, 2007

the the construction of the Enterprise, oh my ! giant space god , my head will explode when i see that tralier i mean , its going to be great , i cant wait i cant wait . is it done yet ? is IT !!! I WANT TO KNOW

107. Gene Coon was the Better Gene - November 3, 2007

Have to say that hearing Shat’s voice in the fan trailer drove home the sadness I’ll feel if he really doesn’t appear in the movie. Sadness, not anger. Some things should just fall into their rightful place. Tom Seaver was a Met, although he played for other teams. The Beatles broke up, but were never as good alone.

Shat is still alive, and won’t be here forever. They’re making a new ST movie (allegedly) without him. There is just something wrong about that. Life is too short, and it can use all the little reassuring touches it can get. You can’t let Shat be Kirk one more time, for a few lousy minutes? It’s only a movie, he’ll be dead before you know it, and it would be nice to see.

Not a big BBK guy, but jeez.

Have to say that they should NOT mess with the Enterprise. It is a visual icon, and needs to provide the visual continuity the recasting of the leads cannot. An unaltered Enterprise, uniforms, sound effects, and music cues, are necessary to properly bridge the gap.

108. Dennis Bailey - November 3, 2007

I like this one:

109. Captain Robert April - November 3, 2007

A few points that hopefully will be of some use to those making the new movie.

Regarding the NCC bit, there never was an official meaning back in the day. “Naval Construction Contract” is a Franz Joseph retcon from the mid 70’s, and quite frankly, has always bugged me. The origins of the registry number goes thusly:

The chief inspiration came from aircraft tail numbers, where you have one or two of letters indicating country of origin and classification of the aircraft. NC75461, for example, would be a commercial aircraft registered in the United States; N is the US’s symbol in the international registry, C indicates “commercial.” Clearly, the letter doesn’t necessarily correspond with the first letter in whatever it represents. There was also the consideration that whatever number was tacked on after the letters (NC at this stage of the process), they had to be easily readable from a distance, or rather, on a typical mid-60s tv screen, which eliminated all numbers but 1, 7, and 0. So, with a little playing around, and a second C added for balance, and we wound up with NCC-1701 (note that this did not come from Matt Jefferies’ own plane with a similar tail number, as he didn’t even get that plane until well after Star Trek had been cancelled).

Since that time, however, a system seems to have formed around this arrangement, and it has nothing to do with the “Naval Construction Contract” rationalization, mainly thanks to all the myriad of ships, and their varied registry numbers, that have cropped up on TNG and DS9.

It basically goes like this:

N indicates a Federation registry.

CC is an active duty Starfleet vessel. NCC-1701, for examle

X is an experimental or prototype ship. NX-2000 for the U.S.S. Excelsior and NX-74205 for the U.S.S. Defiant are two examples.

AR belongs on a civilian research vessel from Earth. The S.S. Vico had a registry of NAR-18834.

SP means a Vulcan ship. The Vulcan ship T’Pau had a registry of NSP-17938.

Now, to that teaser trailer.

I watched that trailer precisely once, a a few things lept out at me.

All of the scenes we hazily saw were from the regular production run of the series, which, given the alleged time period in which this movie takes place, IS THE WRONG ERA. To be fair, it’s essentially something of a quasi-flashback sequence, so it’s forgivable, but that sort of approach could be an attention getter of the wrong kind. Scenes from “Where No Man Has Gone Before” would be more appropriate, particuarly towards the end, to better imply that we’re going back to the beginning.

What is particularly off-putting is the fact that the ship is wrong. Not only should the nacelles not be lit up and have the golden spikes on the domes, but those TMP style lights illuminating the name and registry have no business being on the ship in ANY form short of the TMP refit.

Had this been the actual trailer, I’d be seriously concerned about whether or not the producers have the slightest clue about what they’re doing.

110. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 4, 2007

Capt. April,

CC= an active duty ship? Would’nt that be AD?
I think that would look REAL bad.

I’ll stick with NCC = Naval Constuction Contract.
Makes more sense, and is more generaly accepted.
Plus it tends to explain the future gov/economy a bit.

I believe its been said that only the t.v. series and movies are ‘cannon”, correct? As a fan of the show, I would really like to know how we got from here to there (ST timeline.)

Star trek has been really lame at explaining these things consistently.

One other point. Time Travel sucks as a plot device.
Case in point. Could’nt Janeway have taken Voyager back to the Future (after meeting Ed Begely in the 90s) with a slingshot/time warp around the sun?

Trek needs to show more vision, scope, and yes, logic.

Buy Babylon 5 – now available on DVD!

111. RaveOnEd - November 4, 2007

110 – Unfortunately, Capt. Robert April is correct. Since Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies were avid aircraft buffs and fliers, the NCC use was stemmed from aircraft designations, exactly as described in 109.

AD as an active duty craft doesn’t exist anywhere.

112. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 4, 2007

You have proven my point again RaveOnEd.

No consistency in the series after forty + years. I for one am tired of putting up with the inconsistencies.

As I said above…
Star trek has been really lame at explaining these things consistently.
Trek needs to show more vision, scope, and yes, logic.

Here’s what Wiki says…

While you may be technically correct concerning the true origin, the above-average viewer understands that the NCC means…
– Wiki (halfway down the page)…
According to non-canon print sources, “NCC” is short for “Naval
Construction Contract”.[7]

KEEP IT SIMPLE. You know, if they would just creat a short montage that shows the developments of Earth form today to the 23rd century that would explain all we need to know. You may say, How can they show all that in thirty seconds? Look at the opening of ‘Enterprise’ or the ‘Mirror Mirror – Enterprise’ opening. The mirror mirror ep. did a good job at it. At least they tried.

No big war here. Unless you are interested in discussing B5 vs Trek.
I prefer Trek – but with a more logical explaination for EVERYTHING IN THE SHOW. B5 was GREAT AT SCOPE!!! It’s not that hard to do. In fact it will broaden the Trek universe GREATLY. That’s what little details do. Some want those details to appear on the ships hull. I would like to see it in the writing. And the writers strike sure looks like its gonna hurt.
Trust me. I have alot of friends who have seen all the episodes. Most say it now sucks because of not real depth to the universe after 40 + YEARS!!!.

Mr. Orci, Please prove them worng this time!

113. JL - November 5, 2007

Nice job on the home trailer, Anthony : )

114. Gary Lee - November 5, 2007

Rachel Nichols looks like Janice Rand

115. Captain Robert April - November 5, 2007

The “CC” could stand for “commissioned cruiser” or something similar.

Otherwise, EVERY ship should have an NCC registry, which is clearly not the case.

Again, the letters themselves don’t necessarily have to represent the first letter in whatever they’re representing, or any letter for that matter. Just look at the three letter codes identifying airports, they’re all over the map.

116. Captain Robert April - November 5, 2007

As for Wikipedia, I think I need to pay them another visit…..

117. Colonel Kurdatz - November 6, 2007

Doesn’t make any sense. The Big E was already into her THIRD five year mission when Kirk took command, so to see her under construction wouldn’t make any sense according to canon.

I keep wondering where this story is going and when it actually takes place in the Trek storyline –

Kirk is there and Pike is there. But we know from the Menagerie that Kirk clearly says “I only met Pike once. When I took command of the Enterprise from him.” So what role would Pike play?

And Checkov didn’t join the crew until the second season. There also is the question of Dr Boyce, Number One, Yoeman Rand and a host of other characters that show up in the Trek series that will have to be accounted for.

As for the rumors on the web that Enterprise will look totally different, that would KILL this movie. Cold. Dead. Ya gotta leave the Big E just as she was in the TOS or this movie won’t even take off in the hearts of the truely TOS Trek faithful.

118. Pragmaticus - November 6, 2007

117 – It’s a metaphor! Who cares if it applies to canon or not? It’s a teaser trailer, which doesn’t mean it’s in the movie.

119. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 8, 2007

Good thing they did’nt say the same thing about King Kong. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.