Description of Trek Trailer |
jump to navigation

Description of Trek Trailer January 15, 2008

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

The teaser trailer for the new Star Trek will be appearing on the big screen this Friday in front of Cloverfield. A description of the trailer has shown up at has confirmed that the description is “pretty close” to the final. See below for more (spoilers)

Here is an excerpt…

Slow Paramount logo.

Bad Robot logo.

Black, suddenly some sparks (very saturated, Michael Bay looking cinematography)

We hear an old NASA radio countdown: “30 sec and counting.”

Close up of a timeless guy with goggles leaning down doing some weilding and sparks flying around.

He lifts his googles — slightly futuristic head covering. It’s not a space suit, btw.

The dude leans down and wields some more — he’s standing on big metal.

“FROM DIRECTOR J.J. ABRAMS” (blue font with a nice lens flare)

Read the rest at

Connecting Trek to today
As noted above, have confirmed that this is an accurate report. The notion of showing the beginnings of the Enterprise in the 23rd century intermixed with the sounds from the 20th century reminded me of something Roberto Orci said in his interview with You have talked about making Star Trek relevant again, how are you going to do that?

Roberto Orci:
I think when a lot of people think of Star Trek they think of it as some other kind of fantasy world. What we want people to see is that the future that Gene Roddenberry created, of Star Trek and Starfleet and Starfleet Academy and the Federation, are extension of what might happen…maybe tomorrow. One of the things we are trying to do with this movie is connect it back to today. How we got from here to how we got to Captain Kirk on the Enterprise.

Clearly the trailer is doing exactly that. Showing us how we got from here to the Enterprise. The thing that distinguishes Trek from Star Wars most is that Star Trek is our future, and not ‘from a galaxy far far away.’ It appears that the film makers are trying to make that connection…and the trailer is just the beginning.


1. Anthony Lewis - January 15, 2008

Sounds really really really uninteresting.

2. Dave Roberts - January 15, 2008

It is like the first five minutes of Flashdance.

3. Multitrek - January 15, 2008

Looking forward to seeing it!

4. El Ghost Host - January 15, 2008

And so it begins!

5. Kempec - January 15, 2008


Well…it sounds like it has been predicted to be… Personally I can’t wait…

6. karanadon - January 15, 2008

Sounds good!! :D

7. roberto orci - January 15, 2008

How unimaginative. Abrams is having his way with my childhood!

8. Casey - January 15, 2008

Wow! Sounds incredible.

9. Dilox Esp - January 15, 2008

I just read the whole plot on the Nimoy Aging article here on Trek Movie.
What up wit dat?

10. Ed - January 15, 2008

#7 Oh great, even one of the writers is complaining!!

11. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008

“In the early to mid-23rd century, at least twelve heavy cruiser-type starships, the Constitution-class, were commissioned by the Federation Starfleet. The vessel registered NCC-1701, which was constructed at the San Francisco Fleet Yards in Earth orbit and launched in 2245, was christened the Enterprise.” Taken from Memory Alpha.

Don’t know If I like the sound of this. I always thought the “E” was constructed in Earth orbit. They are saying it was constructed on Earth?? I believe this report may be bull, but if it isn’t…….

12. jonboc - January 15, 2008

…under construction. ha. I like it. Love the idea of mixing Kennedy into the trailer. Can’t wait to see it on the big screen Friday.

13. Kirk Thatcher - January 15, 2008

Sounds like it continues the theme of the opening of “Enterprise”. meh

The Enterprise should be assembled in space

14. Dilox Esp - January 15, 2008

Oh yeah, it’s Post #114

15. Paul - January 15, 2008

still gonna waste my ten bucks to see it and Cloverfield Friday. Wonder if I’ll be the only one giving it a standing O? at least at the theater here in town

16. Dave Roberts - January 15, 2008

“Michael Bay looking cinematography)”…. This is bad. Reminds me off the Transformers….

17. The Vulcanista - January 15, 2008

I see that Mr. O’s been into the smart-ass pills again today. :)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

18. Vulcan Soul - January 15, 2008

Ok i did not read that.


19. Oregon Trek Geek - January 15, 2008

Well, maybe final assembly can take place in orbit, right? So there we are. :)

20. Michael - January 15, 2008

1st thought was the opening sequence for Enterprise. “Getting from there to here”

21. Kempec - January 15, 2008

Sorry Guys Thought I was the first one to comment…

22. Anthony Pascale - January 15, 2008

the details on the trailer reminded me of something Orci said in his interview back in October…I added the quote above. He talked about how they are trying to create the connection between our time and Kirk’s time. It is clear that the trailer is the first step in that…to show that Star Trek isn’t just a fantasy from some strange land…but where we are headed.

23. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008

This will not be in the actual movie fellas.
For those that liked that description, Sorry.

24. joel - January 15, 2008

I really hope there is more then that! Otherwise I’ll just skip Cloverfield in the theaters…

25. Viking - January 15, 2008

“Huge aircraft-like warp engines”





Roberto, were you being a naughty boy? ;-) Give us a hint – what do they resemble? An F-16? B-2? The (alleged) Aurora? A Fokker Eindecker? LMAO

26. Lugosi - January 15, 2008

#1 Anthony Lewis – January 15, 2008
“Sounds really really really uninteresting.”

That’s exactly what I thought …

27. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008

While I’ll give this movie a chance, I always liked the way it was vague (TOS} about how everything came about. Although, I am still waiting for the eugenics war.

28. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2008

It sounds so neat to me! :D

I cannot wait!

29. Craig - January 15, 2008

Uh, oh, from what is said in this teaser trailer could what AICN said about the script be true?

30. Q - January 15, 2008

To post #11:

There were many great ships that were built at the SF Fleet Yards. Some of these include 1701, 1701-A, Excelsior, Sutherland, and the Enterprise-E.

These ships were never constructed ON Earth, just in orbit. I don’t see how that is any problem whatsoever. A ton of other ships were built in orbit of Utopia Planitia on Mars. One of which was the USS Voyager.

There’s the Warp 5 Complex, Earth Station McKinley, the Beta Antares Shipyards, 40 Eridani A Starfleet Construction Yards…

I mean… the list is endless. All ships have to built somewhere.

31. Robert Meyer Burnett - January 15, 2008


That’s it then. Cannon is officially out the window. Sounds like we’re getting the equivelant of the third season of ALIAS.

In the TREK Universe, Starships are constructed IN ORBITAL SHIPYARDS. We’ve seen this from TMP onward through TREK III, IV, IX, TNG, DS9, VOYAGER and ENT. Heck, even the current ISS is assembled in orbit after the component parts are carried aloft either by rocket or shuttle.

Also…it’s not as if the ENTERPRISE was the first of its class, in addition to being commanded by two other captains before Kirk.

If this happens at Area 51, already the butt of a brillant conceit in “Little Green Men” (an episode I’m sure the filmmakers haven’t seen), we know the level of braintrust at work here.

Once again, the legacy of Trek is in the hands of those who reject it.

Now, if a blonde helps Kirk reprogram the KM senario, well, then, I suppose we’ll watch as Trek’s future ends.


32. steve623 - January 15, 2008

an interstellar ftl starship, never intended to operate in an atmosphere, let alone to touch the ground, and they build it like the Titanic circa 1900.


33. Imrahil - January 15, 2008

Yeah, the on-the-ground shipyard thing is really asinine.

34. diabolk - January 15, 2008

No, folks. The ships is ASSEMBLED in orbit. It is made, piece by piece on Earth. Then the pieces are sent up and put togther in space.

So, no “canon” is violated here. Get a grip.

35. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008

Hey Q! Apparently you didn’t read it right…

“Really impressive shot from by the nacelle(?) of people all over the ship, and you can see a huge industrialize city or shipyard in the background. It’s being built on Earth, NOT IN SPACE.” Caps My Own!

36. steve623 - January 15, 2008

“No, folks. The ships is ASSEMBLED in orbit. It is made, piece by piece on Earth. Then the pieces are sent up and put togther in space.”

This is your speculation, yes? Its not like you know what you’ve said is fact any more than anyone else posting here besides Mr. Orci.

37. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 15, 2008

Well everyone who was bashing Aint it cool for the Area 51 thing, enterprise built on Earth, looks like it may be time to chomp some crow. Chomp Chomp away fellas, crow yummy.

38. Robert Meyer Burnett - January 15, 2008


BTW…next thing you know…Mr. Orci will have you believe Scotty invented the Transporter…


Boo, twice.

39. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008

I bow to you Lord Garth! LOL!

40. Edge - January 15, 2008

And it will be on-line sometime on Monday.
So you won’t have to waste $9.00 to see “Cloverfield” too.

41. Kirk Thatcher - January 15, 2008

Saucer section. flying saucer. Area 51. Get it? Bwahahahaha – that’s how they’ll connect the past and the future. Maybe the Area 51 aliens were vulcans?

42. CanuckLou - January 15, 2008

Calm down folks. This is a teaser – not the final film.

Just because the teaser shows the Enterprise being built on Earth that does not mean it will be the same in the movie. As pointed out by Roberto and Anthony the purpose of the teaser is to link the present to the future.

Starting on earth in a non-specific time period and making it seem like our present is a damn clever way to break audience preconceptions about the next Star Trek movie.

Wonder how the Big E looks.

43. Robert Meyer Burnett - January 15, 2008


Finally, sorry about the “canon” misspelling. All the rage boiling inside me…I couldn’t help it.

Then again, I’m over the idea that flying cockroaches designed the DEATH STAR, so I’m sure I’ll get over this.

But I might not.

44. roberto orci - January 15, 2008


Kurtzman and I left Alias in the 3rd season.

45. Flake - January 15, 2008

To the whiners: Please find a canon source that states the Enterprise was built in orbit.

I can’t find one.

The assumption is that it is built at the same drydock as the one in TMP but this has never been stated onscreen and therefore is not canon. Therefore it is ok to be constructed on the surface.

Personally I don’t give a rats ass where the ship is built, it could’ve been built at the Baghdad shipyards for all I care.

46. Alex - January 15, 2008

#34. Just what I thought. It’s kinda silly to assemble the whole thing in orbit in a vacuum. In zero gravity. Makes it unnecessarily complicated. Besides, we have seen a shot of Utopia Planitia on TNG (the ground bases, not the spacedocks) where Galaxy class saucers and nacelles were stored *on* the planet. Possibly being under construction.

But from the description, it sounds impressive. Sad that we won’t see anything like this in the movie. Or do we???

47. mayday - January 15, 2008

So, could we have gotten a hint at the the official title of this film – “Star Trek XI : The Future Begins”?

48. Tim Lade - January 15, 2008

The dedication plaque said the San Francisco Ship Yards. Does San Fransisco now extend to space?

49. steve623 - January 15, 2008

Just for the record, I am perfectly calm about this. For those of you for whom this sounds good and exciting, more power to you. I just prefer a dose of common sense, but I was told this wasn’t my father’s Star Trek and apparently it may well not be mine either, and I’m sure Mr. Orci, et al, won’t be losing any sleep over that.

Definitely won’t be seeing Cloverfield this weekend though.

50. theinquisitor - January 15, 2008

I have a bad feeling about this.

51. sisko - January 15, 2008


Sounds like this teaser is similar to the Star Trek VI teaser in simply wetting our appetite for another Star Trek movie.

“For one quarter of a century, they have thrilled us with their adventures,
amazed us with their discoveries, and inspired us with their courage.
Their ship has journeyed beyond imagination. Her name has become legend.

“Her crew, the finest ever assembled. We have traveled beside them from
one corner of the galaxy to the other. They have been our guides, our
protectors, and our friends. Now you are invited to join them for one
last adventure. For at the end of history, lies the Undiscovered Country.”

52. richpit - January 15, 2008

I was very much looking forward to this teaser and now I’m not sure I can think of a word to describe how boring it sounds. Maybe it works better visually.

I at least wanted to get “tease” of what the Enterprise looked like!

53. sisko - January 15, 2008

the Area 51 aliens were Ferengi. Everyone knows that. :P :D

54. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008


I put faith in Memory Alpha. They are all knowing Trek wise.

55. Viking - January 15, 2008

OK, at the risk of it breaking off and plunging me to my death here, I’m going to shimmy out on a thin, high limb:

Maybe the entire ship was assembled in components and test-fit on the ground. It’s pretty much been established that the saucer section can function independently, and atmospherically (on impulse power). The single largest (and only flight-capable) section of the ship would be the saucer, and could be piloted into orbit from it’s own gantry. The rest would be ferried into orbit for final assembly. It’s not a big leap from what I posted in an earlier thread:

56. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008

BTW, I will have some cheese with my whine.

57. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

Can’t say that I like the ship being built on the ground deal. But if that’s what Star Trek is about to everyone, then I guess the movie will be a disappointment.


Back to AICN with you. Hurry up, you don’t want to miss the discussion about sexual organs or to bash every movie in production.

Again, I hope that all here can keep an OPEN MIND until we all actually see THE MOVIE.

And #31-

I have a lot of respect for you, but your comments seem beneath you. Until this movie was green-lighted (greenlit?), Trek’s future HAD ended. JJ Abrams owe you money or something?

58. Flake - January 15, 2008

#54 Ok fair enough, but perhaps the San Francisco Fleet Yards have facilities in space and on the surface. The fact that this film shows the ship being constructed on the surface supports this theory because if its on screen its canon !

59. orgcaptainnemo - January 15, 2008


I think it is fairy set that this movie is just titled “Star Trek”.

60. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008


Agreed. We’ll just have to see they come up with.

61. Jason Lee - January 15, 2008

Technically, we don’t KNOW that starships have to be built in orbit. In fact, if you think it through, it might actually make more sense to build them on the ground. Just because they aren’t designed to land doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of maintaining their structural integrity or lifting themselves into orbit. In “Tomorrow is Yesterday,” the Enterprise was pretty deep in the Earth’s atmosphere and apparently not folding under its own weight or dropping like a rock.

We’ve known for years that the Enterprise was built at the San Francisco yards, and I think most people assumed the major components were built there and then lifted into orbit for final assembly. I see no huge, canon violating reason why the ship could not have been fully assembled on Earth. Just because the Enterprise was REFITTED in an orbital drydock and ships of the 24th century were apparently built in orbital facilities like Utopia Planetia doesn’t mean that ground-based assembly was never done.

It also occurs to me that one of the “Lost Years” novels posited the notion that the Enterprise’s primary hull was actually brought down to Earth to be refitted and then essentially flew itself back into orbit. Given that the Trek XI writers are known to have some fondness for the Trek novels, this turn of events really doesn’t surprise me.

I’m cool with it.

62. Adam Cohen - January 15, 2008

Building a starship on terra firma doesn’t make much sense. Canon, or not, I doubt that humans will be building gargantuan spaceships on the ground, particularly those with such awkward dimensions as the Enterprise. And then having to propel those elements out of Earth’s gravity? It’s a waste of energy. That being said, I will defer to Rick Sternbach’s opinion on this as he is an accomplished futurist engineer. But this idea of building the Enterprise on Earth makes the galley in Star Trek VI look like a tame anachronism.

So… Mr. Orci, maybe linking Star Trek to our reality is not what is being accomplished? Color me not impressed by this trailer.

63. Lugosi - January 15, 2008

“Back to AICN with you. Hurry up, you don’t want to miss the discussion about sexual organs or to bash every movie in production.”

I DO have an open mind regarding this film. But why can’t say that this description of the teaser really sounds (mark my words: it “sounds”) uninteresting? I don’t see how this is bashing the movie, really. It is totally possible that this teaser will be the best I’ve ever seen. BUT I consider this description to be uninteresting.

64. CanuckLou - January 15, 2008

@50 – Wrong franchise!

65. Alex - January 15, 2008

To end the discussion:

quoting Memory Alpha (just the images, not the text, in case you wanted to start screaming at me for quoting a wiki-source) :-)

Lower right image. From TNG. Utopia Planitia. Galaxy saucer. Ground. See? Discussion ended. :-)

66. Richard Daystrom - January 15, 2008

Now that I have thought about there are a couple of scenes in the movies where they apparently have neutralized gravity. The platform with the guy working on it and the other with two personnel hauling someting in midair.

Ground assembly possible.

67. Robert Meyer Burnett - January 15, 2008


A final thought and then I’ll put my geek away…

How does one carry a fully constructed saucer section aloft in our atmosphere, not to mention the nacelles? The design of the Enterprise has nothing at all to do with aerodynamics, because the ship functions in the vaccum of space, which is why the design resonates even today. It seems plausible for the Trek future.

The idea of constructing starships in orbit was a nifty way of showing how far our technology advanced. Anyone who knows anything about the evolution of the real space program knows most scientists advocate building interplanetary ships in orbit so as to not have to deal with the realities of escape velocity.

Heck, this goes all the way back to Paramount’s seminal 1955 film CONQUEST OF SPACE, which showed the first manned Mars ship constructed in earth orbit.

Along with Scotty inventing the transporter, we’re being giving a simplified version of the Trek Universe, instead of a vision which challenges our perceptions of the possibilites of the future.

When we first glimpsed Earth in TMP, it immediately set the tone and scope for the entire future of the Trek franchise. The Golden Gate Bridge was a magnetic expressway, flying shuttles were traversing the skies of the San Francisco and the Enterprise was refitted magnificently in orbit. This was the first glimpse we’d ever had of the Earth of the future and it seemed exactly as we’d always imagined it would be.

This doesn’t seem to be the case with the new film.

I’ve never imagined the Enterprise constructed on Earth, nor would I want to. It’s simply not as imaginative or magical.

68. Adam Cohen - January 15, 2008

Ya know, re-reading my initial reaction, I honestly don’t care that much about it being a ground construction or not. Does “she” look like Kirk’s lady? That’s what really matters.

69. Jason Lee - January 15, 2008

#62 – “Building a starship on terra firma doesn’t make much sense. Canon, or not, I doubt that humans will be building gargantuan spaceships on the ground, particularly those with such awkward dimensions as the Enterprise. And then having to propel those elements out of Earth’s gravity? It’s a waste of energy.”

It would be impractical and a waste of energy for US, lacking engines that can power continents, anti-gravity, structural integrity fields, inertial dampers and so forth, but in the 23rd century when all of those things exist, it may be the simplest and easiest method of doing it.

70. Jay - January 15, 2008

My greatest fear is the the hype will be so big that the movie will never be able to live up to the expectations of the audience… much like Episode I.

I’m tempted to try to ignore anything else i hear about this film for fear of having my expectations unrealistically high and therefore being disapointed no matter how good the movie is.

71. Wayne Spitzer - January 15, 2008

Like the idea of including Kennedy a lot. Also have no particular problems with the E being built in some sort of shipyard; I saw a fan picture online once that depicted a similar scenario and thought it quite striking! This notion of the aircraft-like warp nacelles looming large in the background sounds pretty cool. We’re just…going…to have…to wait…and see, Spock! There haven’t been any deal-breakers yet, so far as I am concerned. We’ll see!

72. VOODOO - January 15, 2008

Who gives a rats ass if the ship was built in space, in the desert or in your mothers basement where most people who worry about this stuff spend most of their time watching re-runs of the Superfriends?

Give these guys (the writers) a break. Nobody in their right mind worries about such insignificant nonsense.

The one thing that people should care about is somehow getting Shatner involved in the series that he helped create. I can’t believe that Shatner may not be in this film.

Why have only Spock when you can have Kirk + Spock?


Fix this (Kirk/Shatner) while there is still time and I will gladly defend you to these nitwits who are going to lose sleep until the movie comes out that the Enterprise wasn’t built in a space dock. GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!

I am a powerfull ally to have my friend. You save Kirk from that foolish death he was given and I will have your back with these canon nerds.

73. Kevin - January 15, 2008

Hmmm… doesn’t sound like much of a teaser to me. Nothing to really get excited about, but then again, teasers are usually pretty lackluster anyway.

The San Francisco Fleet Yards has always confused me. The only conclusion I could draw was that it was designed in San Francisco and build in an orbital drydock.

I realize there has never been any established canon to say one way or another, but the idea of building such a large ship on the ground and then getting it into orbit sounds a little pointless.

The international space station, which is considerably smaller than the Enterprise was assembled in space.

The ship isn’t really designed to land, nor does it seem like something that would be very structurally sound on the ground on Earth.

The idea of sections of the ship being built on earth and assembled in space would seem more plausible… even then, they would have to be small sections.

Either way the teaser doesn’t sound like it actually gives us any glimpse into anything.

74. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

Sounds great.

I’ll be seeing this Friday morning, I hope

You know what? “Canon,” such as it was, went out the window when Paramount folded its last “Star Trek” TV series. That was the end of the run for “traditional” Star Trek.

Looking forward to nuTrek.

75. Doubtful As Is.... - January 15, 2008

Sounds like a real CLUNKER to me!

76. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

#72: “The one thing that people should care about is somehow getting Shatner involved in the series that he helped create.”

Most of us don’t, and there’s no reason that we should.

“Why have only Spock when you can have Kirk + Spock?”

“Star Trek” will have both, in the persons of Mr. Pine and Mr. Quinto.

77. Adam Cohen - January 15, 2008

One question I haven’t seen asked here is the following:

In Abrams’ TREK, how old is the Enterprise? Non-canon has her launched in 2245 (source: Star Trek Chronology). And Jim Kirk is born in 2233 (again, according to the Star Trek Chronology). Will a adolescent Kirk see the Enterprise being built and said to his pops “I gotta get me one of these!”?

Food for thought.

78. Jay - January 15, 2008

I don’t see a problem building parts of the ship on earth… final assembly could be in orbit.

I’m sure the scenes in the trailer won’t be in the movie themselves, but the trailer will set the style and feel of the movie, and judging from this discription i like it. I like a more realisitic and gritty look to sci fi movies. It adds so much to the realism. Much like The Matrix.

WHen i first saw trailers for Episode I, i thought it was going to be somewhat like that too, but as is often the case trailers can be misleading, and i was greatly disapointed at how cartoonish Episode I turned out to be.

Hopefully Star Trek will be different.

79. Adam Cohen - January 15, 2008


I understand your point about canon going out the window, but Abrams IS including Leonard Nimoy in this thing, and that’s a huge recognition of Star Trek’s past. And, the reason Shatner is not involved? Because his character died, according to the filmmakers. Again, a recognition of canon. Sorry, Dennis, but I disagree with your characterization of this film being truly “nuTrek.”

80. Granger - January 15, 2008

Yeah, Alex in post 65! Thank you for pointing that photo out to all of our “canon experts” who pounce on anything that doesn’t meet with their preconceived notions. Good grief!

81. Drew - January 15, 2008

Wow…disappointing :( As stated above, uninteresting. Rather than teased I am pushed away.

I hope it gets better. This could be the project that makes Abrams a much more prominent director or his biggest failure. A trek failure seems to linger.

I do have hope the movie itself will be better than the ‘teaser’ sounds. The story will make it, the directing will just be icing. A guess my disappointment in the trailer is from the dull choice (content and direction) for a piece that could potentially have so many intriguing, EXCITING moments.

Will Abrams show ‘reimagined’ grandeur the whole time or match the visuals and time spent on making the most of the story?

82. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

You are truy a wordsmith, Mr. Shalit.

Precisely. Me too.

83. Pragmaticus - January 15, 2008

Can’t wait to see it!

84. Justin Olson - January 15, 2008

#48 “The dedication plaque said the San Francisco Ship Yards. Does San Fransisco now extend to space?”

You get it. Most here do not, apparently. Including RMB.

The 1701 in TMP was REFIT in spacedock because the ship was already in existence in space. But that doesn’t mean the original components of the ship weren’t assembled on the ground, fit together, then disassembled and launched into orbit!

The 1701 plaque says what it always said. So J.J. didn’t change it. Simple.

85. DJT - January 15, 2008


I concur.

It was in the Lost Years.

With the shuttle Enterprise, too. Seeing *her* in the film would be sweet, me thinks.

86. spockboy - January 15, 2008

Not that it matters (’cause it really doesn’t folks)
but I remember reading that the Enterprise was built at the San Fransisco Navy Yards and assembled in space.
: )

87. VOODOO - January 15, 2008

76: Dennis

I’m sure Quinto and Pine will be great in those roles. I just want Kirk to get a better ending.

We will just have to disagree on this one (Shatner) subject. I think Shatner + Nimoy one last time would be a lot of fun. Otherwise we are pretty much on the same page.

– To everyone else who is already complaining about a trailer that you have not even seen yet, to a movie that is a year away. I would suggest you get a hold of yourselves.

I think that teaser trailer sounds pretty cool.

88. Aaron - January 15, 2008

Obviously, this ship wasn’t the first one to be built from the ground as well. In fact , it looks like its one of the very first stages of building a starship, then lift it up to space. Here is a picture that looks like a Galaxy Class starship being built on the surface of Mars.

89. Cranston - January 15, 2008

Well, I think the teaser sounds terrific. Great blend of beginnings, scope, looking to the future, and rooting the whole thing in the ’60s space race where it really started. In fact, even the description gets me a little choked up.

And I don’t care one whit about whether it was assembled on the ground or in orbit.

90. jonboc - January 15, 2008

The E was in drydock for a re-fit, it wasn’t being built. Makes perfect sense to have individual components built on earth then sent into orbit for their final assembly. I have no prob with that.

91. MrRegular - January 15, 2008

#73: Kevin:
From The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, page 171, regarding the construction of the Enterprise(NCC-1701) :
“The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands of a planet surface.”
Food for thought.

92. The Realist - January 15, 2008

7. roberto orci – January 15, 2008 – Smart ass.

For all those saying the big E was not built on Earth, why cant the orbital Fleet Yard be call “San Fransico Fleet Yards” why do you instantly assume it is a land based installation!

93. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

So, people are throwing around remarks about area 51 and about Scotty inventing the transporter.

There’s a notable lack of references to area 51 in the description of the teaser.

As for Scotty…well, if one actually has access to the script there’s no reason to coyly drop out-of-context details other than to stir the pot. ;)

94. Driver - January 15, 2008

Clearly the message is “From the ground up new beginning.”

95. bdrcarter - January 15, 2008

Closet thing to “canon” that I know of…TAS: The Counter Clock Incident. Capt. April said that he “was at the San Francisco Naval Yards when her component parts were built.”

96. lodownX - January 15, 2008

let the “hateing” begin officially on Friday. Can’t wait to hear the collective whineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. “whaaaaa that’s not canon!!!” blah blah.

97. Redjac - January 15, 2008

Well, Roberto…*shakes head*…

I can only hope you have the main sections built on the ground and somehow put together in spacedock otherwise I will be one unhappy fan.

The Enterprise could not land or takeoff from a planet. That’s why they use the transporter.

This thing just HAS to be at least assembled in orbit.

98. Ty Webb - January 15, 2008

The trailer sounds good.

99. non-belligerency confirmed - January 15, 2008

the area 51 one story is bogus. the enterprise was in fact assembled in a little jewish deli in smithtown, long island.

hey mr. orci
are you guys okay for cash during the strike? can i buy you a beer until it’s over?

100. VOODOO - January 15, 2008

Where are people getting these ideas about area 51 (Didn’t Mr Orci himself deny this rumor?) + Scotty inventing the transporter?

101. Gd846c3 - January 15, 2008

The trailer description sounds awesome to me! I look forward to seeing it when it comes up online. Where the enterprise was constructed doesn’t make much difference to me. It seems to me to be way to early to criticize something that hasn’t been seen by public eyes.

102. The Vulcanista - January 15, 2008

Let me see if I’ve got this right: 92+ posts about a 5-second movie trailer that hasn’t even been released yet, and the big debate is whether this little snippet of celluloid is going to be *canon*?

OMG. Bless your hearts.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

103. Nathan - January 15, 2008

Sounds pretty cool…

104. Paul - January 15, 2008

to throw in my nerd two cents in response to #65 Mars has a smaller gravitational pull than that of earth so it would be easier to build ships on the surface then launch them into orbit. regardless i will cheer my heart out when i see this and then hopefully comment on it before heading to the bar. THREE MORE DAYS!!!

105. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008


“As for Scotty…well, if one actually has access to the script there’s no reason to coyly drop out-of-context details other than to stir the pot.”

Dennis, are you saying that RMB has or had access to the script? I have been wondering what he is on about. To me, it sounded like he has a bigger problem with either Paramount or JJ Abrams other than this movie.

All seem to dispel any misconceptions about where and how the Enterprise was built. Information I did not already know, so I appreciate the education. As far as I am concerned, it’s settled. The Enterprise was constructed on the ground and final assembly was in space. Gene Roddenberry apparently said so in “The Making of Star Trek”.


106. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 15, 2008

We find out in two days. Ummmm crow is scruptious. “Chomp Chomp”

107. non-belligerency confirmed - January 15, 2008

youse naysayers is a drag. i for one have faith of the heart. or cirrosis of the liver. something like that.

108. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

#105: “Dennis, are you saying that…”

Well, if one knows then one may as well say that one knows and provide context and specifics for what one claims. If one *doesn’t* know or is repeating twice-told tales, one may as well drop hints with vague implications.

Wink-wink/nudge-nudge, you know. ;)

109. Old Trek - January 15, 2008

All you “know-it-all” Canon pussies need to shut TF up and wait until the final products is released. Get a life you faggots!

110. Quatlo - January 15, 2008

Okay. The ship can speed throughout the galaxy, has artificial gravity and all the other stuff that is possible in Trek-future. Getting the parts (fully assembled or otherwise) to lift off from the ground up into space in Trek-future should not be a big deal. They aren’t paddling a log through space in the future.

111. Andy Patterson - January 15, 2008

Right on brother. Preach on. And if the rumor (which I’ve just this second read) that Scotty did invent the transporter then I’m going back and jumping on the midichlorians band wagon. Because that sounds just as good as good as Darth Vader building 3PO. As the droids just happening to be in every single freakin scene with the major characters even though it’s a huge universe. However, I will reserve judgement until I’ve seen the thing for real.

On another note I heard this Tyler Perry was named with some other rappers and celebrities today as having been involved in the steroid scandal. What does that mean now for his role in the film if it is true?

112. Craig - January 15, 2008

I guess building the ship on the ground could be good and then lifted into orbit so it can be easily assembled in orbit.

113. Elrond L. - January 15, 2008

#94, #102 — well said. Good God, 100-plus posts about where the damn ship was built. BEFORE we’ve even seen the trailer.

I’m glad I only read half the description . . . will save the rest for the “real” viewing on Friday. And by the way, we’re going to see Cloverfield, too, not just the trailer, ’cause it looks fun. Oh, yeah, fun. Remember when being a Trek fan was fun?

114. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 15, 2008

#109 Wow !!! Take the sharp objects away from that dude.

115. 11 - January 15, 2008

Does anyone remember the teaser for Generations? Most of it was reused footage from TNG that had nothing to do with the movie itself. Same with the First Contact teaser, which is exactly why it’s called a teaser; it’s there to catch you’re attention, not to enlighten you with plot details. Odds are, the footage from the teaser isn’t going to even be in the movie, and they’re just using an earth-based ship yard because it’s something that’s more familiar to the average moviegoer. The movie is barely less than a year away and there is lots that can change between now and then, so keep that in mind before you go down to southern California and draw and quarter Abrams

116. Old Trek - January 15, 2008

Wow, Lord Garth!!!!! Only trying to maintain a little perspective on the relevance of this subject, injecting a little 1986 Saturday Night Live Shatner into the mix

117. Rob - January 15, 2008

I agree with the general zeitgeist here that this trailers sounds bad and has even worse implications for our beloved series. That and the AICN article are really starting to disturb me. Though, to be fair, I disliked the Abrams/ Orci/Kurtzman team to begin with. :(

118. n - January 15, 2008

I guess it actually makes sense that the San Francisco Fleet Yards are based in San Francisco, on Earth.

And people who think that this is somehow a problem with canon are nuts.

119. ShawnP - January 15, 2008

If #91’s quote from “The Making of Star Trek” is correct about theEnterprise being built on the Earth and assembled in space, then at what point will everyone complaining about its ground construction apologize to Orci and everyone else who had to endure reading all the whining? :-)

120. Mary Jo Tenuto - January 15, 2008

The description sounds wonderful and Anthony has a great notion of this connecting Star Trek to the modern world.

This sounds like the optimistic Star Trek I enjoy. I think this is also great for NASA to help renew interest in the space program. The 2008 Star Trek might help a new generation of Mae Jemisons who were inspired to be our real world adventurers.

My famil is very excited about the film, the scale of this sounds epic. It shows that nonfans and fans might enjoy this film.

NASA should donate money to the film ;-)

121. Luke Montgomery - January 15, 2008

85% of people’s comments on this thread are incredibly stupid.

122. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

Didja see Stephanie Sanchez over at remarking that she hopes they can put together a teaser for this film “better than they can put together a cast?”

Whoever told her that she has something worth saying on the subject of entertainment really misled her.

123. CmdrR - January 15, 2008

It has Enterprise written on it before the weilders… uh, welders… are even done? So…. the name goes on before the quality goes in?

Sounds like it’s not supposed to be as if we’re lilterally building the E. Maybe the point is not to give us a glimpse of her birth, but to catch the attention of the big audience. We never did see that dark road or what was glowing at the end of it when we finally saw Close Encounters. But, that trailer worked.

As a trailed — yeah, sure. My only question — is the scale accurate? Is the E bigger than she used to be? What deck is Rand’s cabin on? Oh, I guess I have more than one question.

124. Kevin - January 15, 2008

91. MrRegular
88. Aaron
95. bdrcarter

Well, I’m sold. The Enterprise very well could have been (and it looks like now in fact was) built at least in sections on Earth in San Francisco.

…Actually that helps clear up the confusion I’ve had for years with that dedication plaque.

Besides, if Roddenberry wrote that… well, we pretty much consider everything Roddenberry said canon as long as it doesn’t contradict anything that has been seen on screen.

So far it’s actually been supported by what’s been seen on screen.

Funny thing about prequels- people always write their own back stories in their heads and imagine what happened before. When it doesn’t fit what they had imagined, they freak and say it’s garbage and a violation of canon.

…only the canon in your head.

125. RDM Fan - January 15, 2008

It’s amazing how misplaced our priorities are here. We’re getting a new Trek movie after five years, the longest wait since between the animated series and ST: TMP. The cast assembled looks absolutely stellar. Most of the cast and crew have shown a devotion to the spirit of the original series in their work. It features Leonard Nimoy in a *major role*.

And we’re complaining because of a *possible* continuity screw-up, in footage that might not even be in the movie.

I’ll bet no more than one or two of the posters have actually *seen* the trailer.

BTW, I’m going to see Cloverfield because it looks like it might actually be good. There’s the possibility that the Trek trailer might be attached to it (my theater is pretty iffy in that regard); if not, it’ll be up by Monday officially, sooner unofficially. Either way, I’m suspending judgement until then.

And remember folks, it’s a trailer, not the movie! I remember the trailers for The Matrix being nothing like the movie turned out to be.

126. Multitrek - January 15, 2008

So what if it was built on the ground… Maybe the hull is built on the ground and once its ready to be pressurized, it’s assembled, computerized, corridored, decorated, etc., … in space.

If the idea is visually stunning to see, why care about such details?

It’s not as bad as a 72 levels and maybe more Enteprise A with level 1 being the lower level…

What Star Trek needs is to gain back some suspension of disbelief. Seeing a bunch of workers walking around the hull, if well done, should do exactly that.

TMP made it feel real for the times with the budget it had. That “real” feeling lasted until TVH for me. Now it can be made to feel more real with today’s special effects, a fine director/producer, and a big budget.

So why not keep an open mind. This is not a religion… I for one would be glad to start fresh.

127. NCC-638 - January 15, 2008


I agree. Trailer sounds bad, worrying that it is similar to what the AICN article described, even though orci refuted it.

(going by orci’s response “One of the things we are trying to do with this movie is connect it back to today” seems to suggest they they build the enterprise on earth, so people can connect with the idea of it being a possible future) which sounds rather patronising.

I think this is going to turn out to be a slap dash aproach to the franchise. An fool hardy attempt to “popularise” a series by throwing in a wack of cgi and an action led script on par with transformers. I thought mission impossible 3 was an awful movie too (even before i knoew it was Abrams).

I still stand by the position that it is actors that played the original crew which made TOS what it was. To attempt to re-capture that atmosphere, when the actors themselves became more iconic than the roles they were playing is somthing i will not get over.

It will be a fast paced, popcorn eating movie, but nothing more.

To end on a positive note………I hope I am proved wrong

128. Shawn - January 15, 2008

To Mr. Orci and the rest of the creative team of “Star Trek”,

I know this is a trailer thread, but I have a question and a thought about bringing back William Shatner as Captain Kirk. I’m not one of those “Shatner must be in the movie or the movie is going to be crap” type of person, but I do believe having William Shatner portray Captain Kirk one more time would be a cool thing to see. I know you guys are following cannon and cannot bring Shatner back because he died in Star Trek: Generations, however I was watching Star Trek: Generations the other day and I think I have come up with a way that maybe you guys can bring back Shatner. In Star Trek: Generations, Picard had to go into the nexus to get Kirk to stop Soran, but my question is: Who went back to get Soran?. Remember, Soran did succeed in destroying the star and bringing the nexus to him and therefore sucking him and Picard into the damn thing. It was only Picard going back to get Kirk inside the Nexus that he was able to go back “in time” and stop Soran, but like I said since Kirk had to be pulled out of the nexus, who pulled Soran out?

Also, I know you guys want to follow cannon as much as possible, but trust me, I speak for most if not all Star Trek fans when I say the death of Captain Kirk is one thing we wish was not cannon and could be changed.

I know you guys will do a great job in bringing back Star Trek and I look forward to seeing the upcoming trailer and, of course, the movie. I just think it would be cool if we could see Shatner come back one more time, plus it will be really weird if we only see Nimoy and not Shatner try to save the universe again.

129. shuttlepod10 - January 15, 2008

How does a trailer sounds bad? I think it sounds cool. Just people building the Enterprise! What’s wrong with that?

130. Mickey MET - January 15, 2008

“41. Kirk Thatcher – January 15, 2008
Saucer section. flying saucer. Area 51. Get it? Bwahahahaha – that’s how they’ll connect the past and the future. Maybe the Area 51 aliens were vulcans?”

I’m sorry, I know you’re kidding here, but actually DS9 addressed this. The Area 51 aliens were Ferengi (Quark, Rom and son).

God I hate it when I admit to knowing stuff like this!!!

131. steve623 - January 15, 2008

“Whoever told her that she has something worth saying on the subject of entertainment really misled her.”

If you knew as much about the subject of entertainment as you seem to think, your IMDB page would list more than two 15 year old screenwriting credits and some fan film work. Someone needs to tell you that you aren’t nearly as brilliant as you seem to think you are.

132. Boogie - January 15, 2008

Look up Utopia Planitia on ‘Memory-Alpha’ and you will find the Enterprise-D was constructed on the surface of Mars. Theres even a picture. Not in space. Thus this is in no way a stretch. PErhaps they are assembled in space? Fitted in space? Some people need to really chill out.

133. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2008

sighs at canon nazis and nitpickers

Look at International Space Station… Their modules, Canadarms and parts were built on Earth then they were assembled in space.

That is the way how and where the Big E got built and assembled!

134. ZtoA - January 15, 2008

A theory or two on the trailer

The viewer said the construction took place on Earth but it could have also taken place in two other locations.

The planet he mentions could be the moon. In Kirk’s time, it’s a full fleged colony complete with cities… from a close perspective, it could look like Earth.

The planet could also be Mars. It too is a full fleged colony in the 23rd century.

Both planets also have a fraction of our gravity so building ships in protective caverns might be a sign of the times Kirk was raised in.

Just a thought.

135. Regular Joe - January 15, 2008

First, let me say the imagery sounds great. Rarely do we get the sense of scale of the Enterprise when viewed in space. “Miles of scaffolding” and workers crawling over the hull – wow. Very cool.

Second, this is a teaser, not a clip. I would not be surprised if the construction of the Enterprise is not in the film at all. I think it’s likely that the teaser is meant as a metaphor for the rebuilding of the franchise.

136. ShawnP - January 15, 2008

#131 – steve623 – Are you Sanchez’s husband or older brother or something?

137. CmdrR - January 15, 2008

128 —
Please, please, please… stop trying to make sense out of Generations. It came from the mind of a studio exec. That should be enough to scare you more than all the Saw, Freddie, and AVP movies combined.

IF Shatner returns as an older, wiser Kirk, it will be because the writer/producer/director/stars and FANS of THAT movie wanted it. They will not ask WHY. They won’t need much if any explaination. It will just be a wonderful moment. I don’t think that will happen in STXI. But, there are two more movies in this particular pipeline.

138. steve623 - January 15, 2008

Chronic smugness is unbecoming and tedious.

We’ll see how long that post stays up.

139. Boogie - January 15, 2008

If the Enterprise-D was constructed on the surface of Mars, then it is in no way against canon that the original Enterprise could have been built on Earth. I think we can all agree the Galaxy class were also amongst the largest of Federation ships, if not the largest. So if it was built on the surface of some planet in the 24th century, then why not the original right here on Earth in the 23rd.

140. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 15, 2008

Here’s what I cam up with a few threads back:

“A great teaser would be:

1) The standard green preview announcement
2) black screen–hold it for 5 seconds to build anticipation
3) cue the re-recorded classic Trek fanfare from TOS, really loud, over the completely black screen
4) cue the newly recorded Trek movie theme, (which Giacchino should have done by now. I believe it will be pretty close to the original TV theme. The actual theme, not just the fanfare.) Play this (presumably jazzed up) version over briefs clips from every interation of Trek from over the years; TOS, the movies, Voyager, DS9, TNG, throw ‘em all in there. The clips get quicker as the theme draws to a close. As the theme ends (think of the last high note that plays over DeForrest Kelley’s credit), the clips end abruptly, and we see the new Enterprise silently hanging in space under construction.
5) fade to black and it says “Christmas 2008″

OK. I admit my clips idea was pretty bad. But at least I had them assembling the Enterprise in space!! The basic idea of only showing the Enterprise being built is in there. So I called it. Kinda sorta.

141. Kevin - January 15, 2008

130. Mickey MET

…well actually that was Roswell and the story takes place at Roswell Army Air Field or Walker Air Force Base.

Area 51in Groom Lake Nevada was in all likelyhood not established until the 1950’s or 60’s.

142. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

#131: “Someone needs to tell you that you aren’t nearly as brilliant as you seem to think you are.”

That line formed a while ago. You’re welcome to get into it – at the end, of course. ;)

That doesn’t make Ms. Sanchez’ fatuous remarks any less vapid.

143. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

I’ve noticed a lot of people are complaining about the whole built on the surface deal. Honestly, there’s nothing that said the Enterprise was built in space. All we know was that it was refitted in space.

Additionally, couldn’t it possibly be that in the time between when the Enterprise was built and refitted that they moved a lot of operations from Earth-based to orbital-based? Isn’t that conceivable?

Also, to the people who are trying to think logically as to why anyone would build such a huge ship on Earth and not in space – stop thinking logically! This is science fiction – yeah, science has to have some basis, but then again, transporters are barely possible and subspace…well, that’s all quantum physics…it might exist…and the warp drive? Both are theories at best.

144. Edith Keeler - January 15, 2008

Calm down. Its just a movie.

145. Jupiter1701 - January 15, 2008

To the people who pick nits about everything having to do with this movie, before even seeing it:

Do you also whine when your mommy calls you up from the basement and serves you meatloaf for dinner again?

It’s a freaking movie already. If you are seriously depressed or angry because maybe the Enterprise was possibly built on the ground (in this new movie), then you really, really, really do need to get a life.

I usually post with a sense of humor, because this Star Trek stuff is supposed to be a fun hobby. But I get annoyed with the constant whining by some people. Some people make it out to be like this is something really important — life and death kinds of stuff.

It’s time for a reality check, people. It’s just a movie. Entertainment. Two hours of your life to escape to another world. If you get bent out of shape because some new movie is not fitting with your sense of “reality” of what the movie needs to be about, then you need help. Seriously. Or perhaps a larger view of other things in the world that are worth getting angry or depressed over.

Now feel free to jump all over me. I’m not intending to jump on any of you. It’s more like slapping someone you love in the face to get them to calm down and actually get a grip.

146. SPB - January 15, 2008


…but why couldn’t the PARTS be built on Earth, but the full Enterprise be ASSEMBLED in space? Simple. The end. Your canon is unviolated.

You’re now free to return to your collective Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders.

147. TrekNerd - January 15, 2008

Maybe they beam the saucer section and other parts into space.

Didja think about that?


148. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008

144. Edith Keeler

I can see why you are sooo ambivalent. You died 70 years ago and there is still no talk of the Gaurdian in this “teaser.”

149. dalek - January 15, 2008

Sounds like a good trailer. Interesting.

Enterprise being built on earth: Might just be a teaser trailer thing, doesn’t mean it’s in the movie, a trailer isn’t canon….. im not too bothered.

Scotty won’t invent the transporter, they already had them in Enterprise, and altho i don’t think the writers have seen much DS9 (they def said they’ve seen Enterprise).

Alias: Season 3 was okay. But the show lost its heart when Wil left. It lost its edge when Sloane became a good guy, but Season 5 made up for it tho.

I need some blood wine.

150. shuttlepod10 - January 15, 2008

The last shot of the teaser should be the turbolift doors opening and Kirk walking into an empty bridge.

151. justcorbly - January 15, 2008

One: Don’t get all fussy about where the ship in the teaser is located. Or, rather, where the pieces of the ship are located. Trek ships are asembled in orbit, much as seagoing ships are asdembled in drydock. But, unless Starfleet has been smelting ore in space, it makes all kind of sense that most components of the ship would be assembled elsewhere.

Besides, we don’t know, so far, that the Enterprise shown in the teaser is, in fact, Kirk’s ship. Might be another one.

Odds are, nothing in the teaser will be in the movie.

Two: the plot outlined in #114 yesterday: I really like the idea of the epilogue scene with the members of the TOS crew. Who knows what the real script is like, but that idea has appeal. It would be easy to do, shouldn’t cost much (if everyone is rational), and would allow the actors the grace of appearing as old as they actually are. Of course, the fundamental flaw is that Kirk is long, long dead. So, maybe they all gather in Kirk’s small memorial in San Francisco, built after his remains were removed from that planet that looked like Death Valley.

152. Serious Trek - January 15, 2008

So the Federation can convert matter into energy and “beam” it from an orbiting starship (fitted with a faster-than-light propulsion system) to a planet bellow, then remotely recombine said matter’s molecules into it’s original state…yet, it cannot undertake flying a large saucer type craft, or tug various nacelle/battle drive components from some earth factory into a low earth orbiting assembly station?

Suspension of disbelief people.

153. Devon - January 15, 2008

I see alot of people getting UNNECESSARILY worried about this. “Oh it’s going to be bad.” Sorry if this considered “spamming” or what not but to me that is completely stupid to say that based on a text description about a TEASER.

Even at that, there has NEVER been anything that I know of to say that parts of the Enterprise were not built on earth, and then assembled in space.

Just calm down, it’s a teaser trailer. Probably much more of a tease than we’ve ever seen before!

Just as someone said before, in a future in which transporting someone’s atoms across space, traveling faster than the speed of light, physical holographic images, it is IMPOSSIBLE to lift up something into damned space? Sorry, but I think some are just complaining for the hell of it.

Also I’d like to ask the BRILLIANT Robert Meyer Burnett why hell you concluded that we are given a “simplified” movie half of which is based on something you just MADE up?

Geesh people, take a huge deep breath and quit finding crap to complain about.

On that note, I’m pumped to see the full thing once it gets online.

154. Bobby - January 15, 2008

here is a thought. perhaps it is not the actual NCC-1701 from Kirk’s Era, but rather a monument built on Earth that pays respect to the crew that saved the universe. Perhaps this scene takes place at the end of the movie, and not the beginning.

at this point we know so little about the plot of the movie, i would not jump to any conclusions.

my two cents

155. Pizza - January 15, 2008

#7 Mr. Orci

How cryptic of you. Join the masses and pretend to be amongst the crowd. Regardless of how you actually feel, the above was logically your only real response in this forum. JJ maybe playing with your childhood, but you are certainly playing with us. Your twisted mind and sense of humor are appreciated, let’s hope a lot of that imagination surfaces in the movie.


345 dtST

156. justcorbly - January 15, 2008

Do some of you guys know how much you are channeling the obsessed fans in Galaxy Quest?

157. Q - January 15, 2008

It sounds like it’s going to be the coolest teaser ever! lol. Yeah, I’m excited. *Grins*

158. S. John Ross - January 15, 2008

Sounds pretty!

159. Neal - January 15, 2008

Geekstorm Rising!

160. Kirk Thatcher - January 15, 2008

#130 Yes, I know. I’m implying that the Writers were not aware of that…

161. S. John Ross - January 15, 2008

#156: By Grabthar’s Hammer, don’t remind us!

162. T Negative - January 15, 2008

Building an entire vessel as complex as the Big E entirely in space is not practical. The weightless, vacuum environment would make it darn near impossible.

Building the larger pieces on Earth and then moving them to drydock in orbit is more plausible and the most logical approach. It would make sense to build the Saucer section and the secondary hull separately followed by the two nacelles and pylons. Once in Space it would be a matter of connecting the the four large pieces, turn on the artificial gravity and install all of the furnishings and gadgetry and such.

The trailer sounds great. Can’t wait to see it!!!

163. Section 31 - January 15, 2008



164. Adam - January 15, 2008

Orci: “How we got from here to how we got to Captain Kirk on the Enterprise. ”

That being said, I wonder if we will see any refrence to Star Trek: Enterprise, NX-01, and Captain Archer.

I know may people reading this have negative opinions of the series but I hope to see some reference to it in the new movie.

165. Section 31 - January 15, 2008

#164 I totally agree. I hope the movie does not throw canon out the window!

What if the new movie does not include ENT canon and makes its own?!?!!?!?! I would be totally pissed off and upset!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

166. Mickey MET - January 15, 2008

“141. Kevin – January 15, 2008
130. Mickey MET

…well actually that was Roswell and the story takes place at Roswell Army Air Field or Walker Air Force Base.

Area 51in Groom Lake Nevada was in all likelyhood not established until the 1950’s or 60’s.”

Oh my gosh! You’re right! Wow! My memory isn’t as good as I like to think it is. . . . Oh crap! That means I’m getting old! I know what I’m gonna start losing next. . . . Where’s my wife???

OK, about the trailer. . . . I don’t like part of the concept, but I think I can grow to accept it. Will my butt be in the seats for Cloverfield? Mmmm, I’m thinking no. Opening day for when Star Trek hits the screen? I haven’t missed an opening day yet all the way back to TMP. (I did mention I was getting old, right?)

167. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008

151. justcorbly

[The plot outlined in #114 yesterday: I really like the idea of the epilogue scene with the members of the TOS crew. Who knows what the real script is like, but that idea has appeal. It would be easy to do, shouldn’t cost much (if everyone is rational), and would allow the actors the grace of appearing as old as they actually are. Of course, the fundamental flaw is that Kirk is long, long dead.]

If Spock’s temporal mind meld is as successful as it seemed it was,
then young Spock would easily have the opportunity to alert Kirk not to ever join the cast of ‘Generations’. Then we would had of only lost Harriman.

No biggie there.

168. manrum - January 15, 2008

Do you forget to canon — is it meaningful, so that it can be designed on planet? How do they say, how the Titanic or something? I always think that they establish ships in such a way on skies. There is no other way over it simply — this straight simply is not meaningful!! I am not even, canon, it forming straight, am not not meaningful. I do not like the idea over would amount to the people into thinking it am a Sterntrekanhaenger, although it becomes obvious later — that way of people does not know, and before-calm opinions like always intended the Rodenberry away to throw to be able. Nevertheless I must that Roddenberry never the ship, which would have had on mass was designed in agreement-be except purchase a man in a little futuristic hat with welding stick. I cannot believe him!!

And this trailer does not only show vastness the area, but no space more whatsoever! I do not think that this is so impressive, particularly if we for receiving, for seeing this in the film. Is a film trailer canon, if it never appears in a film or on a television? I do not know the guidelines here. And which over the film, trailer, Cloverfield — I cannot do it to see for this purpose straight me to present. And the machines look like a modern airplane? Very impressively, I think not in such a way. This is totally confusing not very respectful, and neither from the canon nor of healthy human understanding or good Storytelling. I don’t think this is so impressive, especially if incoming goods enterprize lake this into the movie. Is A movie more trailer canon, if it more never appears in A movie or television? I do emergency know the rules here. And what about the movie, more trailer, Cloverfield — I can Roddenberrry imagine just seeing it for this. And the engines look like A decay aircraft? Very impressive, I do think so. This is totally confusing, and Roddenberrry very respectful of more neither canon nor common sense or good storytelling.

169. Mickey MET - January 15, 2008

“149. dalek – January 15, 2008
. . . . Enterprise being built on earth: Might just be a teaser trailer thing, doesn’t mean it’s in the movie, a trailer isn’t canon….. im not too bothered.”

That brings up an interesting point! It IS on film. We DO apparently get to see it. Doesn’t that make it canon???

170. sean - January 15, 2008

Sorry, but #46 & #48 are correct. The plaque says San Francisco shipyards (why would they name spacedocks after a city? Are they in a fixed orbit over SF?) and we’ve seen ship hulls on the surface of Mars in TNG. They aren’t sidestepping any ‘canon’ stuff here.

171. Michael - January 15, 2008

7. roberto orci –
Thanks! That was hilarious!
I understand that you can’t write at this time, but I sincerely hope that you are keeping a journal of your thoughts about all of these arguments.
Please – Please…include a commentary on the DVD!!!!

102. The Vulcanista –
Your comments are always great, but this has to be the Best ever!
Concise, and very pointed!
Marry Me!

172. MrRegular - January 15, 2008


See my post at #91: It is an authentic quote from the book, typed verbatim from the first book I ever read about Star Trek, a book which I consider canon about Trek.

I rest my case.

173. Xai - January 15, 2008

67. Robert Meyer Burnett – January 15, 2008

Your opinions are not facts, sir and if you are so concerned over this, don’t go.

An opinion from one of the “folks”…

174. Section 31 - January 15, 2008

There will be LCARS computer displays and pre-holodecks in this movie.

The Klingons will have ridges.

175. Spock's Brain - January 15, 2008

Mr. Orci, so far so good. I’ll be there Friday to see the trailer AND Cloverfield. #55, #61, & #65 pretty have some common sense. Most of the rest of you are a bunch unimaginative slackers.

176. Xai - January 15, 2008

and the Scotty inventing the transporter… where’d that come from? More assumptions from a feverish mind or two

177. Friend - January 15, 2008

This thread proves that Trek fans don’t deserve a new movie or a new series or anything. All that this thread proves is that Trek deserves to die.

The fans are spoiled brats, who will trash a movie based solely on the rumors of a year-early TEASER.

With that attitude, what hope is there for the future of Trek. How will Trek ever be allowed to flourish again if the fans simply refuse to put aside minor quibbles for the enjoyment of entertainment.

The answer is, it won’t. It doesn’t matter how great a reinvention of Trek we see or how faithful a continuation fan projects become. Fans will always hate it, because its not THEIR Trek.

Star Trek has no future, it deserves to die completely, and to be buried deep in the ground.

Then maybe the fans will finally wake up to the reality of the world. We cannot force our will upon the world. What will be will be.

Life should be an adventure, a discovery.

178. SPB - January 15, 2008


You don’t honestly think this is going to be in the movie, do you? Who came up with that???

179. Xai - January 15, 2008

and I saw someone pleading for Shatner’s return on THIS thread too?
Oh please…

180. gunhoomonkey - January 15, 2008


Yeah, what he said.

181. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008

168. manrum

Did you delete your post into the recycle bin, shred it, restore it, and then post it? The occasional typo is O.K. But wow!!

182. Xai - January 15, 2008

177. Friend – January 15, 2008

Sorry, too late and not for you to decide.

183. Spock's Brain - January 15, 2008

The best thing is that all you whiners will be dead by the 23rd century. ;-)

184. Paul - January 15, 2008

Another interesting possibility, maybe this right here is a big mind screw and they’re just gauging fan reaction. the plot thickens dun dun DUN!

P.S. I’m feeling for all those you have their skivvies in a bunch, it was my initial reaction as well. deep breaths….happy thoughts…bee hive hairdos and miniskirts….red shirts biting a phaser beam… see all better!

185. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

The Klingons probably will have ridges…I’d would’ve rather had that retconned than explained away the way it was. Not that I didn’t like it, because I did, but a retconning would’ve just been easier.

And the Scotty crap started inside this thread.

To quote William Shatner: “Get a life!” Honestly, it is just a movie. And if this is a re-imagining of Star Trek, or even a reboot, I’m happy with it being on screen. So stop crying about it…the movie’s out in 11 months.

186. Section 31 - January 15, 2008



Don’t you understand?

This movie is not going to respect canon history at all. I bet the interior of the Enterprise will have LCARS type computers and bio-neural gel packs.

This looks like the end for STAR TREK !

187. Michael - January 15, 2008

145. Jupiter1701 –
Amen Brother!
I’m with you!

188. Spock's Brain - January 15, 2008

manrum (#168) is using the Universal Translator. :-)

189. Section 31 - January 15, 2008


The Klingons better NOT have ridges in this film!


190. LTDC - January 15, 2008

The more of your comments I read the more I am reminded of the characters in the film “Idiocracy” They too would lap up anything TPTB fed them. If you haven’t seen the film I suggest giving it a look, you will then have a frame of reference.

Learn to discern between mediocre, mindless entertainment and *good* thoughtful entertainment.

Star Trek was always more than just eye candy…

191. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

This thread is almost as good as a Shatner thread.

Lots of dumb things being said. I guess that it’s true; ignorance is bliss. And in abundance. That would account for so many blissful people posting.

192. Spock's Brain - January 15, 2008

#145. Jupiter1701: HILARIOUS!!! DITTO!

193. Xai - January 15, 2008

186. Section 31 – January 15, 2008

calm down…. based on what?

194. manrum - January 15, 2008

Is the universal translator not in existence here, becuase, I know that it not here is.



195. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008


Who cares if it follows cannon?

You say its the end of Star Trek, yet it already died. This is it’s only attempt at resurrection….and you can’t have a resurrection with something that’s living. It has to be dead to be resurrected.

196. Spock with a crowbar - January 15, 2008

I don’t think there has been any Klingons cast in the film (you know, for main roles and such).

I hope this doesn’t mean Klingons will have a minor cameo like the Tribbles!


197. manrum - January 15, 2008

i have a bit much slivovice in my liver, so make me an understatement,

ask Darmok


198. New Horizon - January 15, 2008

Man, there sure are a lot of blowhards on here. Do you realize how difficult it would be to build an entire starship in zero g? Regardless of the technology at their disposal, it would be pure hell. All this ranting about the ISS being built in space…well yes…the ISS is assembled in space, but the components are built and tested here on earth. Getting the Star Ship parts into orbit would be a piece of cake with tractor beams…or some other form of Trek era device.

199. Section 31 - January 15, 2008


STAR TREK lasted for 40 years and it could last for another 40 years. They should have just continued after Post-Nemesis TNG. Why couldn’t they create NEW iconic characters in a TV series or movie Post-TNG?!?!

200. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

Actually, Star Trek I – VI take place in the 23rd Century.
And, there’s nothing that says that all Klingons lost their ridges.
And Roddenberry even went so far as to call the ridge-less Klingons “the Klingons of the South”.

201. Section 31 - January 15, 2008


Ever heard of Gravity Plating? It was established in DS9 and ENT!

202. Spock's Brain - January 15, 2008


203. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008

199. Section 31

‘Cause basically every Trek after 1982 sucked bad. Yeah, BAD.

204. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

#175 Spock’s Brain “some common sense”

A good number of the posts here clearly illustrate that common sense ISN’T so common!

205. Litenbug - January 15, 2008

Some of you need to get a firm GRIP.

If you absolutely know this will suck… based on no information… stay home, stay off the internet and for God’s sake, quit drinking coffee.
The “Chicken Little Syndrome” on the posts is geting old. Quit assuming and base a rant on real information..when it finally arrives.

206. Etha Williams - January 15, 2008

My 2 cents —

I honestly didn’t even realize that the Enterprise was built in spacedock, though according to Memory Alpha (which I generally trust) this was revealed in either “Tomorrow is Yesterday” or “Is There in Truth no Beauty?”

But if this information is correct, I do kind of hope that there is some reason that the film-makers had for choosing Earth as the site of construction rather than orbit. It just seems kind of silly to disregard a perfectly good (if minor) piece of canon information that is easily accessible online for no reason. But if there is something about the storyline that makes Earth work better, I could honestly care less.

207. Section 31 - January 15, 2008

DId anybody here remember the NX-Columbia being assembled in space? Its in the episode where NX-01 Enterprise is dispatched to find the Xindi Weapon!

GEEEZZ! I thought people here were loyal STAR TREK fans?!!?!?

208. Bubba 2008 - January 15, 2008

Ya know… I read the posts here and it seems to me that some people lose perspective…

It’s. A. Movie.

It isn’t real life.

It’s a moment of escapist entertainment.

Yes, it’s major part of out pop-cultural history.

But that’s about it.

Sheesh! Fundamentalists come in all shapes and sizes… and genres.

To quote Shatner, “Get a life!!!”

209. manrum - January 15, 2008

i was on the orbiting of him!! the haves economic of the starship now on them withhhhh

hehehe remember darmok


210. Michael - January 15, 2008

197. manrum –

211. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

If you were a loyal fan, you’d stop crying about the movie 11 months before it’s been released.

212. Section 31 - January 15, 2008

#203 Didn’t you know that Star Trek The Original Series was cancelled after 3 seasons?!?!

BTW, ever heard of the highly successful and famous TNG?

213. manrum - January 15, 2008

i ga de schuster vanavond bevochtigen… mm mm


214. sean - January 15, 2008

Section 31, I would advise you to steer clear of this film. It’s obvious you’ll have some kind of stroke in the first 5 minutes, and there’s no reason to cut your promising life short.

215. Litenbug - January 15, 2008

If you want us to try and figure out what you are saying based on a DARMOK-type language, I doubt anyone here is ready to play. Perhaps if you told us where you are from and kept it simple we’d understand better. Otherwise, sir…you are speaking gibberish and I am not trying to insult.

216. Section 31 - January 15, 2008

I’m going to start my own company and create Star Tek TV shows that are loyal to CANON! Anybody here willing to join?

217. Spock's Brain - January 15, 2008

It was ASSEMBLED in SpaceDock. The components were built and tested on Earth (except for maybe the nacelles) then lifted into orbit. Think about it!

218. manrum - January 15, 2008

#210 Michael

i believe i speak for everyone here when i say:HUHHHHHH??????????????????????/???

speak, Darmok!


219. Spock's Brain - January 15, 2008

manrum, Darmok used imagery and methaphor, not just poor grammar….;-)

220. Miss Leonard Nimoy - January 15, 2008

The site that scooped this information ( at this news story URL: has its own thread of discussion going so you can post there as well! It’s here:

221. manrum - January 15, 2008

I am annoyed over the trailer, and I gave myself any drink, in order to show it!


222. Spock with a crowbar - January 15, 2008

Allright! Break it up (and prosper)!

223. Litenbug - January 15, 2008

Section 31,
You are basing a rant on incomplete information. Nothing in that description says it’s not in space and the “dude” could be welding inside a controlled atmosphere or it could be all a metaphor.

224. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

Not if the show sucks. I don’t mind cannon violations.
It’s one thing if it’s a TNG movie. You know, if Nemisis had loads of cannon violations…that’s one thing.
It’s another thing when it’s a re-imaging of the franchise (or a reboot of the franchise). That’s what we have here.

225. Section 31 - January 15, 2008

Hey everyone,

I have NO problem at the re-designs of the movie, IF this film was Complete REBOOT of the Entire Franchise! JJ Abrams said that this film will respect Canon and SATISFY hard-core fans.

From what it seems, this movie is DISCRIMINATING against design canon. They should have just said they were throwing Canon out the window!

226. Jabob Slatter - January 15, 2008

Canon Schmanon! You whiners are pathetic.

227. manrum - January 15, 2008

#219 Spock’s Brain

From the episode:

“Hersenen und Hersenen, wat zijn *Hersenen*?”

228. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

Building the Enterprise on Earth and not in space dock is that serious of a cannon violation?

229. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

Until the movie comes out I’m taking the advice I once heard in Animal House….

“my recommendation to you is to start drinking heavily!”

A nightly round of Romulan ale until the movie opens!

230. Section 31 - January 15, 2008

#228 Why not add LCAR computer displays in the Enterprise as well. I’m sure they are going to throw away the Duotronic Computer Systems!

231. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

The fact that they’re making a movie is reason to celebrate!

In 2002, Nemesis came out.
And it flopped.

Enterprise was out, UPN screwed it, and it’s ratings dropped faster than Nemesis did.

Then Enterprise ended in 2005. No movie was in the works (except for a Berman story which wasn’t going to happen…and it didn’t). Star Trek was not new on television for the first time in 18 years.

We’re lucky that there is a movie in the works. As far as I was concerned, when Enterprise went off the air, Star Trek was dead.

I’m glad that Paramount’s making an attempt at resurrecting it. I think we’ll end up with more favorable results than the last movie.

232. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008

201. Section 31


Ever heard of Gravity Plating?

Gravity plating. Where did they forge that dense metal, at the center of a black hole?

Or, then WHY (if gravity plating needs power) does the ship’s crew NEVER float of the decks when they ‘transfer life support power’ to the sheilds or other systems. Bad, bad science in Trek’s fiction.

233. Litenbug - January 15, 2008

230. Section 31
next complaint? You are just flaming and spamming

234. Zodou - January 15, 2008

That’s a good idea Harry! Some of us are going to need it.

Section 31, I suggest you join us…

235. Michael Hall - January 15, 2008

Someone’s given Section 31 a few drops of cordrazine too many. He’s gone Section 8.

The quote from “The Making of Star Trek” is entirely accurate. Nevertheless, I’m not convinced it ties in very well with the concept of large sections of the ship being built on the ground. And the overall direction of the teaser does seem a little pedestrian for my taste, after the build-up. Still, I’m looking forward to seeing it.

236. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008


I disagree any post with the words “Duotronic Computer Systems” is fine on this board.

237. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

#226 Jabob Slatter “You whiners are pathetic”

You whiners are pathetic
Don’t buy into the rhetoric
Whether they change the bridge
Or give Klingons a ridge
It doesn’t make JJ a heretic!

238. Spock with a crowbar - January 15, 2008

Well said, 231,
but I’m not ready to be ‘just happy they’re doing anything,’ so to speak. I prefer to be a little picky about how they treat it.

I agree this’ll put Nemesis to shame, though.

239. Ryan - January 15, 2008

You know with all the crap happening in the world and the dismal outlook for mankind, this movie is something to look forward to. They can mess with cannon all they want (not saying they are). The movie helps me feel optimistic.

240. Bubba 2008 - January 15, 2008

I just think it’s hilarious that everyone here has his/her panties in a wad that The Powers That Be are not creating your own private version of the Technicolor, Desilu, primary-color, purple accent lit, cardboard corridors.

241. Litenbug - January 15, 2008

like I said… some of you “know” everything that this movie contains and already dislike it.
Stay home. I see no reason to get wound up when we no so little facts.

242. Litenbug - January 15, 2008

pardon me.. typo


243. Spock with a crowbar - January 15, 2008

A haiku:

Star Trek will live on —
Construction underway where?
Who gives a rat’s ass.

244. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 15, 2008

241. Litenbug

[like I said… some of you “know” everything that this movie contains and already dislike it.[

I do know!

But, I am so sorry to learn that you have attention deficit disorder and can’t read a long post.

See that post here #114…

245. New Horizon - January 15, 2008


Oh good, spammer31 is back.

That doesn’t make any sense at all. Gravity plating is used on ‘completed’ starships that are in service….not on the outer hull of ships being constructed. If you recall, officers still need space suits with gravity boots to walk on the outside of a star ship. Regardless, you just don’t do finely detailed construction in space…it’s far easier to do without the confines of a space suit. Having every nut and bolt potentially fly off into space is a bad way to build a star ship.

246. Bobby - January 15, 2008


I love Slivovica! Plum brandy from Serbia/Croatia. Sh*t will knock you on your ass.

247. Michael - January 15, 2008

218. manrum –
I meant no disrespect, only that NONE of your posts make any sense.
I must agree with 215. Litenbug –
You are speaking gibberish.

248. DavidJ - January 15, 2008

Holy CRAP, I’ve never been more ashamed or embarassed to be a Star Trek fan than after reading all the idiotic complaints here.

I’m sorry, I’m a longtime Trek fan, but NOTHING sounds more boring and unoriginal than seeing the Enterprise under construction in a freakin spacedock. It’s generic and obvious as hell. And what’s more, the general audience would have been turned off IMMEDIATELY. “Oh look, another boring space movie” they would think.

What this teaser does is really bring the Star Trek future into OUR world. Seeing the Enterprise constructed on Earth would let us see the immense SCALE and SIZE of this ship in a much more powerful and immediate way. And linking it with NASA and the space race is just a brilliant touch.

I think this teaser sounds inspiring as hell and can’t wait to see it.

249. Alex Rosenzweig - January 15, 2008

Admittedly, some of the imagery as described is intriguing. Before i followed the link and read the whole description, I was expecting something more akin to what was described for the refit Enterprise in _A Flag Full of Stars_, which had the saucer rebuilt on Earth and then flown into orbit to join with the rest of the hull. After reading the whole description, I’m a little more concerned, since the ship, in one assembled piece, supposedly isn’t designed to be atmospheric capable. I suppose a group of other craft could hoist it into orbit, but that seems a bit much when orbital assembly would be vastly easier. Remember, most of the work of getting a spacecraft on its way to its destination is in getting it off the ground and into orbit. After that, it’s much easier. (I’m less worried about alleged canon–there are plenty of ways to resolve that, since we never saw the construction of the 1701 before–than I am about plain ol’ astronautical engineering common sense. ;) )

On the other hand…and this is something Mr. Orci could possibly comment upon…

Given that this is a teaser trailer, and maybe not material we’ll be seeing in the film itself, perhaps Litenbug is correct and the imagery should be taken more as metaphor, rather than a literal portrayal of the construction of the Enterprise.

So the operative questions become:

1] How fanciful (vs. literal) a set of images is it? and
2] Is any of this going to be seen in the film?

250. cagmar - January 15, 2008

You know what, I like this teaser. I really like it.
Cheers, Roberto and Kurtzman.

It’s not flashy, it connects Roddenberry’s bright future for humanity to the present and the past. This is exactly what Batman Begins did to get new people into the fantasy of a superhero. Sometimes you need to connect things back to reality. Roddenberry had a talent for doing that with plots and alien characterizations — but if it’s a just teaser, this is the way to do it.

Part of ST’s appeal is not that the characters are better than us, so suddenly they have a better world. No, it’s that they are great, but we can see ourselves in them at the same time. We can make ST real.

The radio quotes are a little cheesy, but that’s just because they’ve been so overused and misused. But this is where they BELONG. Those quotes come from the moments that passed before and are setting up those to come as we grow closer to Roddenberry’s future.

I’m looking forward to the teaser. Count my $11 in.

Plus, I could care less where the ship was built !! That isn’t going to matter when people are coming to terms with the human condition and humanity’s place in the cosmos.

251. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

#243 “A haiku”

I used to drive a Haiku………………………….but the wheels fell off!! :)

252. ShawnP - January 15, 2008

#243 – Ooh, a haiku! I much prefer those to limericks. Thank you!

253. Adam - January 15, 2008

Well, the trailer (which is not even released yet) is doing its job allready: getting us excited and stirring up discussion.

254. bubba2008 - January 15, 2008

All this sound and fury and righteous indignation….

I’m brought to mind a great quote from SEINFELD…

“It’s Risk. It’s a game of world domination being played by two guys who can barely run their own lives.”

Pretty much says it all for those who can’t get past the 60’s…

255. Loving the New Film - January 15, 2008

Everyone forgets that the Enterprise did fly in Earth’s atmosphere…

And for the record, I’m not happy just for anything, but I’m confident we’ll get a good movie. It’ll be worth my ten bucks to see it.

Honestly the last two Star Trek movies were not worth my money seeing them in theaters…I saw them on opening day as a loyal fan…if I wasn’t a big Trek fan like I am I probably would’ve waited for the DVD copies of Insurrection and Nemesis.

256. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

#254 “Pretty much says it all for those who can’t get past the 60’s”

I assume, when referring to this bunch, you’re referring not so much to the era, but more to their I.Q. score? :)

257. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

Where is section 31? I was hoping that they would offer up some more brilliant insight on why we are all idiots.

And trekmademewonder: I read it. Tell me again what it has to do with reality?

Harry, it’s going to be a long year.

258. Edith Keeler - January 15, 2008

#148 and #91 It’s JUST a movie. Screw canon. Canon does not sell movie tickets – reinvention does – you know – money – the thing that keeps this fantasy franchise going …

FWIW I use the Guardian to travel back and forth in time for plastic surgery and life extension…

259. mada101 - January 15, 2008

Seriously, I think that this trailer is going to be purely symbolic – Starship Enterprise is Starship Earth, taking humanity to the stars. Whether or not this new film is going to be set in the original canon or a new one, the events of the trailer are unlikely to be considered as having ‘happened’ in either case.

Wow – did I actually defend the film then? Shame on me!

And to everyone talking about whether or not parts of the ship are constructed on a planet then assembled in space, all evidence in Trek so far says no. We’ve clearly seen the Enterprise-D and several unnamed ships getting physically constructed from the framework out in orbital drydocks (TNG ‘Booby Trap’, VOY ‘Relativity’ etc). It also would be illogical to build them within an atmosphere only to ship them up into space: the ship is intended to operate in a vacuum, so why build the parts in an atmosphere and with (comparatively) heavy gravity?

260. Cap'n Calhoun - January 15, 2008

“Close up of a timeless guy with goggles leaning down doing some weilding and sparks flying around.”

What exactly is he supposed to be wielding? ;-)

I’m assuming they mean welding. They could use some good editors…

261. Bubba 2008 - January 15, 2008

Everyone here seems to forget that Star Trek up to this point has been butchered to death by friends trying to revive a dried husk.

It’s about time a fresh perspective was given the green light and see if the new guys can breathe life into an otherwise hollow shell…

262. Bubba 2008 - January 15, 2008

My god… some of you people sound like you’ll be happy with nothing less than the new movie using the old Enterprise shooting model on display in the Smithsonian!!!

263. DGill - January 15, 2008

Some fans are just way too rigid. This is NOT going to be the ‘Star Trek’ of our past. This is ‘Star Trek’ for a 21st century audience, and it’s going to be good. I just know it.

264. Bubba 2008 - January 15, 2008

Canon! MUST be canon!

265. Bubba 2008 - January 15, 2008

I personally hope they blaze a new trail with this movie… make all the fan-boys keel over from heart palpitations!

266. Bubba 2008 - January 15, 2008

Seriously… this entire thread sound like it could have been lifted from Shatner’s Saturday Night Live skit….

267. sean - January 15, 2008

This reminds me of South Park whenever the adults get worked up – they just gather together and shout ‘Rabble Rabble!’.

268. Jabob Slatter - January 15, 2008

There’s so much whining about canon here that I’m now hoping for the Enterprise to look more like the Millennium Falcon.

Maybe we put Jar Jar into it. You know, just a cameo. He could just be in the background, silent, laying in Kirk’s bed.

Too bad there aren’t Klingons, so we could have a giant whiney debate over whether they should be TOS Klingons or NG Klingons, or TOS movie Klingons.

If I COULD have them hold to any so-called “canon”, however, I’d make them stick with the miniskirts and boots for the women. And if that is sexist, let’s have the men dress that way, too. Scotty can wear a kilt. But with boots.

269. ShawnP - January 15, 2008

#259 – #91 quotes “The Making of Star Trek” co-written by Gene Roddenberry that the unit components of the ship were built on the Earth and subsequently assembled in space. Now, I don’t own this book, but if you go out and get it and reference his page number, maybe you can support this potentially canonical fact…and silence some of the complaining. :-)

270. Daniel Broadway - January 15, 2008

Some fans need to be shot with a canon.

I think the new trailer sounds cool. I’ll find out in about 48 hours.

271. Can't Wait for X-Mas 2008 - January 15, 2008

#262 and #263, I totally agree with what you are saying. I love how all so many of the hard core fans are just jumping over every little piece of information just tearing it apart. Alot of them are just tearing it apart because it does not fit in their idea of what Star Trek should look like. I love how Star Trek it is its own world and I has a great canon. But it has been made clear since the beginning this is set in the past and takes place before the start of the orginal series. So yes things are not going to look the same and things will be different. OH WOW different that something scary to alot of Star Trek fans! No one has seen any bit of the this movie besides the people making it. I for one can not wait to see this teaser and movie. It will be my Christmas present for the last 2 Star Trek movies. And for the people who are just waiting to do nothing but complain about every last thing about it and that Shatner is not in it. In the words of William Shater “GET A LIFE!”

272. MrRegular - January 15, 2008

#258: Ms Keeler:
No faithfullness to canon=No credibility.
Reimagination is OK as long as they don’t throw the entire history of the Trek saga out the window, as did Enterprise, on more occassions then I care to remember.

273. manrum - January 15, 2008

#246 BOBBY

SLOVOVICE IS AMAZING!!!!!!!! I have from Czech Republich — difficult to get in Germany. I can in imagine in USA!! Very strong drinking — produced in friend garage.


274. S. John Ross - January 15, 2008

On the plus side, we’ve had nearly 300 posts and no one yet has accused the teaser trailer of raping their childhood.

My hunch is that we won’t see that happen until the trailer hits YouTube.

275. manrum - January 15, 2008

#215 Litenbug

I am trying to say in English after drinking and it is hard for me to writing in English without alchohol. I am not gibberish, and i have said earlier i am from germany. Can you understand? I professionally acoustic engineer and a star trek fan, trying subscribing to Roddenberrys idea, and i am excited over the new film, but somewhat nervous.


276. manrum - January 15, 2008


i refer only to Darmok as a plea for tolerence over my language difficulty.

like everyone I have opinions and coherent ideas over Trek, but I have a difficulty with expression, please in attempt to understand in order to comprehend me, like how Picard did in Darmok.


277. trektacular - January 15, 2008

This is kinda why I hated Enterprise. I don’t like the idea of linking our realistic modern times to Star Trek, it sucks the fantasy element out of it for me.
Hope they don’t go that route with the new movie.

278. Bobby - January 15, 2008


You make Slivovica in your friends garage???? if I had a transporter I would ask to beam some over :)


279. manrum - January 15, 2008


i refer only to Darmok as a plea for tolerence over my language difficulty.

like everyone I have opinions and coherent ideas over Trek, but i have a difficulty with expression, pleasein attempt to understand in order to comprehend me, like how Picard did in Darmok.


280. JustBob - January 15, 2008

RE: 251. Harry Ballz – January 15, 2008

#243 “A haiku”

“I used to drive a Haiku………………………….but the wheels fell off!!”

Lucky you as I used to drive a ’74 Pinto…………Poof! But those flames were damn pretty.

281. manrum - January 15, 2008

#278 Bobby

my frend in Czech Republic can produce Slivovice from plums in some huge basket in the car garage. I am back in Germany, but i have a few litres left here! I have no transporter, unfortunately. :)



282. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

Let’s face it…….after the last couple of movies and the T.V. show Enterprise being cancelled……Star Trek was dead. Finito!!

At least Paramount is TRYING to relaunch the franchise….whatever form that may take.

Let us take solace that……..come December 2008….to be able to walk into a movie theatre, have the lights dim…..and have NEW Star Trek product flash across the screen……….

I am cautiously optimistic………….and, hey, I’m the biggest cynic out there…

So, let’s just hope they take this “always possibilities” opportunity and knock it out of the park! :)

283. BaronByng - January 15, 2008

never give up, never surrender!

284. Noleuser - January 15, 2008


I don’t seem to remember this.

285. Cheve - January 15, 2008

About the big E 1701 being built on earth.

Memory alpha and the novels or comic books can say whatever they want, but the actual TV series has never said that the original Enterprise 1701 was built on space. You will have to find the actual episode in which they say that for it to be canon.

The Tv series say that the Enterprise D was built on Utopia Planitia, but nothing has ever been said about the original Enterprise 1701, which, by the way, i’m naming original 1701 becasue it itsn’t the original Enterprise.

The original one is the NX01, which was finished in space orbiting Earth (but it has never been said that its construction didn’t begun on ground)

286. Adam - January 15, 2008

The description of the trailer doesn’t say the worker in on Earth. He could be in a pressurized part of a drydock in orbit or even inside the Enterprise.

-He could be wearing a life support belt- (I hope not)

287. Devon - January 15, 2008

#285 – GOOD point.

We always have seen this ships nearing the end of completion, not the beginning.

288. Friend - January 15, 2008

The truth is that everyone has a divergent opinion.

However, unlike Star Trek’s ideal future where people can hold their opinions and still compromise for the greater good; angry people here just bash each other over the head verbally and stamp their feet when they don’t get their way like an immature teenager.

Its sad that so called fans of a pop culture phenomenon that is about building a better future for all people resort to petty nitpicking and hatred towards their fellow fans, simply because they hold a differing opinion.

289. DEMODE - January 15, 2008

I always assumed the saucer section was built on Earth, and the secondary hull was built in space.

290. Noleuser - January 15, 2008

#285 Cheve,

That’s EXACTLY what I was trying to say! (Or at least thinking to say)

291. Michelle - January 15, 2008

I find it weird how some people are obsessing over where the Enterprise was built and if it’s already established in canon that it was built in space or not. Star Trek canon is riddled with contradictions as it is. This minor detail EVEN if it breaks with canon, is hardly as egregious as other contractions we have encountered within the shows themselves.

292. PaoloM - January 15, 2008

#288 Totally agreed.

The idea of the Enterprise being built on Earth excites me. As the article reads, it helps keeping a mental link between our time and the bright roddenberrian future.
Does “canon” says that E was built in space? Well, come on, it doesn’t matter so much.

293. D. McCoy - January 16, 2008



Like Klingons with ridges. And Roddenberry himself approved that one!

294. Admiral_Bumblebee - January 16, 2008

Hey, where is William Shatner in this trailer???

Hmm, Enterprise being built on Earth… I don’t know… I always imagined it being built in orbit, but I don’t think that this is such a big deal…
I am more concerned about this rumour of Scotty inventing the Transporter. Come on, this cannot be. I thought that the Transporter was a device much longer in use. If Scotty invents it in the movie this will be a huge letdown for me…
But the biggest letdown would be if William Shatner is not in the movie as old Kirk, having great scenes with Nimoy and fighting it out against the evil guys one last time!

295. Reign1701A - January 16, 2008

I think the trailer sounds fantastic. I LOVE the theme of connecting it with real space exploration. It’s brilliant. It sounds as moving as the Enterprise opening credits, only without the really crappy music to ruin it. And to reiterate the point others have made, this trailer description does NOT violate canon, at all. It has never been established that the Enterprise was built in space. In fact, this clears up a lot, I never understand why the SAN FRANCISCO Fleet Yards would be in space. The components were built on Earth, and then assembled in space. Plausible. Logical. Fits with canon. Perfect.

296. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

Where’s Buckaroohawk on this thread????

We need a balanced comment!!!!

297. girl6 - January 16, 2008

I don’t know, man. It seems awfully expensive to build a ship entirely in orbit, what with the whole no oxygen huge temperature fluctuations no protection from all those little meteors that would normally burn up in the atmosphere thing.

If you’ve ever hung around any sort of large-scale construction project, you can see how easily things go wrong and people can get hurt. Why worry about not being able to breathe or exploding from some depressurization (sp) mishap? Or something.

Plus, you don’t have a whole lot of manual dexterity with spacesuit gloves. And then there’s gravity–or the lack there of. And there’s a whole lot of crap you can’t do in a vacuum. Then you have to keep shuttling stuff back and forth to planetside. Workers gotta take lunch breaks and go to the bathroom. That would *suck* if you had to peel out of a spacesuit every time.

Just sayin’.

Maybe robots could do it. Borgs. An automated ship building…thing.

Those big-ass aircraft carriers get built mostly in drydock. I could see retrofitting a ship in orbit, but building the whole thing? Not so much.

298. robin - January 16, 2008

what a bunch of whiners! we get a teaser where we will see the E himself. most teaserd are just text. my god, you should be happy, a YEAR before the movie we see the E!

the idea of making the E on earth is fresh and original, making a starship in space is almost a cliche its been done SO many times.

I cant wait!

299. toddk - January 16, 2008

Remember geordi looks out the window at utopia shipyards and says”this is where it all began” now who says that there isnt an artificail atmosphere during construction? even in the 24th century? I submit that everyone is over-reacting about this ground based stuff. Now if a bird flies through the scene..then I’m crazy and you all win! :)

300. Phil123 - January 16, 2008

don’t care where it is made. Kennedy thing might be cool, but as a fan not from America, i hope this movie isn’t too US centric. yes i know its an American show, make in US etc. and all thats fine, but Star Trek needs to be carefull that it doesn’t become (as it starts to do at some points) all manifest destiny on us. also, i hope it isn’t too militaristic. I was very glad when the romulan war movie wasn’t made. Star Trek should not be about war, thats not what Gene wanted. we fight if we have to, but first we exhaust every other possibility.

301. trektacular - January 16, 2008

Jesus Christ it was built at the SF navy yards, according to the making of Star Trek book, you got it yet! My God!

302. Account Banned - January 16, 2008

deleted by admin

303. Big Dave - January 16, 2008

Will this trailer be showing alongside Cloverfield in the Australian cinemas?

304. Chris M - January 16, 2008

I’m gonna reserve judgement until I see the trailor. You can’t really tell what it’s going to be likr until you see it.

And it is only a teaser so they ain’t gonna give too much away!

305. Anthony Thompson - January 16, 2008

Are we being asked to believe that something “welded” (manually, no less) is sufficient for warp-speed travel and can withstand phaser and photon torpedo attacks?

306. Captain Neill - January 16, 2008

mentioning JJ Abrams name in the credits makes it feel more like his vision rather than Roddenberry’s.

Usually the director is not credited on a Trek movie

307. Pete359 - January 16, 2008

Anyone know if the teaser will play in front of the Australian screenings of Cloverfield?

308. Devon - January 16, 2008

306. – Fair point.

In this case, though J.J.’s name has been attached to the “Cloverfield” project and perhaps this is something as part of an agreement with Paramount or perhaps just a bigger named producer who may entice some mainstream movie goes. Hard to say really, but you do have a good point.

309. Devon - January 16, 2008

308 – In the context of “his name being attached to Cloverfield” i meant in the case of his name being in the ads, etc.

310. Obsessed With Film » STAR TREK trailer seen!! Full description here… - January 16, 2008

[…] Trek Movie have the same report which has then seen 306 comments. And they say people don’t care about STAR TREK! […]

311. Dafydd1971 - January 16, 2008

306 > he’s the producer as well. production credits always get billing after studio/distributor.

312. Deleted - January 16, 2008


313. Adam - January 16, 2008

Reference 286
Sorry, I only read the first part of the description. It does say it is being constructed on earth. Odd. I’m not going to believe it ’till I see it.

314. lwr - January 16, 2008


actually didn’t Justman’s Star Trek Blue Prints or the old Tech manual say the Enterprise was “assembled in the San Fransisco navy yards in Earth orbit”??

someone out there must still have one of those 2 items from the early 1970’s. to confirm that.

because in all reality… it would be quite improbable to built that tHUGE ship, with all itt’s parts and pieces in a weightless environment, in a space suit, entirly in zero gee. Damn it would take thousands of people to build it..not just that one guy in a space suit from TMP (hell, that poor guy was still hanging around because it was such an impossible task years later in TWOK!)

and to all… for this trailer… it sounds to form with the Transformers teaser and the Cloverfield teaser.
by watching both of them you had NO CLUE as to what was to come.
heck the transformers teaser looked like a Discovery channel Promo for one of their Mars expidition shows…then a quick glimse of what was to come.

because it was a teaser ( that was not even in the movie except as a piece of video).
and what is a teaser… well IT IS TO TEASE and CREATE COMMENTARY.

I read the whole teaser and it sound pretty exciting to me.
pretty damn exciting..


315. Laserlover2254 - January 16, 2008


Hey, the real Canon-heavy guys are the ones who take it extremely as if it were real, and sometimes it’s really not to follow the Paramount “what’s on screen” canon, but to follow the old Catholic canon, however the hell that means in a Sci-fi, Metaphorical, according to Gene, Space Drama…

316. Serious Trek - January 16, 2008


JJ is a huge name right now. His name is splashed on the screen because it puts asses in seats. JJ’s name is known in popular culture, and will draw people who would normally stay away from nerdy Trek.

There is nothing wrong with JJ being showcased front and center as he is the one reinventing Star Trek. He’s directing, he’s putting in the hours, he negotiated the 150 million dollar budget, he’s putting his career on the line. If this were to flop, it could mean the end of his career. It’s HIS and his team’s vision of what Trek should be for a new generation of viewers.

Like we all love Roddenberry, but it’s time to let others take a crack at the concept. Did you think Spiderman 3 was true to Ditko’s vision of what Spiderman should be? Or was it more Sam Raimi’s?

I don’t think Raimi should have had a credit, the words “DITKO” should have been splashed all over the Spidey trailers.

317. JB Gestl - January 16, 2008

Build the ship where you want, just weld it, don’t wield it!

318. ctiii - January 16, 2008

sounds boring…why not show a shot of one of the scenes they’ve filmed instead of the enterprise being put together?

As far as connecting to “today”…didnt ENT try to do that somewhat? it was supposed to be somewhat of a bridge between our century (STFC) and TOS, and look where it ended up….

319. mooseday - January 16, 2008

{sigh} It’s a F*****ing TEASER. A large number of teasers don’t contain or relate directly to the content of the film. The Phantom Menance trailer had Darth Vaders breathing in it … but that wasn’t in that film … OMG, we’ve all been duped. Ah well, freedom of speech, everyone one have at it, but I have to say Trek fans are unbelievable at making complete panicing extrapolations from 30 lines of text.

I think trek fans are fandoms equivilent of bunny boilers.

Roberto and co must have balls of steel to take on 2 fanatic fanbases on after the other.

Anyway, on topic, I think it sounds exactly like a teaser should be, and will happily put up my $9 CAD to go see Cloverfield.

320. lwr - January 16, 2008

from # 91:
From The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, page 171, regarding the construction of the Enterprise(NCC-1701) :
“The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands of a planet surface.”

I knew I remembered it from somewhere!!

also, check out those old Blue prints, i believe they have some sort of “letter inside” that confirms what was in that book.

so there ya go. case is CLOSED..

and by the way… why can’t we still have Shat’s ST TOS voice saying ” space, the final frontier…

i hate the spock version.

321. darkul - January 16, 2008

I’m just happy that ST will be refreshed and we’ll see the best sci-fi-franchise again shining bright after all these years.

The description of the teaser-trailer made me feel good. It sounds very very noble … if the movie is like this we’ll all get a fascinating trek adventure, maybe even an epic.
I am also happy that we do not get to know too much about the new movie.

But anyway, It tells much about the atmosphere and mood of the movie, and i do not doubt in any way that JJA and Orci/Kurtzman will not deliver a fascinating movie to us all.
My hopes will not be disappointed, i am sure.

And because you read this thread also Mr. Orci, keep on doing a great job.

322. Mark Lynch - January 16, 2008

Well what about this?
In ST we have tractor beams, structural integrity fields, artificial gravity generators, transporters etc.

Why can’t the major parts of the ship have been built on Earth and then beamed up to an orbital shipyard for final assembly?


If the power requirements for beaming huge items is too prohibitive (and how would we know?), they could have been taken up by ‘space tugs’ and assembled in orbit.


The entire ship could have been built on earth and then put on the back of a specially modified ‘thingy’ (technical term), flown up to 40,000+ feet and then released to fly the rest of the way into orbit and there you have it…..

I am sure the creative team working on this are not stupid and will not do something that is not at least feasible within the constraints of the ST universe.

Personally I think it is time we saw something new and imaginative. As long it is not so out of left field that it becomes silly, so what?

At the end of the day, it is just a movie and as long as we get an interesting, engaging story with good special effects that at least respects what has come before we will be fine.

Must admit that I am staying away from descriptions of the trailer and hope I will be able to see it on line in a few days.

All the best,
ML :)

323. Serious Trek - January 16, 2008

I’d imagine, that since this is a completely new creative team, they’ll have a completely fresh take on Star Trek. Enterprise was weak, from production design to scripts. Enterprise seems incredibly hammy looking back. In fact, it’s more naive and boyscout then TOS. TOS was a show with balls, lots of tabbo subjects were discussed. Stereotypes broken. Interracial kissing!

It is possible to retain the humanist philosophy and positive outlook of Star Trek, while telling edgier stories with a more contemporary style. Look at how successful Battlestar Gallactica has become. A Trek/Star Wars clone, given a face lift and a heavy dose of grim reality. It’s refreshing and a million times more watchable then Enterprise. This doesn’t mean that Trek has to be some kind of nihilistic blood fest, but more mature character interactions and relevant plots would go a long way.

324. Serious Trek - January 16, 2008

In response to #318

325. crambo - January 16, 2008

And now… my impersonation of overly obsessed fanboy’s…




326. Markus - January 16, 2008

Yeah, the sets of ENT really sucked. They looked like paper-mâché… wait… that was some other Trek show…

Come on, there are many things to criticize on ENT, but definitly not the production values. The sets were great, the VFX were great.

327. StarTrekRockerGirl - January 16, 2008

“Close up of a timeless guy with goggles leaning down doing some weilding and sparks flying around.”

What this mean: timeless guy?

328. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 16, 2008

well since the image of the Galaxy class vessel being assembled on Mars picture is cannon… and we also know at some point they are lifted into orbit and final depart from an orbiting facility, I suppose its ok if the major chunks of the Enterprise were made on the ground nearly 150 years earlier.

329. Bryan - January 16, 2008

I want Shatner back as Kirk, gold pointy spired nacelles, larger deflector dish, taller bridge dome, velour uniforms, Ruth, Finnegan, Gary Mitchell………….
But at 53 years of age I’ll tke my TREK anyway I can get it.

I know the movie is going to shake things up a bit and that is okay.
It does have to be grounded in the major canon points however.

Time is not a vacuum….Gene Roddenberry, Deforest Kelly and Jimmy Doohan are no longer with us. This is why I’d love to see Shatner back in some capacity as the venerable James T. Kirk and the Enterprise in her 1964 (yes 64) original design on the big screen, finally given her chance to be seen for the first time on the big screen.

330. Serious Trek - January 16, 2008


I agree about the set pieces. The CG was pretty good also, for a serial. But the makeup (aliens), wardrobe and practical effects, rivaled that of early Stargate tripe.

331. PaoloM - January 16, 2008

We should try to get the narrative/poetic message of the images rather than arguing on details that, in my opinion, are not so important to define the nature of Star Trek. :-)

332. montreal paul - January 16, 2008

OH MY GOD! People.. people!! The current space station was being constructed on earth in sections and then assembled in space.

Are you all telling me that every little piece of metal and every little piece of metal were built and constructed in space? Come on!

The large sections were probably built on earth at the San Francisco Ship yards and assemled in large sections in space.

You guys really need to open up your minds a little. I think the teaser sounds great and I look forward to seeing it.

333. Avindair - January 16, 2008

Not overly-obsessed, but a fan? Sure.

From the perspective of an old Trek fan, this sounds like utter crap.

1. Why on Earth? Was it just not ‘sexy’ enough to have people actually building a spaceship in, oh, I don’t know, SPACE?

2. So, we’re just ignoring the production logic behind the transporter?

3. “Huge, aircraft-like warp engines” = No idea why the design was made to look different than other spaceships of its day, and why the design has been so timeless.

Like I said before, I have no problem with it being a reboot. But don’t try to woo us with nonsense about it being “true to what came before.” If it’s a reboot, JUST CALL IT A REBOOT.

“Not your father’s Trek” indeed.

THAT being said…

From the perspective of being a big-budgeted reboot, I AM interested to see the trailer, if only to see the FX and design work. This project is a separate interpretation of someone else’s work, and I’m curious to see what JJ and his team have done with it. Sure, they clearly didn’t get the gestalt of what came before, but I’m interested to see what they’ve done with the property.

334. John Tenuto - January 16, 2008

This thread does show diversity, which is something Star Trek showed was something positive. Yet, I also think it shows why Star Trek cannot, and should not, try to appease the fans anymore. As you might know from my articles here, I am a pretty serious fan. My wife Mary Jo and my son Nicky are also fans. We have a room for Star Trek collectibles. Its not a minor aspect our of family hobbies. We even teach classes called “The Sociology of Star Trek” We love Star Trek. Yet, I don’t think this movie should be made for me or us necessarily. There are too many opinions like these here ready to worry about these concerns insignifcant to the narrative. If Robert Orci worried about all this too much then there could be no script. I trust from everything I read that Roberto Orci cares about Star Trek. He is a fan, as are many of the people making the film. We are not worried.

Why is the teaser being intrepreted literally? Could it not be artistic? Could it not meant to convey emotion to the audience? The teaser to First Contact was the Enterprise flying through a Borg ship in the shape of the Starfleet logo. Was that literal or artistic? To me, if the description of this is as good as the teaser, then great. It sounds respectful of real space history and Star Trek. Nimoy’s voice is quoted. The fanfare is there. My family is very excited.

Star Trek has not been good at bringing new fans to the films or television shows this decade. My son, Nick, is five and is a fan. He loves the animated show and plays with Star Trek toys. He enjoys documentaries about astronomoy because of Star Trek. He wanted a calendar to show how many days until his first Star Trek film this Christmas. He doesn’t care where the hull of the Enterprise was manufactured. He loves the characters. He loves the narratives. That is the audience that will get this film to $200 million of earnings, the audience of new fans or the casual fans.

I have been a fan of Robert Meyer Burnett’s films and documentaries. I have seen him talk and appreciated his love of Star Trek. He is wrong here, though. If I based my perspective of Free Enterprise from its previews, it would not speak to how fun the film is for fans. I hate to say it, but Robert are you jealous? Here’s my advice, this isn’t Episode I and why aren’t you busy writing and directing FE2? Get back to the computer, man, write, write! Robert, who says this Area 51? AICN whose article could have been written by anyone who is fan of of I don’t know, it is my opinion, yet I think AICN did not have the script. I could have written that article based on what is known about the film. This is also something scriptwriters like Orci must contend with, Internet spies who may not even spied the script.

I respect other fan’s opinions, I enjoy the debate. I also think the filmmakers shouldn’t worry about us “real” fans and focus on making a good film. It is what Nicholas Meyer did with Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan. Roberto Orci, please make Star Trek for my son and his fellow fans, not for me.

335. Cheve - January 16, 2008


I just had a revelation!

Doens’t the space “shipyards” that appear in all the movies wenever a new ship is being refited or built look a lot like the hooks of the coin machines?

I mean, those machines on which you insert a coin and move the grappling thingie trying to pick up a teddybear?

They shurely do that. They build the ship on the ground and then, they lower a grapling thingie from space hanging from a rope trying to pick the ship up to put it in space.


336. Sam Belil - January 16, 2008

I REALLY REALLY want to be excited about this but….
For those of you who ripped AICN, they have been on target on many things in the past and I really fear that they just might be on target with this movie. #333 I agree, don’t insult our intelligence if this is a re-boot, be honest and just come out and say it already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

337. justcorbly - January 16, 2008

Those who cannot spell canon are condemned to stand in front of one.

338. JB - January 16, 2008

I can understand why debate over such a seemingly insignificant detail as where the ship was built might seem like overzealous fanboy-ism, but here’s why it actually matters somewhat: a large part of Roddenberry’s vision of ST involved making the 23rd century look as real as possible, within the limits of our understanding of science at the time and the more confining limits of a series TV budget. In developing the show, he consulted with leading futurists, NASA, the Rand Corporation, etc. to make everything as plausible as possible. If this project intends to be true to the essence of ST, it should do the same. Ask anyone at NASA (or anyone with a degree in physics, for that matter) and they will tell you it would make no sense whatsoever to build a ship as large and as heavy as the Enterprise, that was never intended for atmospheric travel, down on Earth. If the teaser suggests otherwise, this film may as well be set in a galaxy far, far away, where common sense need not apply.

339. Scott Gammans - January 16, 2008

I didn’t read the description or any of the previous 338 (!) comments. I want to be surprised Friday night!

340. Avindair - January 16, 2008


…or, I could be an idiot, and not know that.

Okay. Going to give these guys more of a benefit of the doubt.

341. Cheve - January 16, 2008

#339 is my hero.

i don’t have that willpower.

342. Stanky McFibberich - January 16, 2008

guess i don’t need to rush out and see this

343. Captain Dunsel - January 16, 2008

Not exactly a news flash, Stank!

I will wait for the online version–I have no desire to see Cloverfield. I like the sound of the trailer so fat–as a teaser anyway.

344. Tiako - January 16, 2008

some of you people you are complaining or are “worried” need to shut up. Enjoy this new Trek for what it is, not what it should be. Pillar and Berman destroyed Trek and rarely stuck to cannon. This new movie is gonna be something us fans have been wanting for years for. Give it a wide birth and stop bitching like little baby nerds. My god some of you that are complaining are starting to sound like little star wars fans……boo hoo.

345. StarTrekRockerGirl - January 16, 2008

I always wondered how the “San Francisco Shipyards” could be in outer space…

So yeah, it does make more sense to have them to be in… oh say, maybe… San Francisco?

I’d have no problem watching the Big E launch off of some type of ground-based platform. That’d be awesome to see!

And everyone knows that the Enterprise has “structural integrity fields” to compensate for the incrdible stresses that would be put upon the ship during warp speed, so there is no reason they couldn’t be used during atmospheric flight, as well.

We also know that the NX-01 Ent had transporters, so unless Scotty did some more unauthorized history-altering time traveling, there is no way that he invented them.

346. Dom - January 16, 2008

Sound like this teaser is going to be a bit of fun! Of course the usual losers are out there condemning it as usual and bleating on about there silly, non-existent canon!

Can’t people just enjoy this for what it is: as a new Star Trek movie? Is it some peculiar Western world thing that everything has to be spelled out and confirmed on screen?

Surely the fans out there can comfortably retcon any perceived ‘inconsistencies’ by themselves?

Wouldn’t it be more fun to walk out of the cinema and actually think about the film afterwards?

347. Dom - January 16, 2008

Damn clicked send before I proof-read the text:

Sounds like this teaser is going to be a bit of fun! Of course the usual losers are out there condemning it . . . as usual . . . and bleating on about their silly, non-existent canon!

Can’t people just enjoy this for what it is: as a new Star Trek movie? Is it some peculiar Western world thing that everything has to be spelled out and confirmed on screen?

Surely the fans out there can comfortably retcon any perceived ‘inconsistencies’ by themselves?

Wouldn’t it be more fun to walk out of the cinema and actually think about the film afterwards?

348. scarr - January 16, 2008

BUT there is a TOS reference to the Enterprise being built on Earth and assembled in orbit. Scotty is doing one of his many emergency restarts of the engines and he realizes that he can do some miraculous Scotty trick – only because he recalls that the polarity (or some other technobabel) of unit was reversed due to reassembly issues when the nacelles were brought up to orbit. I wish I had time to track it down but it’s out there in Trekdom somewhere. I wish I could remember the episode name… any of you know it???

349. Adam Cohen - January 16, 2008

It is good to see that the Welder’s Union is still going strong in the 23rd Century. Take that, you outsourcing robots!

350. Clinton - January 16, 2008

I think it is entirely possible that the teaser visuals will not be in the actual movie. Teasers are notorious for giving you a “flavor” of the film, but without showing any actual footage. (Often because there is none available yet to show).

It might be used in the movie, it might not. I still think it will be fascinating to see it.

#349 That one made me smile.

351. j w wright - January 16, 2008

hopefully this only depicts some pre-assembly of the spaceframe or hull on earth before delivery to the orbital fleetyard for final construction…

if they got the birth of the 1701 so wrong, how could they hope to get anything right?

i’m sure no expects us to buy into this:


352. Dac - January 16, 2008

Is it a safe assumption to say only a frame is built on the ground, and then this relatively “light” framework is then lifted to orbit? No? I’ll go back in the corner then…

353. Trek Nerd Central - January 16, 2008

This entire “debate” reminds me of a question I once heard a fan ask George Takei: “What’s standard orbital speed?” Tekei blinked once or twice in amazement, then replied, “Umm, the speed at which one orbits.”

Seriously, folks. What the HEY does it matter where the Enterprise is assembled? Are we all such freaks for Thy Holy Trek Canon that we slam a description of the teaser trailer? This is a movie, not a religion, fercryinoutloud.

Yeeeeesh. . .

354. Trek Nerd Central - January 16, 2008

Of course I misspelled “Takei” on second reference. Oopsies.

355. SPB - January 16, 2008


Wait until the national/entertainment media pick up on the fact that there’s a sub-culture of TREK fans who go to bed crying themselves to sleep over the fact that the Enterprise is being built on Earth in a frikkin’ TEASER TRAILER, and not in outer space, according to some obscure reference they remember hearing/reading about 20-30 years ago.

*sigh* Do any of you actually find time to ENJOY life, or do you find fault in everything that touches you?

356. Garstanglerton - January 16, 2008

I cant wait to see this teaser. and damn it, I love consistency and hope the film maintains some continuity but when people get so pent up over details that are murky at best within the canon and become upset over something as trivial as where the 1701 was constructed/assembled or whatever… get over it.

357. KennyB - January 16, 2008

WOW what a bunch of crybaby nerds……….Trek fans sure know how to live up to their reputation…… SPADES. I can’t wait to see this.Reminds me of the people who wanted Richard Hatch to take over BSG……..That would have been OK but nothing like the AMAZING job that RDM has done with it. I’m just glad Scotty retained his gender in JJ’s Trek. I cannot wait to see the NuTrek……and I am sorry folks but it needs updating…..Does anyone really think they will be using analog gauges in the 23rd century and wearing go go boots and mini skirts? Some of the “canon” that you people hold up like scriptures NEED to be changed.

If you want to boycott it stay home and watch your DVD’s–I’ll be at the movies!

358. Kirk Thatcher - January 16, 2008

I completely understand that this is a “relaunching” of product by Paramount with the sole intent of packing the cineplex with the requisite target age group in order to spawn sequel after money-making sequel. I’m okay with that – no problem what so ever. I understand and have come to grips with the idea of this being JJ Abrams’ vision of Star Trek. It’s very easy for me to wrap my head around the concept of parts of the Enterprise being constructed at former military shipyards and complexes on Earth and the final product being assembled in space. I’m sure that it will be visually stunning, as previous reports on this site have indicated. It will no doubt appeal to long-time fans and a new generation of movie-goers, and this is what the franchise needs.

I will also say that this is a franchise with a 40 year history. It’s appeal is that, though a fantasy tale, it has elements that are rooted in realism. It is these elements that make Star Trek a “possible” future. To ask long-time fans not to speculate and be critical of story-telling elements is not fair and probably not realistic. Have some respect for the individuals who voice their opinions and are willing to ask questions, as they are among the people who kept Star Trek alive through the 70’s and 80’s. I’m sure the film-makers did not take on this project with the perception that their interpretation would not be open to some criticism.

359. KennyB - January 16, 2008

PS–you all know you’ll go see it.

360. j w wright - January 16, 2008

i dont think it’s unreasonable to expect some fairly intense scrutiny in regards to re-imagining an american cultural icon like trek.

its not like this is alien, or terminator… where there isnt much history, giving lots of room to play around with details

else why even try to be consistent? put pike and spock in a flying saucer… give spock silver skin and antennae and throw in a few ewoks, while you’re at it?

why not?

361. Avindair - January 16, 2008

As weird as it sounds, I think the thing that bugs me the most is the idea of “aircraft like warp engines”.

Maybe it’s because I was a pilot and Air Traffic Controller, and actually worked around the darned things for a lot of years that makes me go “Really? That’s boring. Give me something exotic and new.”

The big appeal to Trek for me was Matt Jefferies’ — and later Franz Joseph’s and Andy Probert’s — starship design work. I’m just hoping that the new designer gives me something that I will like at a glance, as opposed to something that will make me throw up in my mouth a little (Enterprise-D, anyone?).

But having been reminded here that, yes, chunks of the ship were supposed to be build in San Francisco, I’ve gotten the hell over myself and decided that, OK, this might be a lot of fun.

362. Jackson Roykirk - January 16, 2008

#31 —

The International Space Station (ISS) is not ‘built’ in space; its parts are assembled in space. Those parts are built on the ground.

An automobile assembly plant does not make all of the parts they assemble to make the finished product — a car. Those parts are made elsewhere then sent to that plant for the final assembly.

363. Kirk Thatcher - January 16, 2008

And I will also offer that getting pent up with details is what Start Trek fans do best. Star Trek has always counted among its some of the leading minds in the world. Its fans are doctors, scientists, astronauts, and statesmen. I believe a leading physicist made some money off a book contemplating the actual physics of the Star Trek universe. It’s not easy to tell someone like that not to sweat the details. The moment that the story-telling is not subject to open debate is the moment that it loses all its appeal for me.

364. D - January 16, 2008

Has everyone forgotten the statement made months ago that these folks even consider some of the books to have canon value. Has anyone here read “The Lost Years” series? The Enterprise’s saucer is refitted on Earth, while serving double duty as a tourist attraction/recruiting tool in San Francisco. I can remember one scene in one of the books quite clearly where Kirk and Klang (or was it Kor) are in a shuttlepod flying by the Enterprise undergoing refit, without the saucer on it. Earlier in the book, they mention the saucer being rebuilt not too far from Starfleet HQ, with “throngs of onlookers” watching.

It may not be believable, but that’s probably where they got the idea from.
Who knows, these folks may actually refer to the Enterprise as being a “Starship” class vessel, and not a “Constitution” class.

On another note, they’ve said they’ll respect canon, but has it occurred to anyone that they may only be referring to the canon of the TOS, (and I mean the series, not the movies). They may choose to do a reverse B&B and ignore everything that came after TOS. If they do that, then guess what, by TOS’s canon, the Enterprise WAS one of the first starships ever built.

365. FlyingTigress - January 16, 2008


I could see that a layperson (i.e. non-Trek fan) viewpoint might look at the engine nacelles that we know, and think — “hmmm, aircraft engines” — particularly if (a) the domes that we’ve now retroactively suggested as being part of “Bussard Collectors” are not already installed (engine intakes), and/or (b) the hull plating isn’t yet shown as being installed, and the (again, retroactively, by later series) warp coils are visible — which might look like the compressor section blades of the engine.

Now, if there are great-big propellors on the front of the nacelles, we’re screwed.

366. Jackson Roykirk - January 16, 2008

I take back what I said (#362) —

After reading the entire article I realize that it does seem the whole thing is being built onthe ground.(Sorry — my bad)

Although, as others have said, this is just a teaser trailer and will not be part of the film. Do teaser trailers contribute to canon? I don’t think so.

This whole trailer is just a reference to the fact that this ship, AND this film, are both “under construction” and construction will be completed by Christmas 2008

367. D - January 16, 2008

Oh wait, they are taking into account Generations…I forgot.

It’s six in the morning…the brain’s not working on all cylinders yet.

368. Irishtrekkie - January 16, 2008

well first i guess a teaser might not have anything to do with the movie, and yea i sure they would built part of ships on the ground . hmm i can wait to actually see this trailier .

from what i have read of the teaser i actually think the fake one from the other week sounds more interesting , ( also the the one this site made )
i mean it just come off as boring i mean when the “FROM DIRECTOR J.J. ABRAMS” comes up will we at least hear a star trek theme that people can relate to ? i mean i know teasers like to teaser but will any non star trek fan even know what its about ??

we need someone to clear all this up.

lol where is Mr. Orci when we need him.

369. FlyingTigress - January 16, 2008

Reading through the full description over at H’wood Chicago actually causes me to think that the teaser is pretty sweet — and worth going to Cloverfield — to see in its full large widescreen, stadium-seating, glory.

And, fwiw, I don’t have a bit of a problem with the concept presented — re: major assembly on terra firma. I could imagine that doing a considerable amount of work in a natural 1g field, in an (duh, obvious) shirt-sleeve environment would make considerable sense from a movie standpoint, and, if you’re going to get hung-up on getting the pieces into orbit — or the entire ship — then stop and consider the physics about FTL travel, or structural integrity fields, or deflector shields, or phasers, or artificial gravity built into decks, etc. , and how we’ve accepted THOSE.

Besides. I’ve looked at my 1991 Hallmark ornament — there’s a big hook on it. It is a replica, right? So maybe they just lower a big rope from orbit, slip the giant ornament hanger into the eyebolt, and haul it up? LOL

370. CmdrR - January 16, 2008

351 – that’s my red gremlin in the parking lot. who knew it would still be on the road in 2245?

371. FlyingTigress - January 16, 2008


Is that a giant tube of Testors cement, some used giant X-acto blades and sprue-nippers, and big cans of MEK and putty, I see back there, too?

372. Dennis Bailey - January 16, 2008

That nitpicking may be “what Trek fans do best” isn’t really a good reason for pandering to a bad habit.

There are forty years of traditional “Star Trek” for people to nitpick. Time for a clean slate.

373. FlyingTigress - January 16, 2008


And 10 days at the Shick-Shadel hospital (for the control of fanboyism), for those who can’t get over it?

374. KennyB - January 16, 2008

372. BINGO Dennis!

375. star trackie - January 16, 2008

#357 “Some of the “canon” that you people hold up like scriptures NEED to be changed.” please you, not to please me. I welcome some change, especially if it takes place in an altered timeline, but I don’t require it.

376. KennyB - January 16, 2008

JJ is giving an interview on the Lex and Terry morning show in about 5 minutes……just in case anyone wants to catch it 905 CST.

377. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

I’ll skip the trailer. Let me know when there is an actual preview in theaters. Then I might leave my own home theater system for a crowded movie house that smells like flat soda and stale popcorn.

378. simonkey - January 16, 2008

come on people….he is crazy ,even the space station was build in space,ok thank god i have tos ,movies,next generation,ds9,voyager and the good old books!!!!
ill see it but first ill pray to god!

379. Kempec - January 16, 2008

@ 208 Yes Yes Yes!!! Someone out there gets it!!!
Star Trek is great ENTERTAINMENT!!! We all have to keep an open mind about this. You know that some things are going to change, that’s with any re-booting of a franchise. Just look at Galactica. I know that it’s not the same as the original, but it is good on it’s own merit. Give JJ a chance You might be impressed…Or not, But remember… It’s only a movie.

380. KennyB - January 16, 2008

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…………LOL :-)

381. Cervantes - January 16, 2008

Well…if this rebooted ‘Enterprise’ gets a ‘big unvieling’ scene out of the ‘hangar doors’, ready for take-off, I will still reconcile myself to the notion that it doesn’t contradict the likes of the original ‘Motion Picture’, where the ‘E’ was in a ‘spacedock’ merely getting a ‘refit’ done in space…
or is that a stretch? Wonder what shape those Warp Nacelles turn out to be, and do we get the ‘Caps’…?

382. justcorbly - January 16, 2008

Here is the most important statement that can be made about Star Trek:

“Canon is whatever Paramount says it is.”

It’s their franchise. If Kirk shows up in the new movie wearing leotards and a feathered hat, it’s canon, folks.

And… another thing about all this silly ranting about where and how Kirk’s ship was built and assembled. It’s clear that components were assembled in orbit after being built elsewhere. The reference to the ‘San Francisco’ docks clearly implies it is located in the same place as the old San Francisco Navy Yard, i.e., in northern California.

If you’re worried about how all those large components could be lifted to orbit, consider that Starfleet uses technology that eliminates inertia and creates artificial gravity. Shouldn’t be a problem.

383. Alex Rosenzweig - January 16, 2008

For all the sturm und drang here, I’ll note a few things:

1] Canonical Trek never specifies the nature of the Enterprise’s assembly. Not once. We have assumed that most of the construction took place in orbit, but the shows/movies have never said that. (If one feels the need to rationalize between the trailer and what we have seen, perhaps the construction techniques evolved between the 2240s and the 2270s. QED. :) )

2] If the assembly isn’t in the film itself, all we’re doing is hand-wringing over a possibly-metaphorical set of images, possibly designed even more to reach people who tune out the moment a spacescape appears on the screen. Ergo, I’d not worry so much; this is more marketing than storytelling.

3] Given the time period(s) of the film, the Enterprise is already built, so unless they’re doing a flashback, we probably won’t even see the ship’s construction in the actual film. Ergo, no issue unless they’re directly making it a story point.

4] My main beef, as I said before, is that building the whole ship on the ground doesn’t make a lot of sense in actual technological terms, irrelevant of Trek canon. Hauling that whole ship, fully assembled, into space would eat a lot of power that one doesn’t need to spend if one assembles the components on orbit.

5] Until and unless either the film’s creative team (or the film itself) establishes that this is taking place in a fictional world other than the established Trekverse, I shall continue to take the team at their word that this is not a [ptui!] reboot.

384. justcorbly - January 16, 2008

Oh, yeah… the scene apparently in the teaser sounds a lot more like a broad metaphor for the relaunching of Star Trek than any specific scene from a movie.

385. Ryan - January 16, 2008

I would think it would be safe to build a majority of the ship on the ground to lessen accidents like a welder cutting his pressure suit open in space. It would also make sense that sending millions if not billions of every single seperate part (talking nuts and bolts) would be difficult to manage in zero gravity. If the ship were mainly constructed on the ground it could be accessible to engineers, R&D, and command personnel without the need of fitting them with space suits.

386. Randy Holland - January 16, 2008

#384 is right – the teaser is probably NOT a scene from the film but only a metaphorical way of saying that the film is coming. So don’t panic (yet).

387. SPB - January 16, 2008


Name the episode where the construction of the Enterprise was an integral part of the plot.

Or name me a scene in the original series where they go into great detail as to when and where the Enterprise was constructed.

Or name me ANY major scene in TOS that would be completely thrown into a canonical tither because Abrams’ TREK has the Enterprise being constructed on Earth.

Then I will understand the childish cry-babying from the OCD Canonite TREK crowd, and I’ll try to caress your furrowed brow and tell you it’s going to be all right…

388. Superman - January 16, 2008

The Enterprise could be built in a swamp here in southern Louisiana and I wouldn’t care.

I want to see William Shatner in this film.

End of story.


389. DarenDoc - January 16, 2008

I’m not gonna be one to whine about “Canon” or any of that stuff. But as you can see, Trek fans are very protective about their stuff… It’s something that they’ve nurtured for a long, long time. I think if JJ and the team have a very, very good reason to make the Enterprise be built on earth, then fans will go along with it. If it makes sense within the structure of the story…. then all will be forgiven. It is THEIR choice to do this film and call it Star Trek. They knew very well the wrath of the fans is as powerful as the possible approval of them. With great power, comes great responsibility. That comes with glory if they succeed, and infamy if they don’t. All part of the job, I guess.

390. CaptainRickover - January 16, 2008

It’s just a teaser, not even the trailer! Pacience, I must say, pacience. No reason to overreact now (after the real trailer perhaps).

I think the teas tries to show, how a toady-guy walk around and see a 23rd century ship yard next to him (with a 23rd city behind that). For a few seconds it’s not clear, where or when he is. It can’t believe this scene will be in the final movie, nor anything from it.

Think about that: Seeing how the Enterprise was build (on earth! How hilarious!), then under Pike’s command, KM-scenario changed by Kirk, younger Spock, young Spock, old Spock, Kirk’s parents, Spock’s parents, enemies with roman names (don’t believe they will be really Romulans, but perhaps from Rome itself). How long do you expect this movie? 4 hours? No, I don’t believe we will see how the Enterprise was build. That seems not to fit in the story (as far as it could be predicted).

For me, this teaser sound’s just like a poor attemt to create some interest about Star Trek for a generel audience who never have seen Star Trek on the big screen before. We older fans shouldn’t take it to serious. It’s like the First Contact teaser (a last here in Germany). There was just this big borgified Star Trek logo and it never appeared in the movie later.

But what I’m more concered about now, is the design for the new Enterprise (airplane like warpengines? Huh?)

391. Jackson Roykirk - January 16, 2008

#390 – DarenDoc said:
“I think if JJ and the team have a very, very good reason to make the Enterprise be built on earth, then fans will go along with it. If it makes sense within the structure of the story…. then all will be forgiven.”
But one of the points being made here is that this is only a teaser — a teaser which is supposed to be a metaphor for JJ Abrams Film being “under construction”. The constrution of the Enterprise could (and IMO doesn’t) have anything at all to do with the story that the movie will tell.

So if that’s the case, Then I say all SHOULD be forgiven, because once the film is released, the teaser becomes irrelevant.

392. Ethan Shuster - January 16, 2008

Yeesh. 388 replies? It’s just a teaser. The content is likely meaningless in regards to the film itself. Again, we must all remember that not everyone knows years in advance that these movies are coming. It’s the whole point of a teaser. To make the general public say, “Hey, cool. A new Star Trek is coming.” Showing the ship being built is also a way of letting people know it’s set in the early days of Trek. I mean, I know I echo a lot of people here, but, if you’re ready to give up on this movie based on 30 seconds of footage (actually text DESCRIBING 30 seconds of footage), you probably shouldn’t see it at all.

Please, stop expecting the movie to include facts based on fan assumptions. And to be honest, even the official books like the Chronology and Encyclopedia are not necessarily the exact way everything happens. The word “conjecture” is all over that Chronology. Any “historical” facts in there that have not been spelled out on film or television are fair game for rewriting.

Let’s save the criticism once we actually get some real hard data on this movie, or at least a full trailer, shall we?

393. montreal paul - January 16, 2008

PLEASE let me put this to rest once and for all…….

The dedication plaque on the bridge of the original Enterprise….

394. montreal paul - January 16, 2008

Enterprise, U.S.S.
Federation starship, Constitution-class heavy cruiser, Starfleet registry NCC-1701. Commanded by Captains Robert T. April (2245-2250); Christopher R. Pike (2251-2263); James T. Kirk (2264-2269, 2272-2277); Willard Decker (2269-2272) and Spock (2277-2285). Commissioned in 2245, built at Starfleet’s San Francisco spaceyards on Terra. The Enterprise was the second Constitution-class vessel constructed, and the first to be completed.

395. Captain Hackett - January 16, 2008


Well said!

396. Lost In Space Is Better Than Star Trek - January 16, 2008

The trailers sound interesting. I can’t Wait!

397. neal - January 16, 2008

#351 – that made me laugh, nearly spilled my coffee! nice bit o’ photoshopping.

398. lwr - January 16, 2008


a real MOVIE.
a real BUDGET

not since TMP has there been a real shot at creating an EPIC of gigantic proportions!

but., in my heart..i am still hoping that, if this is indeed a time travel story that “tweeks the future…juuust aaa liittle”( so that this becomes Universe 2 and TOS is Universe Prime),that after all is said and done, at the movies end, we see future Spock returning to his own (SLIIIGGHTLY altered) time only to be met by James T. Kirk…..alive and well, because he survived Veridian 6 ( or whatever that stupid planet was).

no explainations needed. just a moment that shows one friend greeting another.

fan’s would understand what happened.

then fade back to see the young version of Kirk taking command of the Enterprise from Pike and being greeted by young Spock.

their new adventures will just be beginning

that will be the bee’s knees for me!

to steal from another universe, along time ago, and galaxy far, far away ……
“help Roberto Orci…your our only hope”

399. montreal paul - January 16, 2008

#399 …

I actually LIKE that idea!

400. David (now over the wings & flames thing. Sorta.) - January 16, 2008

wow – 400th.

Underwhelmed by the description. Guess I’ll go see it on Friday to make my own opinion.

And dammit – no wings? no flames?

ORCI!!!!! (Khanesque voice)

401. Lord Cheesecake Breath - January 16, 2008

I have faith that this movie will kick ass! The trailer sounds really cool. I’m just hoping they didn’t mess with the Enterprise too much. That would really piss me off. Even casual Star Trek fans would be confused by this.

Lord Cheescake Breath

402. Dennis Bailey - January 16, 2008

I’ll go along with Alex Rosenzweig’s (#383) points 2 and 3 for sure.

403. EdDR - January 16, 2008

I believe according either in Scotty’s Guide to the Enterprise, or in some Star Fleet Manuals designed originally for outfitting lights on some of the older AMT models of the Enterprise and Klingon starships, The “E” was constructed on Earth at the San Francisco Shipyards, then using industrial materializers – beamed up to Earth orbit to finish being built in Space Dock. Canon is satisfied. For some of you guys hung up on this part of the “construction process” , get over it. Start doing some research of all the materials that are available to read and look at.
#391 – The Roman names could be taken from that planet that developed a “Roman Empire” which maintained itself into their 20th Century , Remember “Breads and Circuses”? TOS? They were thrust into the knowledge of StarShips by someone who used to be in Star Fleet. But that planet was rediscovered by Kirk and his Enterprise. So that idea of a villain from that “Rome” is out unless time travel is involved to kink up the process.

404. Phil Smith - January 16, 2008

Hmm. I like the shipyard premise. A few things concern me about this, however.

Why would one build a ship this size on Earth and not in orbit? How do you transport the asemblies up to orbit? Maybe this is just an abstract way to sell the film (in other words, not actual imagery from the film).

American-centric. Again. Just like the opening nightmare of Star Trek: Enterprise, no imagery or reference from space activities conducted by countries other than the U.S. This is the human adventure, after all.

Anyway, it’s not that big a deal. It’s just a movie.

405. Wobo - January 16, 2008

A whole lot of whiners in here. Remind me to bring a nice cheese plate tomorrow to go with all the ‘whine’.

Either see the movie or don’t see it. I couldn’t care less. More seat room for me.

406. Alex Rosenzweig - January 16, 2008

Actually, the plaque really doesn’t put much to rest, because the assumption has also been that there’s an orbital component to the yards, the same way we’ve seen both ground and orbital facilities at Utopia Planitia.

407. Danpaine - January 16, 2008

Yeah, #399. That works for me.

408. Captain Hackett - January 16, 2008

Like the others said about building components and modules on Earth then assembling them into ISS in space, it is very sensible to see the Big E being built on Earth then being assembled in space.

I want to share a few true examples with you below:

1) My father’s fishing vessel

It was built in Vancouver, however, the parts such as steel hull, radars, Caterpillar engine, sonars and likes came from Nova Scotia, Germany, United States, Japan and other parts of the world. These parts were assembled into the vessel and then the vessel was commissioned in St. John’s , NL.

2) Gravity-based oil rig off Newfoundland

The modules and components are developed and built in South Korea, Holland, a few parts in Canada and the U.S.; however, it was assembled in Newfoundland.

The same concept about developing, building and assembling vessels applies to the Big E and ISS.

409. Jim - January 16, 2008



is it being constructed at AREA 51

ha, ha, ha…..

what a bunch of sheep y’all are….gee it’s got the name Star Trek on it….must be good////

the franchise is dead/Trek is dead/

B&B would be proud!!!!

410. Superman - January 16, 2008


Name a scene in any TOS Trek episode or film that makes your opinion more important than anyone else’s…

The fact is, if folks want to get riled up about this, that’s their right, that’s their taste, and hey, that’s why this talkback is here.

You don’t have to agree with it.

But you do have to respect it as more than “childish crybabying” and those people posting it as more than just “OCD Canonite Trek” fans.


411. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 16, 2008

Just wanted to pop in here for the briefest moment, covering my ears and eyes, and say…

Nyah nyah nyah I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you, nyah nyah nyah …… I want to be SURPRISED when I go see Cloverfield this weekend!! :)

412. EdDR - January 16, 2008

Addendum to my previous writing #404 –

SS Beagle – “survey vessal reported lost six years ago, under Captain R M Merrick”, someone Kirk knew in his Academy Days. could be that a shuttle craft was taken and used. Still pushing Canon to its’ limits, but still feasible. Show was a second season episode – Second year of Kirk’s command of the Enterprise. Discuss this y’all.

413. Anthony Pascale - January 16, 2008

I really dont get why people are freaking out. Here we have a trailer showing the origins of trek and tying it back to our time…and all people can think about is that it contradicts somethign they believed…but not something that was ever stated.

Clearly building the ship or components does not violate canon and can actually adhere to canon. What worries me is that some people are essentially freaking out over ‘fanon’…you have decided something should be someway and cant handle anything different

It worries me that some will not be able to enjoy the trailer and enjoy the film due to a missing the forest for the trees situation.

by the way…I saw cloverfield last night…it was a very different but very cool movie experience. Unfortunately the trailer was not be shown with it. I will have a review up later.

414. EdDR - January 16, 2008

RE: #412 sorry I meant my writing of #403

415. Turgenev - January 16, 2008

Made in space or on earth?

I agree with # 390. And anyway,
many of our real historical “facts” or hitsorical assumptions are wrong. So why should our fictions (which are essentially the telling of lies for entertainment) be held to such a high standard of truth?

Kenneth Branaugh had Hamlet living at Blenheim Palace in the 19th Century.
Sulu was a physicist who suddenyly became a helmsman???

Let’s keep the fun in this movie!
Does the future of the franchise (and I hope there is one) necessitate that everything be fact-checked against things that writers pulled outta their butts?
I for one would like to see new things in Star Trek… you know, to boldy go where no one has…

Oh, and the Enterprise was definately made in space, darn it. I have pictures.

416. diabolk - January 16, 2008

Yep, seems to me like no-one can cough up a single TV or film detail that says how the Enterprise was made. Too bad. Now we’ll know how it was made, when we see the trailer/movie.

417. EdDR - January 16, 2008

To #404 and 412 , the parts were constructed on Earth, then transported with large transporters to Earth orbit. So the plaque is right

418. Aragorn189 - January 16, 2008

In all honesty, the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth’s surface is perfectly legit. Although they do show the Enterprise NX-01 in drydock in the first episode of Star Trek Enterprise, it doesn’t mean that they could construct the ship in space. Orbital repairs, overhauls and reifts, or even storage are all legit reasons that the Drydocks were used as of the 22nd and 23d centuries. The real time that we reallly got thre sense that the ships were constructed in orbit was in the TNG era stuff. So don’t overreact when they show it constructed on earth. Even one of the posters at comments for the article at said cited a Star Trek Engineering Manual that said the pieces were constructed on earth and then transported up into space. Lets not worry too much over this.

419. Victor Hugo - January 16, 2008

“Close up of a timeless guy with goggles leaning down doing some weilding and sparks flying around”

It was the dawn of the Third Age of Mankind, ten years after the Earth-Minbari War. The Babylon Project was a dream given form. …

420. EdDR - January 16, 2008

#416 the plaque was in the movies, read it.

421. montreal paul - January 16, 2008

“San Fransisco Fleet Yards, Earth” suggests to me that it was on earth … by then again.. i could be wrong… Therefore… there is NO place that it definitely states either earth or space. That means the teaser is fine.

422. diabolk - January 16, 2008

420.. I did. Tells me nothing that contradicts this trailer.

423. Paul B. - January 16, 2008

Between the reference to Michael Bay-style camerawork (or ANYTHING Bay-style) and the ship being built ON Earth, I am now officially worried about this film.

424. roberto orci - January 16, 2008


Good idea.

425. roberto orci - January 16, 2008


No LCARS or bio-gel.

426. AJ - January 16, 2008

Do we remember the time the Enterprise had to cruise slowly by so that someone could somehow project images of a show called “Star Trek” onto its port side before it went into warp?

And 20th century actor Christopher Plummer’s voice seemingly echoed through the void of space while, unimaginably, orchestral music accompanied his narration?

I certainly hope the Enterprise left a recorder-marker to examine this phenomenon before it warped away. Who was projecting the images? Perhaps it was an invasive scan of E’s memory banks, with key events being projected onto the E by a cloaked Romulan Scout Vessel. Then why the music? Q, perhaps? Trelane?

No. It’s not canon, It’s the ST VI trailer.

As for this one. No. It’s not canon, it’s the STXI trailer.

I am so psyched.

427. montreal paul - January 16, 2008

the plaque..

428. Paul B. - January 16, 2008

Also, now I’m wondering this: if they build the big E on Earth, what’s the launch going to look like? Will we get another idiotic launch like in the “Lost in Space” movie? Will this saucer-and-nacelles lift off, reach orbit, and then pop apart to show the NEW version of the ship?

Or will she gracefully lift and climb like a blimp leaving its moorings or a submarine climbing to the ocean’s surface?

I agree with some folks here that it’s not terribly canon-destroying to build the ship on the ground, but it’s disappointing because it contradicts what we’ve known and believed for 40 years. It contradicts episodes such as “Tomorrow is Yesterday” (where the ship had major trouble in the Earth’s atmosphere and gravity, if I remember correctly). And, personally, I think it’s stupid.

429. Nuallain - January 16, 2008

Okay, let me get this straight:

>Enterprise plaque says it was made in San Francisco.

>TNG episode depicts practice of constructing saucer sections on the ground

So… what’s the problem? It seems to me that people are reacting based on an assumption of what’s already been established rather than what has been.

430. Victor Hugo - January 16, 2008

“335. Cheve – January 16, 2008
‘” They shurely do that. They build the ship on the ground and then, they lower a grapling thingie from space hanging from a rope trying to pick the ship up to put it in space. XDDDD”

I had a good laugh over this! hahahahaahahaha thanks

431. The Quickening - January 16, 2008

I like the “in construction” motif, but the overall concept has already been done in the opening credits of ENTERPRISE.

432. Anthony Pascale - January 16, 2008


Do they paint the flames on the side of the ship in orbit or is that on the ground as well? Or is that where Area 51 comes into place?

perhaps the ship is entered into a contest on MTV99….”Pimp My Starship”

433. Ryan - January 16, 2008

Anthony makes a good point about how people are freaking out about something that they thought was true but maybe isn’t. I mean c’mon there are bigger things to worry about than this. Other than graduating college (Gig ’em Ags!) this is the only thing I am looking forward to this year. I’ve been watching ST since I can remember and it has had a great impact on my life. The reason for that is the show had wonderful characters and great stories (most of the time). The mere fact that it is Star Trek is enough to make me excited. They can change things and I won’t care just because it’s ST.

434. SPB - January 16, 2008

#410 –

Sure, Supes, fans can get riled-up about this if they want.

But it’s still silly. And I’m stickin’ to it. “OCD Canonite” is completely appropriate in this regard. Of all the things to get worked-up over, is this really worth it? Seems like no one else really cares about WHERE the Enterprise was built, with the exception of a very small (albeit very vocal) minority.

The rest of us sleep easy at night.

435. Alex - January 16, 2008

YOu know, the thing that worries me more is the “Michael-Bay-looking cinematography”.

I can almost see that construction worker rising up in slo-mo, the camera doing a low-angle 90° around him, the seweat on his bare chest glittering in the sunlight, the UFP flag flapping in the background. He slowly pulls the goggles up and reveals his face: Ben Affleck!
(To get the right vibe out of this, you have to imagine fast intercuts with big explosions, guys with machine guns flying through the air, even bigger explosions).
And then a black background with “From the writers of the last Michael Bay movie”, followed by another explosion, then the final card:


Can’t wait for the teaser. 48 hours to go…

436. Captain Hackett - January 16, 2008


I concur with you!

437. roberto orci - January 16, 2008

334 “I respect other fan’s opinions, I enjoy the debate. I also think the filmmakers shouldn’t worry about us “real” fans and focus on making a good film. It is what Nicholas Meyer did with Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan. Roberto Orci, please make Star Trek for my son and his fellow fans, not for me.”

Truly appreciate the sentiment, but we are attempting to make this movie for your son AND for you.

438. star trackie - January 16, 2008

#386 “the teaser is probably NOT a scene from the film but only a metaphorical way of saying that the film is coming. ”

I agree. I think it’s just a cool way of saying the film is “under construction” and coming this Christmas. This “scene” probably is nowhere to be seen in the actual movie.

439. roberto orci - January 16, 2008


The flames are holographically projected onto the nacelles.

440. Rich - January 16, 2008

“Then we hear Leonard Nimoy’s line: “Space. The final frontier…” and the familiar “Star Trek” theme horns.”

Who cares what else is on the screen. Instant chills. I’ll be there. And so will you.

441. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

335. Cheve

[They shurely do that. They build the ship on the ground and then, they lower a grapling thingie from space hanging from a rope trying to pick the ship up to put it in space.]

That’s the most logical solution I’ve heard so far. It’s called a Space tether. A strong cable could be postioned above the ‘yards’ and counterbalanced far out on the other end. Then the mass of the ship could easily be hauled into space. But I am sure that is a very challenging way to go.

442. table10 - January 16, 2008

Yay, im here at the same time as mr. Orci…. pssst, I loved Transformers!

443. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

398. lwr – January 16, 2008

[…”( so that this becomes Universe 2 and TOS is Universe Prime),that after all is said and done, at the movies end, we see future Spock returning to his own (SLIIIGGHTLY altered) time only to be met by James T. Kirk…..alive and well, because he survived Veridian 6]

Kinda like my post #114 found here…

I would love to hear some thoughts about the story.

444. MCDoctor - January 16, 2008


How are the servers doing today?

Over 430 comments on the “teezer” alone!

Wow, we all need to take a momenet and calm down.

In a couple of days we find out if our mind’s version of ST lives on or if we need to accept change.

It’s like the bumper sticker “A Bad Day of Fishing is still a Good Day”

Let’s hope it’s GOOD first!

445. the king in shreds and tatters - January 16, 2008

Ss long as there’s no damn EZ listening soft rock playing while they weld.

446. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

It would seem to be so much easier to beam a bolt or even whole sections together into place rather than doing it manually. That is, once you have a Transporter available to use.

Heck, you may not even need screws or bolts or welds with a Transporter available. I would prefer a seemless molecular ‘weld’ that would be ideal and fast.

447. Captain Luke Vaz - January 16, 2008

Like the old Bill said… Get a life people! It´s just a movie. It´s just entertainment. And business. Frankly, I really don´t care if the Enterprise was constructed in Earth or Space. I want a good piece of entertainment, with a really good script, faithfull with the caracteres.

I don´t care with the costumes changed, or if Pegg or Urban don´t look like Dooham and Kelley. I want Kirk as a ladykiller, like the 60s. Let the sexy atmosphere emerge again! I am tired with “TNG post AIDS prospective”. There was no sexual tension between Riker and Troy in the series (strange ´cause they were lovers) and the Picard´s romances were very frustrating.

I want a brave Kirk, who go to the away team, who doen´t know how to loose, who cheated death a hundread of times, who don´t care about prime directive. I want a Spock fighting with logic his human heritage. I want McCoy as a humanist. I want the old “trio debates” back!

That´s what I care about it. A good script faithful with the caracteres. That´s all. It´s about the human adventure, not SFX. It´s Starship Earth. That´s the different about Star Wars.

For me, the teaser seems amazing.

448. TBK1701 - January 16, 2008

Someone once told me that the older we get the more conservative are thinking can become. I must say after reading so many comments here on I am sad to see it happing here in the Star Trek community. Gene’s future was about boldly going and embracing new ideas and not being frightened of the unknown. I feel like so many people are hating on this movie before it even comes out. I feel like we as the fans are doing more to destroy Gene’s future than any studio could do. Such closed mindedness and jumping to conclusions before you even have any context of what is to come. Truly that is not what Star Trek is about. I encourage all those who are quick to judge to remember your youth when you still believed in the impossible and were not quite as terrified of the unknown. I understand we all deeply passionate about Star Trek. I am as well and have been watching since I was a child. And for all those negative Nelly out there stop and think. Do you really think that Leonard Nimoy would be a part of this movie if he did not truly believe that is was something special. He turned down a roll in Generations because it felt the part could be done by anyone. So please keep an opened mind. You might be in for a surprise. I myself cannot wait to see the positive future that Gene wanted for us all, back where it belongs, on big screen. =)

449. Paul B. - January 16, 2008

#443 – Ok, here are some thoughts on the “story” in your post #114.

First, I think it’s a fairly well thought out fan-created plot. But I don’t believe it’s the real deal at all. Sorry, but I don’t buy your “heard it in first class” story.

If these guys have been so secretive that minor cast members don’t even get to see full copies of the script, then they’re not going to sit on an airplane and say, “Hey, ya wanna here the entire plot of STAR TREK in incredible detail?”

You claim this is “Just something I heard after a long disscusion [sic] on a recent plane flight” but then you claim that “the treament [sic] I saw WAS marked ‘corporate headquarters and ran about 26 pages.”

So, you overheard this? Or did you read the treatment? Get your story straight before you try to sell YOUR plotline to us. We’re Trekkies, for crying out loud! We look at the details!

As for details, your “story” is so long and detailed that I don’t believe you overheard it. Few people could recreate that much detail involving that many different characters, ships, and plot points just from hearing it once on an airplane. Oh, but wait: you claim to have read the treatment.

Finally, if this really was the story, I doubt Nimoy or Paramount would have anything to do with it. It’s pure fanboy writing, and it has ZERO chance of “revitalizing” the franchise or reaching a wide audience.

Again, neat idea, well thought out, but not even remotely believable as the “real deal.” Especially the end scene you describe–BARF! Gag! Nothing but fanboy wish fulfillment there. “A hospital on Romulus…”? Give me a break…

Next time, just say “Hey, folks, I’ve written up a neat synopsis of what I think could happen” and we’ll read it for fun, but don’t try to pass it off as the real thing.

Second, if

450. Lugosi - January 16, 2008

What’s going on here? Every time I load this site the scrollbar on the right disappears! And what’s up with this giant ad on the front page? Quite distracting, isn’t it?

451. MikeG - January 16, 2008

Some of the posts that show up in these parts really make me feel like I’m watching GALAXY QUEST, for God’s sake (“There is NO SHIP!”). I think it is perfectly alright to discuss, speculate and debate about Star Trek in a hobbyist’s way, but I also think some of the attitudes around here and some of these demands about what the producers/writers/cast of this film MUST do is just plain ol’ childish. If you wanna make a movie, cough up some $$$ and then do whatever you want.

452. Paul B. - January 16, 2008

Oops… ignore the last two words (“Second, if”) of my last post. Forgot to delete. (Or ignore the whole thing…I can handle that.)

447. Captain Luke – As much as I do care about the details of where the ship was built, costumes, etc., I agree with you 100%. I want to see a Star Trek that feels like Trek used to feel, before TNG turned space into a suburban drama. I want a band of friends on a great ship exploring the “final frontier.” Almost every other detail is flexible.

For me, TNG felt like a legal drama. Heck, can’t you just picture office cubicles and Dilbert calendars on the 1701-S? The color schemes, the way they talked to each other, the utter lack of warmth, passion, sexiness…

Bring back to passion, the fun, the sexiness, and I might be able to look past the canon revisions (if they happen).

453. CW - January 16, 2008

C’ mon people…
Just because components are made here down on Terra Firma can’t mean that the final assembly can’t be made in orbit.

Otherwise, imagine seeing a final completed starship being lifted from the surface to orbit by a few hundred shuttles.

Don’t think 23rd Century, think late 21’st to maybe mid 22nd.

454. Minnesota Bruin - January 16, 2008

Wow, I’m surprised this debate rages on… I thought it had been decided last night!

Anyways, my two cents as I sit at JPL calibrating an instrument for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter…

It is always most practical to construct as much of the spacecraft on the ground as possible. The limiting factor is the amount of mass you can lift into space per launch. The ISS is built in segments that weigh up the transport capacity of the Space Shuttle. If the ISS were built following the development of the Ares V (the heavy lift vehicle for our new Moon program), it would take ~1/5 the number of launches.

It seems likely that in a future where every soccer Mom and Dad zips around in shuttles without wings, there is a propulsion system with sufficient power to lift enormous mass. I agree that it would be incredibly lame for the enterprise to “lift off” herself and head for orbit; the use of heavy lift shuttles (i.e. tugs) to bring either components or the entire ship into orbit would be completely in line with current science “faction.”

There is some benefit (namely the amount of energy required to reach orbit) to constructing spacecraft on the Moon or Mars, however, there are also advantages to building on Earth. Earth has an atmosphere (just ask the astronauts if it’s easier to build things on Earth with your hands or in space/low pressure atmosphere where you need to wear bulky spacesuits). Earth is also the only planet with easy access to exotic metals not found on the surface on planets without plate tectonics. I could keep going but I need to get back to work! ;o)

455. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

449. Paul B.

[Next time, just say “Hey, folks, I’ve written up a neat synopsis of what I think could happen” and we’ll read it for fun, but don’t try to pass it off as the real thing.}

OK. I will. I wrote all of that in a couple hours. It kinda of just flew of the keys. After such a long post i started getting anonymous muscles.
sorry for the prank.

now i am going to go crawl under my couch and hide for a while.

456. Turgenev - January 16, 2008

When I wake up from my cryogenic sleep, hundrerds of years in the future after science developed a cure for the cause of my death- a nasty std (star trek disease) – and I look around seeing a bunched of crashed or grounded saucer shaped starships, I’ll ask “What up?”

And the 23rd Century folks will answer me “We kept building them on earth – like this Enterprise here… and they just can’t get it up.”

( insert your own naughty comment )

457. AJ - January 16, 2008

I thought they would just program a replicator to “materialize” an Enterprise. “This is my chicken sandwich and coffee?”

458. Myrth - January 16, 2008

The question has been answered visualy with the picture. Construction on the ground is “canon”, why is there still even an argument?

459. GaryP - January 16, 2008

460. Minnesota Bruin - January 16, 2008

If they could do that, I’m sure they would. However, the energy required must be…. well… staggering.

461. Jupiter1701 - January 16, 2008

Hey Mr. Orci, I hope that you somehow wrote in a scene that shows Kirk using a bathroom and toilet on the Enterprise. Since we haven’t seen him use one before, by extension that means that canon dictates that he’s been holding it for a whole lot of years.

It would just kill the Canonites if you broke with their religion and presented a part of Star Trek that doesn’t exactly fit with their mind’s view of it. It would cause a whole lot more gnashing of teeth among the ranks of the Canonite hardliners.

Granted, I don’t want you to flush the Trek faith totally down the toilet, but a little bit of stretching does everyone some good. That’s called growing.

Besides, if someone doesn’t like your new movie, they can always go back down into their Mommy’s basement and watch The Wrath of Khan for the 843rd time. (Although there were probably people who were gnashing their teeth that Kirk suddenly had a son, violating their view of canon).

462. Captain Luke Vaz - January 16, 2008

For the cannon purists:

Why don´t you blame when Khan said “I know you” to Checov in ST II? I mean, what he was talking about? He has a frikkin photograph memory to know a simple cadet? Or when the Klingons were showed of the very first time on screen, with ridges? Or you prefer Klingons with Fu Manchu beard and no personality? How menacing were Kruge or Chang. Imagine them with TOS Klingon costume.

I want to say it: Cannon is flexible. period. And that is not exclusive to Berman and Braga. Harvey Bennett changed, Nicholas Meyer changed, even Roddembery changed when created the TNG!

I want a good story. Look at the ST II. For me, it´s the best movie. I watched again past week, and for me, the movie kept the magic. There is a begining, a middle, and a end, like a good story. Nothing is meanless. The Koboyashi Mary test, the Non-Win Scenario, the Death of Spock. The Old and Young stuff. It´s a very classic history. And very faithfull with the caracters. When Kirk cheated Khan in the first enconter, puting down the shields, remember me when Kirk was playing poker in “Piece of Action”. The power of genesis is discuss with the big trio. Spock shows logic, McCoy shows passion. It´s all about Star Trek.

463. Litenbug - January 16, 2008

244. TrekMadeMeWonder – January 15, 2008
241. Litenbug

[like I said… some of you “know” everything that this movie contains and already dislike it.[

I do know!

But, I am so sorry to learn that you have attention deficit disorder and can’t read a long post.”

You want a response to this? Try losing the insults first. I’d expect a comment like that from a kid, not an adult.

I did read your post.
The first part regarding Nimoy was over the top. You think he’s giving spoilers in his interviews? Get some sleep at night.

You claim that’s the storyline? Sorry, it was a hack job. While I appreciate the time you took to write it, It wasn’t likely THE story at all. Cite your source, prove me wrong.

464. AJ - January 16, 2008

Has anyone mentioned that, well, we’ll actually get to see the saucer section and the warp nacelles, and that, well, that could be kind of, well, cool?

465. Turgenev - January 16, 2008

Maybe we can have a little fun and ease the tension by playing a game called

“Which part of the canon can we throw out the window and not worry?”

– The enterprise should look the same- nah… I can go for a new look
– All crew onboard wear pants or skirts- hell no…in space no one can hear you scream at Scotty’s white legs
– Spock has pointy ears- it was a tractor accident that caused them
– Spock seems to be the only alien onboard- what up w that?

Your suggestions?

466. Phil Smith - January 16, 2008

Interesting. I always thought “San Francisco Shipyards” included both the bay area and an orbital complex. I never considered that this meant ships were literally constructed in San Francisco.

In any case, I don’t really care. I just hope the film is good all around. It’s been a VERY long time since we’ve had a good science fiction film, after all…

467. AJ - January 16, 2008

Canon rules are that, if it appears on film, it is canon.

For the teaser, the actual Big-E will be canon, but the welder should be considered simply a sign that this film is “under construction.”

It’s surprisingly adult-oriented, considering the stated intention to revitalize the fan-base.

Anthony, is there any info as to the new website? It’s supposed to be live just after the teaser hits, if I am not mistaken.

468. Minnesota Bruin - January 16, 2008

Another problem with an orbiting San Francisco shipyard: What is the advantage of having it in geosynchronous orbit above San Francisco? Well for one thing, it would have to be in orbit over the equator to hold a geosynchronous orbit. So, wouldn’t it really be the Eastern Pacific shipyards? Also it requires more energy to get to a geosynchronous orbit than low earth orbit. It seems to me that an orbiting dry dock would be located as low as possible.

As far as I’m concerned, canon can be rewritten as long as the original spirit is retained and it holds with current scientific theory (extrapolations are of course encouraged)!

469. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

463. Litenbug

See my post above #455

I thought it was a good story. My sincere apologies are again offered, to all Trek fans, everywhere. I thought it might make good internet. I am still a bit new to posting comments on the net. This one got away from me.

Please don’t make me retire my screen name!
I gotta’ get back under my couch now.

470. Ryan T. Riddle - January 16, 2008

I don’t get what all the moaning and bitching are about; after all, the trailer seems more symbolic than literal. Yet, I can’t help but wonder at the limited imagination of some people in regards to a ship being partially assembled on the ground and then lifted into orbit. Constructing a large vessel like Enterprise on the ground may seem cost prohibitive by today’s standards, but this is the 23rd century where amazing technologies exist like transporters and warp drive. Is it so hard to imagine that there is a means to do so that isn’t taxing on cost, fuel and other considerations?

471. Robert April - January 16, 2008

Reply to # 76 Dennis Bailey – January 15, 2008

[#72: “The one thing that people should care about is somehow getting Shatner involved in the series that he helped create.”]

“Most of us don’t, and there’s no reason that we should.”

Dennis, you speak (rather eloquently) only for yourself regarding your opinion that Shatner should not be in this movie.

472. Kirk's Girdle - January 16, 2008

The whole “timeless welder” guy is part of the surprise factor of the trailer. People will think they are seeing Michael Bay’s “Return to Pearl Harbor” and then WHAM it’s the Enterprise. I kinda like it. They should actually include something from FDR to assist in the misdirection.

Saw Cloverfield last night.
Damn, no trailer attached at all yet. Oh well.

473. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

#220, that is one weird-ass screen name.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

474. Kirk's Girdle - January 16, 2008

Re #72. Shatner’s been crediting himself as a “creator” of Trek a lot lately. Sorry, but Shatner’s first creative effort in the Trek world was STV. Before that, he was just an actor, and Trek was just another job – as Shatner has said in many interviews over the years.

475. Litenbug - January 16, 2008

469. TrekMadeMeWonder – January 16, 2008

That’s twice now. Please stop posting things you claim as spoilers or facts unless they are…ok? Try the pranks elsewhere.

You keep crying “wolf!” and eventually no one believes you.

476. Smike van Dyke - January 16, 2008

Why don’t you just abandon your idea of canon or fanon alltogether while there’s still time to adapt. With this movie, Trek will most certainly become a multiverse like 007, Batman and Superman…let it go…the old Trek died with Nemesis and Enterprise…this IS an entirely new version which will pay tribute to the original, nothing more whatsoever…

There is no canon linking George Reeves, Christopher Reeves, Dean Cain, Smallville, the old cartoons, the Bruce Timm series, Brandon Routh and the potential JLA movie…and there will be no canon connecting the old timeline with this updated version of Trek…at least not to the letter, may be is will partially stay true to the spirit…but that’s everything you can hope for…

No one needs canon in the first place…and I’ve been a fanatic for 15 years now…Canon-bound Trek didn’t stand the test of time. It’s as simple as that. So adapt to the reboot or leave it alone…This movie has to bring in a new audience or the franchise must wither by any other name…

477. Dennis Bailey - January 16, 2008

#471 – I don’t care whether the Shat is in the movie or not…and you’d be hard-pressed to prove that most people do care.

#467: “Canon rules are that, if it appears on film, it is canon.”

This is true. However, Canon rules are not that everything in the canon must be either consistent or sensible. That’s not part of the definition of “canon,” though fans act as if it is.

Spock describing a device as multiplying noise “to the first power” (“Court Martial”) is canonical. It’s not a sensible statement, or a mistake that Spock “would” make, but it’s canonical.

Various episodes of TOS indicate that the series takes place as little as 200 years and as much as 500 years after the 20th century, and the films finally settled on 300 years. All of those statements are canonical despite the fact that they contradict one another.

478. GraniteTrek - January 16, 2008

Wow, nearly 500 messages about a text description of a trailer. That’s pretty crazy. Of course, it’s devolved to the inevitable canon argument rehash, so that probably has something to do with it..

479. Bono Luthor - January 16, 2008

If all was right with the world it would be a Shatner voice over.

480. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

475. Litenbug

Aye, Aye Capt. Litenbug.

At least i come clean in the end. I do have a good conscience.

I originally posted the story as a gift to all the fans who are really yearning for the big fix. I ussually have good intentions. It’s my method I must work on here. Thanks!

481. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

#425 roberto orci “No LCARS or bio-gel”

Okay, this is insane….

When the news broke on AICN about the Enterprise being built in Area 51 some of us asked Mr. Orci to shoot down such an absurd rumour.

After much cajoling, he wrote that he couldn’t confirm or deny anything as someone’s guess might finally be right and he didn’t want to spoil it for us. Fair enough.

Now….NOW, he’s posting clarification of what will be on board the ship in response to a posted question by a fan regarding technology. Not fair, sir! It appears you dodged answering the bigger question from weeks ago because it hit too close to home!


482. star trackie - January 16, 2008

#476 “and there will be no canon connecting the old timeline with this updated version of Trek…”

..guess you missed the memo…Nimoy is in this AS “old timeline” Spock.

483. Avindair - January 16, 2008

#361 —

OK, yet another thing I hadn’t thought of that makes perfect sense.

I can’t wait to see the blasted thing for myself so I can make my own call…

484. Captain Luke Vaz - January 16, 2008

# 425

I think the scoop from AICN know about this teaser. I really don´t know if this is in the script but… I think he use a metaphor when he said “The ship was build in Space, not Area 51″, ´cause he knows the movie (or the teaser) will show The “E” was building in some kind of ground facility. It´s not about a secret facility, but a underground facility (like the area 51 base).

I am wondering that is no AREA 51 in Star Trek, and Orci has already responded that.

485. Bono Luthor - January 16, 2008

Mr Orci I loved Transformers and that gave me a lot of faith in what you both have been doing with Star Trek.

I’m sorry if you have already been asked this, but I would be very interested to hear you opinion on Superman Returns.

If this question has already been asked/answered elsewhere then maybe someone could let me know.

Also Mr Orci, to what degree would you say that Enterprise has any influence on the new movie either in tone or design aesthetic.

Hope the strike is resolved to the writers benefit soon so you guys can start on Transformers 2!


486. Bubba2008 - January 16, 2008

It just occured to me that it would be really cool if they were doing a Star Trek version of the Marvel comics ULTIMATE line? Reimagining old characters, stripping them of the dead-weight of their pasts and giving them e fresh beginning and a new twist on the story?

If that’s the case… BRING IT ON!

I’m willing to see them start from scratch!!!

487. CW - January 16, 2008

I really don’t understand the anti-canon people, or their intense anger and hatred.

488. omf - January 16, 2008

Just wanted to add one little, itty, bitty voice saying that the trailer sounds awesome. Can’t wait to see it.

Oh, and I scanned through this incredible list of messages quickly… I really have to say that most of you are really embarrassing. You’re why many of us won’t admit to being Trek fans in public.

#355: My thoughts exactly.

489. SPB - January 16, 2008


Can someone please explain to me why such a large contingent of science-fiction and/or fantasy fans can be such staggeringly anal-retentive, unimaginative, literal-minded, obsessive-compulsive killjoys???

Don’t any of you have a sense of WONDER? Or did you even have it in the first place? Did you get into sci-fi and/or STAR TREK for the fun and enjoyment, or just to make a myriad of lists, pick it apart and follow writer’s guides as if they were scripture?

490. Turgenev - January 16, 2008

# 220. Miss Leonard Nimoy
Wish I came up with that screen name.

I did confess to an std (star trek disease) and left myself open in one of my posts. Oh, I know that “canon” is the center of attention, not me. And canon featured William Conrad, always the big center of attention.

Is the idea of “Miss” Leonard Nimoy arousing or creepy? Kirk got to be a chic once. Or was that Sulu?

491. omf - January 16, 2008

#489: Funny, I was just thinking how ironic it is that so many so-called Trek fans here seem to completely lack imagination and acceptance of other thoughts/ideas – two things that Roddenberry was clearly passionate about.

492. justcorbly - January 16, 2008

#477: The ‘sexual tension’ part comes before two people become lovers. You know, all the “will they or won’t they” business. Tension between Riker and Troi would have meant something very different.

493. Superman - January 16, 2008


C’mon SPB, you’re still trying to justify bashing folks for having an opinion that has (in your eyes) the misfortune of not being yours.

Why can’t you just let these people be, oh I don’t know, people, and not give them a label?

Nah, that would be too hard. After all, it wouldn’t be the Internet if we couldn’t label and then dismiss people and their ideas.


494. Alex Rosenzweig - January 16, 2008

I can’t speak for everybody, but the wonder got me into Trek. That in turn led me to explore and enjoy one of the greatest fictional universes ever created, eventually to the point where Trek wasn’t just about a set of characters (once that set gets up over 100 or so, and keeps growing, just “about the characters” seems kind of limiting). It became about this all-too-cool world in which I love to play. Helpfully, it’s a great big open-ended world that has plenty of room for expansion.

And I have absolutely no use for the mindset that that world has to be thrown away for Trek to continue. I claim that to be false. But I also hold with the view that there is plenty of room for evolving ideas about and within that world, so a reasonable balance between and old and new ideas can pretty readily be struck.

495. CW - January 16, 2008

491- “#489: Funny, I was just thinking how ironic it is that so many so-called Trek fans here seem to completely lack imagination and acceptance of other thoughts/ideas – two things that Roddenberry was clearly passionate about.”

That’s funny… I always thought that Trek was about exploration, entering a screwed up planet’s orbit, cite the “prime Directive”, tell them how to live their lives, and then fly off to another planet and tell them how to live.

I see little evidence that Trek is about acceptance of other thoughts. I think that some canon-haters are just as guilty of plugging in their own thoughts about what they think it should be vs. what it actually is.

496. Marbpl - January 16, 2008

Is Captain Robert April going to be in this movie? Does Paramount consoder him canon?

497. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

To each their own, as long as I get my way! :)

498. Cheve - January 16, 2008

#443, People isn’t commenting that because it looks as a quite extensive spoiler which could ruin the experience a lot.

If your “Synopsys” is right, I honestly hope it doesn’t get any more buzz and I dont find it violently enough to not being able not to read it

And if it is wrong, you are eeEEEeeeeViiIIIllllLL

BTW my revelation about the grappling thingie was a joke. I wasn’t thinking on atmosfetic elevators, but in the funny image of a grappling hoos shaped as a spaceyard like the one in “TMP” hanging from a rope making some attempts to pick up the ship from orbit, and failing two or three times.

Oh, and Mr Orci, Gretings from the Spanish fans in Europe. If you make a promotional trip to Europe, be sure to contact the local fanclubs. We are quite nice people.

499. omf - January 16, 2008

How many threads here have more than 500 posts?

500. omf - January 16, 2008

Damn, missed it by THAT much…

501. omf - January 16, 2008

#495: Funny, I’m pretty sure we’ve been watching different shows!!

502. Mazzer - January 16, 2008

Love the sound of this trailer. It sounds just like the kind of perspective-changing stuff that JJ would do. Open your minds a little, folks. You’ve been told all along this wouldn’t be your father’s Star Trek.

As for the construction on Earth… if I were living in a world that had antimatter power and control over gravity… which Trek has… then I’d find it much easier to create a ship in the comfort of Earth’s atmosphere, then just float it into space when ready! Heck, they’re not going to need the 1970s space shuttle to get stuff into orbit.

503. Devon - January 16, 2008

# 481 – If you go back and read through the AICN article posted here:

You will see a quote in the article in which Roberto Orci DOES respond to the Area 51 comment.

“Let’s see. Area 51 is a place where we supposedly keep aliens and spacecraft A SECRET. In Star Trek, earth KNOWS there are spaceships and aliens. You might’ve even heard of one of them. His name is Mr. SPOCK. You do the math.”

504. SPB - January 16, 2008

#493 –

Ah, but you’re not giving us any real argument as to why we all SHOULD be hung up on all these minor “canonical” details. Maybe I’m being a tad harsh, but I’ll still hold to the idea that following every single bit of TREK canon/minutae is the same as strapping yourself in to a creative and intellectual straightjacket.

Last I checked, we’re still getting a STAR TREK with a white Kirk, a black Uhura, a Russian Chekov, a ship called Enterprise, Vulcans, Romulans, etc., etc. It doesn’t seem (for now) that anything MAJOR has been changed in canon. Scotty hasn’t been changed into a woman and Earth is still around in the 23rd century.

Crying about whether or not the Enterprise is built on Earth or in space is an exercise in futility and really, it’s not going to matter one way or the other in terms of the overall story of TREK XI and it’s NOT going to affect/contradict ANYTHING in the Original Series.

But, if your TREK existence consists of memorizing the “Nitpicker’s Guide,” the “STAR TREK Chronology” and the 1960’s writer’s guide/bible, then I guess some of us should have seen this one coming from the canonite crowd.

Just don’t complain about the blank stares you get from your friends, co-workers and relatives when you go on and on and on about what a “canonical travesty” the teaser trailer for TREK XI is. “It looks like STAR TREK to us. What’s the big deal?”

“But… but… but… you DON’T UNDERSTAND!!!”

505. Daniel Broadway - January 16, 2008

James R. Kirk

506. YUBinit - January 16, 2008

My take on assembly on the ground just for fun…

It’s stupid. Why so many welders? Is this supposed to be Sky Captain Kirk? I would think at this time and level of technology there would be a little automation don’t you think? Even some our newest avian techniques don’t use welding but moving more towards epoxies and lamination. And when not there are still more bolts and rivets than welds. I don’t ever recall Scotty saying to Kirk “aye, my welders will git right on it”. He has engineers, not construction workers sitting around in bibs awaiting a repair to the hull. I think the construction techniques in this time are a wee bit beyond welding.

It’s also much easier to move bulky objects around in the vacuum of space. Look at the shuttle arm, then look at a crane. See the difference? Hell even one of the shuttle astronauts grabbed and held the Hubble. Think anyone could keep it from rolling downhill on earth by grabbing it?

“not your father’s star trek” …hell man, given the teaser this isn’t even my GRANDFATHER’S Star Trek, unless of course he went senile and used a 2×4, a saw, and some wood glue to fix his Ferrari motor. LOL

507. Bubba 2008 - January 16, 2008

I can hear the fan-boys thumbing through their dog-eared “ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE” as the trailer begins…

508. Miss Adian Zmed - January 16, 2008

I think TJ Hooker violated canon once or twice…

509. Bubba 2008 - January 16, 2008

I think TJ Hooker violated more than the canon…

510. MAT - January 16, 2008


I am glad you give a wide cut path for this new film to take in a creative way, however re-imagining something that has successfully been done before is always a risk ie: Ang Lee’s, Incredible Hulk and Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns. Sure we will watch it at some point along the way in our media saturated lives and then will judge it, determining what it means to us.

Playing with the formula and coming at all those who have watched a Trek movie with a good story is great ie: James Bond, Casino Royal. Turn it into something ridiculously unbelievable, then it will be judged as such. In the end if it is bad then it brings us that much closer to the next best experience and a recipe for what not to do in the future.

Good Luck JJ and Crew, may the pressure of a great franchise not crush you as many fans await your vision for all the future to judge.

511. MWG - January 16, 2008


Roberto did state pretty definitively that Area 51’s not in the movie. He just didn’t do it here.

Here’s the money quote:

“No area 51. That makes no sense. The Earth KNOWS there are aliens. What possible meaning could an area 51 have?”

512. Classic trek - January 16, 2008

wow 500+posts!!

im really excited by this description. crikey, they really are going back to the start. im facinated by the thought of seeing the enterprise being constructed. weve never seen that before and what an opportunity to do so. i never thought of seeing the ship we love actually being built.

this could look amazing. cant wait

513. Andy Patterson - January 16, 2008

As I’ve said before….I shall reserve judgement until I see it.

514. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008


Always figured transporters took care of that.

515. diabolk - January 16, 2008

Once upon a time there was a show loved by millions. It was saved from death by them and grew into a large franchise. The fans love for the franchise caused the owners to make many shows and movies. Eventually the quality declined until it no longer was viable.

Then, a fan who had made it big lobbied to be allowed to bring it back to life. The very efforts he made to resuscitate it and make it enjoyable by millions again were derided by the older fans.

Foretunately for the franchise, he ignored the protests and kept on working to bring the thing back to life.

And some thanked him for it and showed support, for they knew that if he didn’t do this, and they didn’t support it, it would die forever.

But despite this, some fans turned their face to the wall, clutching their Mego TOS dolls, and tearfully dried themselves to sleep, because their idea of Trek was not made.

516. diabolk - January 16, 2008

I meant “cried,” not “dried.”

517. NCC-73515 - January 16, 2008

514, roberto Orci
Would be fun… you don’t have to leave your station because everything your rectum contains is directly beamed out… you could even eat that way, beaming something into your stomach :D
This also offers a new technique for reducing body fat – beam your belly out of yourself :D :D :D

518. Bono Luthor - January 16, 2008

461 – Here in the UK very few houses have basements, which leads me to wonder where die hard nerds live.

Loft conversions are very popular.


I use the word nerd ,and not geek, because in my world view there is a big difference.

Geeks get laid.

519. diabolk - January 16, 2008

You know, JJ and the writers are in a no-win situation with the fans. They can’t win. The fans like the majority here will hate it, not matter what they did with it.

So, they are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in making it for the movie-going audience at large. Win new fans. forget the old ones, you can;t make them happy.

520. Bono Luthor - January 16, 2008

519 – I kind of agree.

I think, trying to be balanced for a moment, for me the remastered Trek on DVD is a way to indulge in old school Trek with just enough of a twist to give it a new kick.

For the new movie I expect something different, but still Star Trek if that makes sense.

Those who can’t deal with change will have the originals for the rest of their lives.

On the other hand, I don’t agree with those who say old fans should just accept whatever they are served up and be grateful because it keeps the franchise alive.

521. THE TREKKIe - January 16, 2008

What problems do u all have with Area 51.
Area 51 took place in Star Trek, just watch “a little green man”
Logical conclusion: This film will be about ferengi :D

I like what i read from this small teaser. Sounds quite interesting and optimistic. Optimism of a good and bright future, something that has to come back to star trek and his friends. So that they both finally can boldy go again -as first production since the end of DS9 – where no francise has gone before … ^^

522. CW - January 16, 2008

I wonder… if the new movie does follow story canon at all, will all the canon haters run out of the theater with their arms in the air, screaming?

Or will they create an online petition that Kirk should be played by Katie Sackhoff from the sequel forward?

523. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008

481 No are 51.

524. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008

I mean “AREA”

525. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008


I appreciate the response….and just because there’s no “a” on the end of “are”, I won’t take it as “wiggle room” for you to get out of that assurance! :)

526. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

Whoa…..we must have been typing at the very same moment! Cool!! :)

527. YUBinit - January 16, 2008

Again I must say it amazes me with the simple fact that if you love Star Trek so much, and your such a fan then… it was so good it needs to be changed? That’s gotta be some sort of mentle illness. It’s that or what went wrong in the first place in that ANYTHING stamped Star Trek you will swallow and ask for more? Maybe the older fans knew a little something some of you just aint getting?

One HUGE clueless blunder is from in the teaser it’self. SPOCK gives the “space the final frontier” line? Every single episode of TOS that was ever aired it was KIRK’s line. What kind of slap in the face and thumb to the nose is that? Yeah, I too loved Spock so much I begged my mother in the 60s and got my hair cut like that! LOL But at least I’m fan enough to know that if you indeed include Nimoy as Spock, then you certainly ain’t no fan if no Shatner as Kirk. This is a Spockcentric production and there is no fan that would ignore that or excuse it. If they break with canon as they obviously are, then they can just as well break it again and Kirk never died. Spock did his “remember” on the corpse, McCoy got some DNA out of Kirk’s hairbush, and POW Kirk is back on the bridge. Don’t need to show it or even state it, because we already know canon don’t mean squat already.

528. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

We’ve heard “no AREA 51″
Yay, the canon freaks have won
They’re getting it right
No need for us to fight
This movie will make a ton! :)

529. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008


I try never to comment on other movies since many of my colleagues may be involved. In the case of SR, I have to say I am biased because I liked JJ’s script a lot. Furthermore, as it turns out, Brandon Routh became my brother in law when he married my step-sister this past November. They met because he was the bar tender at my wedding rehearsal celebration. Small enough world for you?I can say I thought Brandon did a great, difficult job.

530. Matt Wright - January 16, 2008

I just want to say a big thanks to Mr. Orci for jumping into this crazy 500+ comment fray.

531. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

#527 YUBinit “McCoy got some DNA out of Kirk’s hairbrush, and POW Kirk is back on the bridge”

The best laid plans……with the rugs that Shatner tended to wear….hair from that used in cloning would only leave you with some 22 year-old Korean kid sitting in the captain’s chair! Yikes!! :)

532. Myrth - January 16, 2008

I’m going to ask this again, why are the “canon” strick people still upset when we have visual, onscreen evidence that P.U. ship yards do ground construction? Why is this still an issue when the image was posted several hundred posts ago?

533. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

#59 roberto orci “Brandon did a great, difficult job”

Please tell your brother-in-law I thought he did a SUPERB JOB playing Superman….and as my fellow posters can probably corroborate….I’m the pickiest bastard on the planet!! :)

534. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

Sorry, meant post # 529!

535. CD Reed - January 16, 2008

I figure Orci in reading this thread has one thought permeating through his head:

“My God, they’re haggling over whether the Enterprise is build in space or Earth….. It’s going to be a long year.”

I figure the next piece of disappointment will be that Nimoy isn’t playing the young Spock and young Kirk looks too much like the chief on “Chips.”

536. Ali - January 16, 2008

For the last time, it is CANON not CANNON

537. MrRegular - January 16, 2008

I’m going by the Making of Star Trek quote I shared in post #91.
That said, the ship could be welded, cemented, fused, nailed, melded, or glued together with Elmer’s or Crazy Glue or Testor’s.
Doesn’t matter to me! Working 2 jobs for 80+ hours a week gives me other priorities. Let’s just see the film next Christmas!

538. MAT - January 16, 2008

Harry Ballz-

Every actor does their best when they act thier part, it dosn’t mean that it felt authentic to the continuity of what is Superman or because its fresh does not mean that it does justice to what came before.

539. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

#538 “It’s Soul travel fellas”

And to accomplish this are we to assume that Spock took the SOUL TRAIN??!!

BA-DUM-BUM!! (anybody under 35 wouldn’t get this joke) :)

540. SPB - January 16, 2008

#522 – CW

There’s no such thing as a “canon-hater,” only fans who are open-minded enough that they can allow for certain tweaks to the TREK mythos.

Canon-ites, however, do exist, and they are one sad, scary little bunch.

541. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

541. Harry Ballz

[BA-DUM-BUM!! (anybody under 35 wouldn’t get this joke)]

in that case…


542. SPB - January 16, 2008

#506 – YUBinit –

Please tell me you’re kidding, or did you actually just take issue with the idea of WELDERS existing in the 23rd century???

Oy vey. The mind boggles.

543. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

540 MAT

Are you kidding? Very few actors could pull off playing The Man of Steel and have us believe it! Brandon Routh gave us a subtle, nuanced and powerful performance as Superman. This is NOT an easy role to take on…and he was brilliant in it!

The script for the movie, on the other hand, was insipid and weak! Certainly not HIS fault!

544. MAT - January 16, 2008

543 Harry Ballz

– True, he did give a subtle, nuanced and camera bling performance as the Supertight runway model that he is… it does not show for being Genuine to a larger than life character.

545. Woulfe - January 16, 2008

Points to make about the teaser.

1. One can’t tell it’s a teaster for Star Trek becuse the way they did it ;)

2. By buliding the ship on the ground it puts it more “Down to earth” for Joe six-pack.

3. it’s a TEASER, it teases folks into getting excited about Trek’s return to the BIG SCREEN !

546. CW - January 16, 2008

“Are you kidding? Very few actors could pull off playing The Man of Steel and have us believe it! Brandon Routh gave us a subtle, nuanced and powerful performance as Superman. This is NOT an easy role to take on…and he was brilliant in it!”

Brandon Routh… brilliant? Seriously?
Lucille Ball would have been better cast as Superman.

547. Viking - January 16, 2008

‘Please tell me you’re kidding, or did you actually just take issue with the idea of WELDERS existing in the 23rd century???’

#542 – An old buddy of mine went to Lincoln Electric Welding School about 20-odd years ago (graduated top of his class). He showed me the ropes of TIG, MIG, and arc welding, and I can tell you that either they’d better have more efficient means of joining trusses and hull plates in the 23rd century, or they’d better start building the Enterprise next week. Welding is one hot, slow, dirty, back-breaking bitch of a job.

But they make phat money. :-)

548. CW - January 16, 2008

“#522 – CW

There’s no such thing as a “canon-hater,” only fans who are open-minded enough that they can allow for certain tweaks to the TREK mythos.

Canon-ites, however, do exist, and they are one sad, scary little bunch. ”

Nowhere near as scary as those who try to beat change into someone else.

Besides, I’ve found that those professing themselves as “open-minded” display rather small minds themselves.

549. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

Anybody remember Tuesday Weld?? Scrump-dilly-ishus!! :)

550. CW - January 16, 2008

Here’s some small mindedness right here:

“Ah, but you’re not giving us any real argument as to why we all SHOULD be hung up on all these minor “canonical” details. Maybe I’m being a tad harsh, but I’ll still hold to the idea that following every single bit of TREK canon/minutae is the same as strapping yourself in to a creative and intellectual straightjacket.”

Talk about lack of imagination and creativity.

551. SPB - January 16, 2008

#548 –

“Nowhere near as scary as those who try to beat change into someone else.”

No one has to beat change into anybody. “Change” is something that happens naturally to everything. Even STAR TREK. No use trying to fight it. But good luck anyway.

552. SPB - January 16, 2008

#550 –

So writing a film that’s filled with NOTHING but canonical references is somehow NOT lacking in imagination? Not sure what you’re getting at with that one.

553. Viking - January 16, 2008

Roberto, I’m-a gonna love what you have to say about all of this. AFTER everyone forks over their money at the theater. LOL ;-)

554. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

Funny….the argument seems to be in two camps….


Same letters! Coincidence? I think not! :)

This is Orci’s doing………….I just KNOW it!

555. VOODOO - January 16, 2008

R.Orci #529

I thought B.Routh did a great job as Superman. The problem was that film was not the right way to bring back Superman. It was basically a love story and a fairly dull one at that.

Superman’s return to the big screen should have been a big/loud fun film (in the vein of Superman II) not a melodramatic sequel to a 25 year old movie.

While I liked Routh I didn’t think Kate Bosworth was very engaging (lacked spunk) as Lois Lane for whatever reason.

I hope B.Routh gets another chance in the next Superman movie. Liked him, but I found the film boring.

556. Xai - January 16, 2008

529. roberto Orci – January 16, 2008

“Furthermore, as it turns out, Brandon Routh became my brother in law when he married my step-sister this past November. They met because he was the bar tender at my wedding rehearsal celebration. Small enough world for you? ”

It’s a very small world then. Brandon was a soccer teammate of my (soon-to-be) son in law in high school at Norwalk, Iowa. I believe he played keeper.

They wouldn’t let him wear the cape on the field.

557. John D. - January 16, 2008

I just hope all this secrecy pays off.

558. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008

553 Me, too!

559. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008


That makes us practically related!

560. Xplodin' Nacelle - January 16, 2008

The novel “A Flag Full Of Stars” shows the refit saucer lifting off from Earth, & being assmbled with the Secondary Hull later in the story.

Also the Saucer does have 3 triangular landing legs, including one concealed under the dorsal attach point.

As others have said “The Making Of Star Trek”, & The Counter Clock Incident cartoon back these ideas up.

561. MAT - January 16, 2008

Would it be ironic if Brandon Braga, Ronald Moore and Rick Berman are standing by in the wings like a Scimitar Rising, waiting to see if this movie crashes faster than the Enterprise D. :-)

562. Viking - January 16, 2008

LOL @Roberto. Canon. Non-canon. I’m Gnostic on The Gospel Of Trek at this point. Just gimme a damn good movie and I’ll supply the two hours of mindless vegetation to enjoy it with. ;-)

(Oh, and just to put it in perspective – I’ve seen every Trek movie on opening night since TMP, so don’t disappoint. And no, I don’t live in Mommy’s basement.)

563. Dennis Bailey - January 16, 2008

#487: “I really don’t understand the anti-canon people, or their intense anger and hatred.”

I really don’t understand some of the canon-ites, or their intense anger, hatred and fear.

Okay, I *do* understand it…I just don’t think much of it.

564. Xai - January 16, 2008

559. roberto Orci – January 16, 2008

“That makes us practically related!”

Then, dear brotherinlawtomysoninlawshighschoolteammate. Can I get on the set? I mean… we ARE practically related.

LOL ;-)

565. ShawnP - January 16, 2008

“The Counter Clock Incident” –

Commodore April references being there in the shipyard as the Enterprise was being built. I’d never seen this before. Fun stuff!

566. Anthony Thompson - January 16, 2008

Mr. Orci: a thought, that may or may not require a response. i believe the consequences of the ongoing strike is a major threat to the movie. Why? Because as a serious movie fan (including everything from Trek to “City Lights”) I’m aware that writers are critical partners DURING the production of any film. No film that I’m acquainted with had a script “set in concrete” when filming began and no revisions made. Usually, revisions are made CONSTANTLY during the shooting of a movie to improve it and reflect changing circumstances (budget problems, casting changes, etc.). In this film, that critical give and take beween the writers and director isn’t possible. Care to comment?

567. Spud - January 16, 2008

roberto Orci

Remember one thing. If you build it they will come! I have never missed any star trek movie on opening day since 1979. And on 12- 25- 08 I will be there as well with my kids in tow. I love my 1965 mustang. But I also love my 2008 Mustang GT. :) Your never ever going to make every one on this site happy. So you might as well settle for 75% of them.

568. cw - January 16, 2008

“No one has to beat change into anybody. “Change” is something that happens naturally to everything. Even STAR TREK. No use trying to fight it. But good luck anyway. ”

I dunno… my entire life is canon. I haven’t woken up at any time another race or gender… my job wqas the same, and my date of birth or place of birth hasn’t changed either. When I came home, my wife wasn’t someone else either. I still have the same kids as well.

See, that canon haters pass themselves off at needing the Enterprise to have pipes all over it like the Mellenium Falcon (and also having flames) with captain Kirk being played by Michelle Forbes, a Captain born on Mars and never having set foot on Earth, and Sulu is an undercover Klingon and tribbles have a forked tail, clawed feed and giant teeth.

The “Cacon-istas” (a derogatory name put forth by supposed ‘open minded’ folk’ realize that Captain Kirk can still be a guy from Iowa and still manage to tell a story thast hasn’t been told yet… or tell a known story in a vastly more dynamic way.

In all honesty, I can see both virtues. As for the film, I can swing both ways. If this is a “scratch, from the ground up” then lets toss Nimoy and stat new.

If this is a re-presentation of the original, then lets fix some of the writers screw ups over the years and also see some stories that we haven’t seen yet.

I do have a preference, and that would be to draw on the rich history that has been laid out and present those scenareos that have only been mentioned, and maybe return to a Station K7 for an entirely different reason.

If you want something so darned new so darned badly, why even stay with Trek at all? Why not actually watch something else, since something else is what you actually want.

569. 68Guns - January 16, 2008

Wow – I have been visiting this site for a LONG while now, and read every news blip about the movie. I am shocked how narrow minded people are about a description of a trailer.

Frankly I don’t give a rats ass if they built the enterprise in dry dock or on earth as long as it recaptures the spirit and characters of the original series. I have been saying for years that they need to bring back the original crew (with new actors)…while the other Trek crews entertained me…they lost the sense of adventure and fun the TOS had.

CW….dude (or dudette)…. and other like minded folks…STAR TREK HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!!! Its IMPOSSIBLE to do something creative with an old property without change, its the nature of the beast. Star Trek is not a religion, its great entertainment and that what I hope the movie is.

R. Orci – I am really looking forward to see what you guys did with the dialog between Kirk, Spock and Mccoy. When people ask me what I thought of Transformers, one of the first things out of my mouth is usually “fun movie, great dialog and banter”.

Oh and B Routh was GREAT as Superman! This coming from someone who saw Superman the Movie 50 times in the theater. The only thing I did not like was Lois, she was boring.

They got parts of the cannon wrong originally anyway…….they missed a stellar opportunity to link the origin of the borg to the Decker/Ilia/Vger entity……And Kirk should have never died like that.

570. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008


You are correct that usually you want to be able to make adjustments as you go, although not every script undergoes changes during shooting. Two things mitigate the negative effects in this case (i hope). First, many of the changes often come to adjust for production changes or to better fit the dialogue to the actors. But the sets are locked and the characters we’re dealing with here already have such distinct voices (Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc) that we took that into account with casting. Secondly, we KNEW that we were not going to be able to make changes. The strike was looming for months, so we knew it had to be in as good a shape as possible and we all spent extra time getting the script where we wanted it.

571. Viking - January 16, 2008

Spud, you devil. Glad to meet another who secretly geeks out at a Trek movie release. My grandkid is a little too young to grasp the whole concept (hell, the pinnacle of his existence is just to grunt and turn Andorian blue in the face when he craps his diaper at this point), but even my wife will enjoy it. It took a few years, but I’ve turned her into a convert.

572. Laserlover2254 - January 16, 2008

Are you REALLY Robert Orci?

573. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008



574. Dean - January 16, 2008

Before passing final judgement on the trailer, consider this: perhaps the trailer is simply a metaphor for the movie itself, not the supposed construction of the Enterprise. The Big E in the trailer represents the now UNDER CONSTRUCTION movie. The movie is being constructed on Earth. As mentioned above, this trailer could simply be a bridge “from our time to Kirk’s time” (perhaps the welder in the trailer is working on or near the Bridge section of the Primary Hull).

Remember, this is a teaser, something to whet people’s appitites for the movie.

575. ACR - January 16, 2008

This trailer sounds spot on.

Not sure where the “boring” comments are coming from. . . how can you describe a written summary of a very visual effort as boring??? Its using the wrong vocabulary and smacks of immature negativity.

I expect that when I see it in the theaters I will get chills (just like I did for the Ep. 1 trailer). That doesn’t mean that the movie will be any good. But it sure will be an exciting 11 months waiting to find out.

Everyone should enjoy the anticipation. Otherwise its like you’re bad mouthing your Christmas presents the day after Halloween – “I know she’s going to buy me a white Wii controller, but I wanted the green one – wah!”

576. Viking - January 16, 2008

# 570 Roberto – I’ve read of accounts where J.J. has been hit with spur-of-the-moment inspiration to improv a line of dialogue, but has been humstrung by the strike – I’m sure that has got to be a teeth-gnashing feeling. Any chance you might go back and do reshoots if there’s an armistice declared before the window of opportunity passes?

577. 68Guns - January 16, 2008

“If you want something so darned new so darned badly, why even stay with Trek at all? Why not actually watch something else, since something else is what you actually want. ”

I love batman too…….but I love to see it reinvented. I learned to like batman from the 60’s tv show, but I welcomed change for the movies. I just don’t think the same look for 60’s batman would work, like I don’t think an unchanged 60’s enterprise would work. You need to be able to look at the new ship and know its the “enterprise” just the same way you look at the new batman costume and know its batman, but that’s about it.

I like James Bond, in the last movie they changed a lot of things and I liked it even better.

578. Roytheboy10 - January 16, 2008

one advantage of building it on earth is that the workers don’t need space suits. Helps with health and safety I guess plus they won’t be slowed down by the suit , so more efficient..

579. roberto orci - January 16, 2008

576 – only if it’s necessary. But doubtful unless some scene DOESN’T WORK which is different than thinking a line or two could be better.

580. Ahkenatan - January 16, 2008

Props to you, Abrams and Kurtzman and any I’ve left out of that writing process for taking the time to look that far ahead into production while still writing the script. I’ve never written a script but I can only imagine the hours upon hours you guys spent together hashing this over to get it right the first time. I for one will appreciate that whilst I inhale popcorn and M&Ms during the flick.

#572 Are you really Laserlover22554?

581. MAT - January 16, 2008

Is anyone really related to this movie?

582. Viking - January 16, 2008

#579 – thanks, my friend. When it comes to understanding the movie industry, I’m lucky I can just program my friggin’ remote control to the DVD player. LOL ;-)

583. Crusty McCoy - January 16, 2008

We need a title for Roberto’s tell-all after-the-fact book — “My Time in Trek: My Time in Hell” or “My Trek with the Fans — Pass the Whiskey”

Any other suggestions?

584. Viking - January 16, 2008

#583 Crusty: How about, “Jezzus, I’m Glad They Don’t Live Next Door.”


585. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

“Nerd Trek: Bless Their Hearts”


“Fanboyz: The Next Generation”

Peace. Live long and Prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

586. Captain Dunsel - January 16, 2008

Or maybe:

“Robert Orci’s Scar Trek”

587. Mr. Atoz - January 16, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Will you be around after the weehkend to discuss the teaser?

Very excited about this film! Really liked it when Abrams said,”We cant mess this up” at the convention last summer. Shows he really cares.


588. Andy Patterson - January 16, 2008

549. Harry Ballz – January 16, 2008

Anybody remember Tuesday Weld?? Scrump-dilly-ishus!!

I remember Tuesday Weld. Was in Dobie Gillis and in a movie with Martin Mull called “Serial”. You see a LOT of her in that movie. Loved it. Required reading at the Academy. Good stuff Maynard

589. roberto orci - January 16, 2008


For sure. I war to know what you think.

590. Alex Rosenzweig - January 16, 2008

#563 – It’s okay, Dennis, I don’t think much of the rabid “anti-canon” crowd, either. ;)

‘Course, I think the folks who are in the fringe sector of refusing to accept any change at all, no matter how minute, are also being sort of self-defeating. I think there’s a balance to be struck in there.

591. SPB - January 16, 2008


“The Trouble with Canonites.”

592. Mr Jimmy - January 16, 2008

Is Shatner in the trailer?

They couldn’t have really left him out…could they?

593. Jupiter1701 - January 16, 2008

To whomever classified people as “canon haters”:

No, we happen to love canon. It even makes grown men squeal like a girl when the writers throw us a bone made out of the stuff.

But the point is that we don’t allow the smallest detail to ruin our ability to enjoy a movie that we haven’t even seen yet.

Sure we want the movie to make an attempt to follow canon, but moreso we just want to enjoy a good Star Trek movie. There are literally dozens of canon violations in Star Trek. If a single infraction causes someone to boycott Star Trek, then they would have stopped watching in the first season of Classic Trek.

You have to expect that the dozens, if not hundreds, of writers over 40 years are bound to stretch this complex organism into different directions from time to time. It goes with the territory.

594. SPB - January 16, 2008


There is no such thing as an “anti-canon” fan on these boards. Only anti-canonites. We think canon is as much fun to follow as the next fan… we just don’t cry into out bowl of Fruit Loops when there’s the slightest hint of an EXTREMELY MINOR canonical tweak which has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the upcoming film or has massive repercussions in the TREK universe.

-Kirk changed to a 50-year old Mexican? Bad.
-Spock is a half-Vulcan, half-Klingon? Ridiculous.
-McCoy is changed to “Leona” McCoy and looks like Kathleen Turner? Asking for trouble.
-The Enterprise crew is filled with officers wearing socks & sandals? Unforgivable.

Enterprise built on Earth? IT DOESN’T MATTER.

595. Dennis Bailey - January 16, 2008

Bottom line is, no matter how much effort is made this film is going to upset the OCD canon-ites. We’ve decades of evidence, now, that this is unavoidable.

Too bad for them.

596. Alex Rosenzweig - January 16, 2008

#593 – “You have to expect that the dozens, if not hundreds, of writers over 40 years are bound to stretch this complex organism into different directions from time to time. It goes with the territory.”

With that I completely agree. I’m in the camp that thinks that with reasonable care, it’s an organism that’s flexible enough to encompass that stretch and grow because of it. :)

597. Daniel Broadway - January 16, 2008

Roberto: Regarding improv inspiration during filming…

Why is it against strike rules to change something on the fly? It’s not like you are re-writing the whole scene. Even if it’s just a change of a couple of words, is it not allowed?

Why can’t JJ say….”I want you to say this…..”blah blah blah”….not what was written”

You technically aren’t re-writing anything, just having a quick change of mind on set. Or if JJ can’t say it, can’t a grip or a PA, or whatever, tell the actor “Hey, if you want to say it this way…”blah blah blah”….i’m sure they won’t stop you…wink wink”

I mean really, how could anyone object to that?

598. Xai - January 16, 2008

They will

599. justcorbly - January 16, 2008

I know: The movie ends with Pike waking up at home in his bed. Nurse Chapel rolls over and he tells her he’s had the most amazing dream about a starship and people with pointy ears and….

(Apologies to Bob Newhart.)

600. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

Gotta be me!

601. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

The unnofficial posting rule is now in operation.
No posting without referencing another’s comment.

For example:

565. ShawnP
[“The Counter Clock Incident”]

Thanks for the Link! Just when I needed to get some sleep tonight.
I see that that site has ALL of the anoimated episodes!!!!

WOW!!! Let’s all keep this a secret, OK?!! shhhhh! ; )

602. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008


I Survived The Canon Fire From Trek

603. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008


And I think we have a winner!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

604. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

Vulcanista…..thank you, you’ve always been so nice to me!

605. Michael - January 16, 2008

424. roberto orci –
Thanks for the reply. Glad that you liked the idea. Now I have the DVD release to look forward to in 2009!

Always appreciate your input here.

Now, can you comment on the latest rumor?
Is it true that when the welder lifts his hood that it is Shatner?

606. billhardin22 - January 16, 2008

Mr. Orci:

It is really cool to have the opportunity to hear your comments and interact with you on the site. Thanks for the privilege!

I just don’t see how the movie can go wrong if it is in the hands of people like you who really seem to care about the fans and the franchise.

I just have confidence you will give us a great Trek!

Can’t wait to see the trailer!

607. Michael - January 16, 2008

From the trailer description, we will see the saucer & nacelles.

Why is everyone worried about seeing the Cannons in the trailer.

According to Capt Pike in the pilot, we know that the Big E had…wait for it…

Phase Cannons

608. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

605. Michael – January 16, 2008

[Now, can you comment on the latest rumor?
Is it true that when the welder lifts his hood that it is Shatner?]

Now that’s why I come to this site!
Very original & very funny!!! I think even Shatnter could pull that off!
No pun intended. Ha ha ha!

609. Sean4000 - January 16, 2008

I’m fine with flexing, breaking is unacceptable to me.

610. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

#604, Harry: You’re welcome. You’re easy to be nice to.

#605: “Now, can you comment on the latest rumor?
Is it true that when the welder lifts his hood that it is Shatner?”

LOL! And then after lifting the hood, he says in a creepy singsong voice, “I’m baaaaaack!” ;-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

611. Michael - January 16, 2008

608. TrekMadeMeWonder
610. The Vulcanista

Vulcanista, no comment on #171?
I’m hurt. :(

612. cd - January 16, 2008

All this canon/anti-canonite talk. There are some people that may go overboard about canon but all they are doing is expressing their honest heartfelt opinion about Star Trek. Why are so many people complaining about that?
Why can’t we discuss our opinions and ideas without all the disparaging remarks? I hear more griping ABOUT them than FROM them.
To quote McCoy in Star Trek IV: “Sounds like the … Spanish Inquisition.”
One of the main themes of Star Trek is about people overcoming their prejudices and having respect for all individuals in all their diversity. Looks like we still have a long way to go. >|>{

613. cd - January 16, 2008

Good to hear from you, Mr. Orci. Especially about the bio-gel packs and Area 51. Thanks again for listening to us. >;>}

614. Miss Emily Litella - January 16, 2008

What’s all this fuss I hear about cannons in the new Star Trek movie?? I thought Star Trek was set in the future! Surely they won’t have cannons on rocketships in the future! It’s the future! They’ll have something much better, like ray guns and robots and fancy machines that rearrange atoms and sexy aliens! And where do they store all the cannon balls? I’ll boycott if they have cannons on rocketships in this …


It’s “canon”?


Never mind.

615. cd - January 16, 2008

#614 – LOL. >;>}

616. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008


Sorry! It’s been a crazy day in more ways than one.

Thank you very much for your comments on my post. AFA your kind proposal of marriage, although I take all such proposals very seriously and I am extremely flattered that you would consider me in such a light, I must regretfully decline your most gracious offer. (Read that with a Southern accent, and you get the idea.) ;-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

617. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

Smooth, Vulcanista…….smooth! :)

618. TrekkerPulp - January 16, 2008

It already looks GREAT in my mind’s eye! Very cool way to tease…leaves enough mystery to keep me wanting more. Personally, I always thought the 1701’s component parts were built in my mother’s basement (on Earth) and then assembled after school on my dad’s garage workbench (off of the ground, so technically “in orbit”) while eating cheese balls and Cap’n Crunch.

That’s all, now my girlfriend needs a kiss!

619. cw - January 16, 2008

“There is no such thing as an “anti-canon” fan on these boards. ”

Could have fooled me, with all the vitrole and venomous replies towards anyone citing canon?

How on earth- or in orbit- can anyone say “there are no anti-canon people” when post after post says “accept change” or “Star Trek is about change” or “if you don’t accept change you are not a true fan” or any other “change-change-change”message?

Change is not canon.

The last 40 years of Trek is canon. Yes, there are new ships, stories and characters. New timelines. But it is all canon.

Unless that is the change you are referring to.

What I call change is the new Battlestar Galactica from the old.

Nor do I count screw-ups as “change”. Scotty’s muttering of Kirk in that one episode of TNG is what I call a goof- not change.

Khan remembering Checkov is a goof- not change.

There are tons of writing flubs… but they are just that- goofs. Not changing canon.

Something tells me that not everyone is on the same page about what “canon” and “change” means.

My hopes for this film- to start a trend in fixing the afore mentioned goofs, fix the canon, but also take into consider that todays flip phones are not too far removed from TOS communicators so at least some modernization is required.

620. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

#617 Harry,

The mark of a True Southern Woman (U.S. Pat. Pend., All Rights Reserved) is the ability to flirt with you while she is breaking up with you and to be polite to you until she is ready to murder you. (But that’s Southerners in general afa the polite/murder thing) :-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

621. Michael - January 16, 2008

616. The Vulcanista –
I do declare madam, that was the most gracious refusal I have ever encountered..
And very Southern indeed.

Are you sure that you aren’t The McCoyista?

As we say in Texas…’yall Live long ‘n prosper!

622. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

597. Daniel Broadway – January 16, 2008
Roberto: Regarding improv inspiration during filming…

[Why is it against strike rules to change something on the fly? It’s not like you are re-writing the whole scene. Even if it’s just a change of a couple of words, is it not allowed?
Why can’t JJ say….”I want you to say this…..”blah blah blah”….not what was written”]

I think that may be JJ’s version of CYA . Esp. in light of the REDICULOUS “C” word. Of which I will never speak.

623. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008

We can’t (nor can JJ as a member of the WGA) suggest changes on the set. Rules are strict. An actor can ask to try it a different way, but we can’t help them generate what the words might be or it would be considered on set writing.

624. roberto Orci - January 16, 2008


thanks for taking the time to give us your opinions.

625. Laserlover2254 - January 16, 2008


I think it should have Lasers or Phasers, not Phase Cannons. Or Phased Energy Banks, both of which are almost the same as Phasers anyway.

And I don’t mind if Scotty invents Transporters, or as in the unused Starfleet Academy, Dilithium Crystals, that would still be some damn good prequel development.

626. Jason D E - January 16, 2008

I don’t have a problem with the Enterprise being built in a planetary-based shipyards of some sort. It doesn’t strike me as blasphemous against “canon” since it has been established before. Afterall, the surface based facilities of the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards (Mars) are referenced in a prior Star Trek Voyager television episode — there’s even a screen capture here ( So I’m curious to see how they use it in the new film. All in all, I’ve been looking forward to seeing Trek re-envisioned as the future of our present, rather than a repeat of the future of our parents.

627. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 16, 2008

624. roberto Orci

Did you have a chance to read my ‘hypothetical’ synopsis of TREK XI?
I know that I am way out on a limb here asking for your review.
But I’d REALLY appreciate any comments.

Knowing that YOU had read it would make an already great day, much much, sweeter. Thanks!

Its post #114 found here…

Or, If you would like to email me that would be great too!
startrekmovie @

628. roberto Orci - January 17, 2008


I have to say that I like it a lot. First, an odd coincidence in that we had a sequence involving Rigel in our first draft. It seems you’ve taken many of the rumors and structured them into a truly decent sequence of events.

As far as constructive criticism, my only comment would be that if you are trying to bring in a new audience who does not know Star Trek, you would want to do a little bit more to introduce the universe of Trek to non-fans. Other than than that — kudos. Not bad at all, in my humble opinion. Really enjoyed reading that.

629. Rod - January 17, 2008

Hi folks,

Well, I’ve just got back from seeing ‘Cloverfield’ (Thursday, 17th January), as movies actually open on Thursdays here in New Zealand. Thankfully, yes, the ‘Star Trek’ teaser trailer was played with the movie … cool! I won’t ruin it for the rest of you who will no doubt be seeing it in over the weekend, but I thought it was really good … just what it should be, a ‘teaser’. The description of the teaser given above is correct, although there’s a little bit more to it. The scale of this movie looks like it’s going to be ‘massive’. Oh, and just to prove I have seen it … ‘Spock’ does the voiceover! (sorry, couldn’t resist! ;-)

‘Cloverfield’ … well, I’m glad to say that none of the monster images on the Internet are of the actual beastie. The CGI was very impressive, but the ‘reality’ hand-held camera was a bit annoying, until you got used to it, but that’s obviously the idea … to create that extra tense impact.

Unfortunately, there were only seventeen people in the theatre and three left part way through, so I guess it’s not everybody’s cup of tea. The ending caused a few ‘comments’ from people, but anyway, you can all make your own opinions.

Now, just to be a smart-arse, can I just say, “FIRST!”

Cheers, have a good one …

(Dunedin, New Zealand)

630. roberto Orci - January 17, 2008

629 I saw Cloverfield tonight s well along with your comrade, Karl Urban. Sadly, the Trek trailer was not in front of it.

Thought Cloverfield was very entertaining, but I am biased. What did you think?

631. Anthony Pascale - January 17, 2008

I should have my cloverfield review up soon…

632. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

628. roberto Orci

WOW! That really means alot to me! Thanks so much!!!!!!!!!
I like the sound of Rigel too. Flips of the tongue real nice. R-i-i-i-gel.

I do pride myself as being a bit of a Precog. Just keep the notepad closed when you are away from your desk and you’ll be fine. ; )

Also, I really like Transformers too! You must have taken careful consideration in story and dialog details, and especially the revelation of Bumblebee, to evoke a strong emotional response to the audience? Your screenplay as awesome!

Is that the real meaning of Transformers? Tranforming US, the audience?
It sure worked on me. Another great performance by Shia LaBeouf too. I really like him as a lead actor. I know that I was affected by it.

Funny too. That does not happen to me often at the movies. Only a few times, but it’s always strking. For example: In Superman I, when Superman saves Lois from the helicopter accident. I ALWAYS shed a tear there (You got me? WHO’S GOT YOU???!!! – GREAT!). Or, in Spider-man 3 when Doc Ock throws Spidey out of his lair (last battle) and Spidey swings back in – The look on Mary Jane’s face does it too. Can’t help it. But, I am not ashamed of my emotions and a true sucker for the hero story.

I am really looking forward to ST XI. Nothing I have heard is a show stopper. In fact it sounds very believable and ‘transforming’ ; )

And just how can you have Nimoy in it without it affecting time in some way. Kirk, Spock and McCoy are such great characters, and shared such a close bond, that I find it hard to believe that Spock would not do anything in his control to again relive those days. It may be an emotional decision, but Spock was never above that. He’s accepted his half human side long ago. That’s why a always found Spock interesting. His duality.

Thanks again!

633. Rod - January 17, 2008

Hi there, (630) Roberto … thanks for your reply.

Yeah, I thought it was really good myself, although my wife wasn’t sure whether or not she was going to need a motion sickness pill before hand, after I told her how it was shot.

I thought the effects were awesome and it may have been even more spectacular had it been shot as a ‘normal’ movie, which is obviously why some of the young ones in the theatre were somewhat perplexed by the ending … I guess they’re all too used to the typical hero-gets-the-girl kind of ending, eh? But, at least it was unique and not your usual monster movie … e.g. no explanation of what this thing was and how it all came about, etc … not to mention how it all ended (other than “Hammer Down”). But, the scale of this movie was also very impressive.

The ‘Star Trek’ trailer was cool … I can’t really recall the details of the parts of the Enterprise you actually see, having just seen it in a moment like that, but I certainly didn’t see anything that made me think, “That doesn’t look right!” The scale looks huge … just enough to whet the appetite, eh?

Please pass on my congratulations to fellow Kiwi, Karl, for landing his part in the movie. It’s great to see our actors really making it into the big time over there, as he’s certainly done already.

634. arcadians - January 17, 2008

Hi guys,
Just wanted to say that I’m a Trekkie of quite a few years standing and I’m feeling good about this movie. I like the initial look of the official website, if the trailer description is accurate it sounds pretty good to me, and I think the cast look fine.
All in all, I’m quietly confident that Mr Orci and co will produce a solid, entertaining movie.
Roberto, thanks for popping by so often and interacting with everyone. One question for you – “Trekkie” or “Trekker”?

635. Jean Prouvaire - January 17, 2008

Having just come back from an antipodean screening of Cloverfield I can confirm that the description of the trailer is mostly accurate. Conceptually the sequence is actually pretty similar to the opening credits of Star Trek: Enterprise: a celebration of exploration and brief audio – rather than visual – snippets representing the moments that humanity crossed the terrestrial threshold to journey the road from there to here. “Here” being the terrestrial launch of the Enterprise. Only thing is, rather than Nimoy intoning “Space, the final frontier”, it’s actually SHATNER speak-singing: “I’ve got FAITH… of the HEART. Knowing where my HEART. Will. TAKE me.”

In all seriousness, the teaser rocks. I haven’t been this excited by a Trek movie for decades.

636. Paul Witwicki (aka Montreal Paul) - January 17, 2008

Mr Orci…

Thank you for Transformers.. I loved it! And it isn’t very often i get to hear my name in a movie.. Witwicki isn’t a common name.

I look forward to seeing Trek when it comes out, Been a fan since the original show. I am glad you are a fan and that this movie is being written by a fan. Best of luck to you!

637. Andy Patterson - January 17, 2008

623. roberto Orci – January 16, 2008

We can’t (nor can JJ as a member of the WGA) suggest changes on the set. Rules are strict. An actor can ask to try it a different way, but we can’t help them generate what the words might be or it would be considered on set writing.

Sheesh, what a drag.

638. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

About the whole canonista/revisionist thing:

Obviously there are some folks who are obsessive about “canon.” However, if you read back through the comments here since the trailer was first described online, it’s clear that a lot of fans who want the film to reflect so-called “canon” are willing to rationalize any change made to Trek as long as:

1) They like the movie when they see it;

2) The film is never officially described with the words “reboot,” “reimagining” or some equivalent term;

3) The genders of the characters aren’t switched (a popular hypothetical, apparently referencing Ron Moore’s “Battlestar Galactica”).

So basically as long as a couple of words are avoided in the marketing anything goes – big changes in the time-line caused by the Romulans, everything being completely redesigned visually, the discarding of all kinds of implicit continuity (“fanon”) that Trek fans have been willing to accept as given for forty years (the “built in orbit” thing being an example).

Acceptance of a “*reinvigorated*-but-just-don’t-*call*-it-a-reboot” version of Trek is a matter of one step at a time for the next year or so. As long as Spock’s ears are pointed and the movie is good, most fans of “canon” will ultimately buy into it.

639. Diabolik - January 17, 2008

Orci must be a real glutton for punishment, coming on here! Hope he has a thick skin…. if i were in his place I wouldn’t even be reading it, much less entering into discussion. Too depressing to realise that only an infitesimal number of fans will be happy with what you do.

640. Dr. Image - January 17, 2008

I’m a nitpicker, but even I’M trying to be optomistic!
A bunch of you guys are being WAY too negative.
(And I actually liked the opening visuals of Enterprise- as long as the sound was off.)

641. SPB - January 17, 2008

#638 – Dennis Bailey –

How about, instead of calling TREK XI a remake, reboot, re-imagining, re-invigoration, whatever, why not just call it…

…a RE-FIT. Makes perfect sense, when you think about it! :)

642. justcorbly - January 17, 2008

#641: Why not just call it a movie?

643. AJ - January 17, 2008

642: I’d rather call it Star Trek.

644. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 17, 2008





645. Andy Patterson - January 17, 2008

Perhaps they’re incomplete nacelle caps. Still under construction as it were.

646. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

Some of you guys…. deleted my me… when you see one.

I for one am soooooooooooo happy!

And yes, my life is MORE than just a movie or Trek in general. I loved TOS, liked the movies, mostly TMP and ST II, lessor so with ST III, ST IV was a feel good and the susequent ST movies and ST series were a hollow shell of the originals. The vision and writing kinda went downhill since TOS. I do believe this new voyage will have a big impact on the general public too, and I predict the tickets will fly regarless of the economy : ).

FINALLY we will all get to see STAR TREK. As we, (some of us Earthlings) always wondered and pondered could be. We will finally see the true vision of TREK, moreso than we EVER got onscreen.


Trek has always been a real passion of mine! And sorry, I will never apolagize for my RENEWED enthusiasm for this project. AWESOME!!!!
I really like what I see and what I have heard so far. Let’s just hope that the story, acting and sense of wonder all follow in tandem with this impressive first step. Looks great so far.


647. Kenny S - January 19, 2008

Enterprise is a STARSHIP for crying out loud. The main parts should be constructed on Earth but assembled in space. Period.

The reasons of this are just too many, and shows that these guys dont care about portraying the future as it should be.

First of all the shape of the enterprise is not aerodynamic, everything about its design shows that its made for space, a vacum, and not air. Of course we have seen in TOS that it did enter the Earths atmosphere for a while, and I can accept that it can withstand this IF YOU HAVE TO…

This was one of the reasons why we had the transporters guys.. if the enterprise could just come in an atmosphere all the time, then how many stories does this break? Think of it… the Enterprise could just swoop in and search for people and locate them better than in orbit.

And then even for the EFFECT of giving it a MAGESTIC feeling it would be great to see the parts being one by one moved into place in free gravity, and then see the whole ship together…

This is BAD IMAGINEERING (imagination + Engineering). They still have time to CHANGE this… and they should do it NOW before its too late…

These writers HAVE to give extreme care to details.. if they cant handle all the details, they should hire some more people that will fill in with that.. but they must remember..

this is NOT a simple movie.. this is the VISUALIZATION of the future…

What does NASA say about making a STARSHIP? From what I have read on carl sagans book COSMOS the huge starships that would be able to travel to the stars would be assembled in space.

Why dont they ask the experts… I am sure that they would go for space assembly.

Remember what you put on screen is the springboard for the imaginations of the generations to come.. you are in fact, building the future on screen… and the responsibility is enormous.

648. Michael P. Delaney - January 19, 2008

Once again, The Making of Star Trek, a book published in 1968, written by Stephen Whitfield and GENE RODENBERRY clealy and explicitly states that the Enterprise components were built at San Francisco Navy Yards and assembled in space. In the very next sentence, it says that the Enterprise is not designed to operate inside an atmosphere and NEVER lands on a planet. The promo I saw today shows a welder in a wife-beater t-shirt and goggles welding the craft like it was an old ’57 Chevy muffler. Since we don’t even build passenger aircraft (not to even mention spacecraft) like that TODAY, the teaser is either meant to be nothing but symbolic, or else shows a total lack of respect for 40 years of Star Trek history, as well as the intelligence of the viewers. I’ll have to wait to see which is true.

649. Sam - January 20, 2008

Forgive me if this has been posted already but what nobody has thought of was that the Enterprise was already built before Kirk came along. Robert April was the first captain and Pike was the second then Kirk. At the most the ship was being rebuilt. Seems like there was a novel out some years ago about Kirks first Mission and the Enterprise was being refitted in a shipyard much like in the teaser trailer. Upon completion they would tractor beam the the finished sections into space and reassemble them. Seems like the warp nacelles where replaced with new ones. Can’t remember for sure.
If the producers follow that story then the appearance of Robert April and Christopher Pike makes sense. Building a new Enterprise for Kirk does not fit canon.
My 2 cents worth.

650. Colonel Kurdatz - January 22, 2008

I tend to agree with Sam (which is actually my name as well, so from one Sam to another…)

But seriously…I understand that this is just a trailer, but even so, it does raise some rather interesting questions.

Robert April was the first Captain of the Big E…then Pike…then Kirk. It wouldn’t make sense to see the Enterprise in Frisco Yards being assembled – at any part of the story, unless THATS exactly what is intended – to show her under construction, as if they intend to show her being built as part of a “past storyline” to give the audience some lineage. Even if they intended to show her being refit, this wouldn’t make any sense. Since these vessels were not designed to re-enter the atmosphere, this wouldn’t be possible. So what are we seeing in the trailer?

But there are some other things to ponder as well, in regards to storyline. In The Menagerie, Kirk clearly states that he met Pike only once – when he took command of the Enterprise. So how do you explain Pike’s role in this movie? Is it when he turns over command? Or is it in the lineage, like showing Enterprise being built? From what I understand, the character of Christopher Pike is somewhat of a major role in this movie, or at least has a major part in the telling of the story.

Also – where’s Dr Boyce? They’ve cast McCoy – but Boyce if you remember, (or was it Piper) was the original Dr. Do we see him, or any of the other crew from The Cage?

They’ve cast Checkov – which is strange, since he wasn’t a part of the show until the middle of the second season. So I’m curious, I wonder exactly “when” in the Trek lineage does this take place? Second or Third season?

Just some things to ponder I guess….

Can’t wait to see the movie!!! It looks to be pretty good! is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.