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 HollywoodChicago.com. TrekMovie.com 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 HollywoodChicago.com
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 TrekMovie.com.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
Comments»
Sounds really really really uninteresting.
It is like the first five minutes of Flashdance.
Looking forward to seeing it!
And so it begins!
First!!!
Well…it sounds like it has been predicted to be… Personally I can’t wait…
Sounds good!! :D
How unimaginative. Abrams is having his way with my childhood!
Wow! Sounds incredible.
I just read the whole plot on the Nimoy Aging article here on Trek Movie.
What up wit dat?
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/13/nimoy-on-aging-and-revitalizing-trek/
#7 Oh great, even one of the writers is complaining!!
“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…….
…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.
Sounds like it continues the theme of the opening of “Enterprise”. meh
The Enterprise should be assembled in space
Oh yeah, it’s Post #114
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
“Michael Bay looking cinematography)”…. This is bad. Reminds me off the Transformers….
I see that Mr. O’s been into the smart-ass pills again today. :)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Ok i did not read that.
Really.
Well, maybe final assembly can take place in orbit, right? So there we are. :)
1st thought was the opening sequence for Enterprise. “Getting from there to here”
Sorry Guys Thought I was the first one to comment…
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.
This will not be in the actual movie fellas.
For those that liked that description, Sorry.
I really hope there is more then that! Otherwise I’ll just skip Cloverfield in the theaters…
“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
#1 Anthony Lewis - January 15, 2008
“Sounds really really really uninteresting.”
That’s exactly what I thought …
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.
It sounds so neat to me! :D
I cannot wait!
Uh, oh, from what is said in this teaser trailer could what AICN said about the script be true?
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.
Folks,
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.
Boo.
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.
okay.
Yeah, the on-the-ground shipyard thing is really asinine.
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.
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!
“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.
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.
Folks,
BTW…next thing you know…Mr. Orci will have you believe Scotty invented the Transporter…
Oh…wait…um…
Boo, twice.
I bow to you Lord Garth! LOL!
And it will be on-line sometime on Monday.
So you won’t have to waste $9.00 to see “Cloverfield” too.
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?
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.
Folks,
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.
31
Kurtzman and I left Alias in the 3rd season.
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.
#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???
So, could we have gotten a hint at the the official title of this film - “Star Trek XI : The Future Begins”?
The dedication plaque said the San Francisco Ship Yards. Does San Fransisco now extend to space?
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.
I have a bad feeling about this.
Forty-third!
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.”
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!
#41
the Area 51 aliens were Ferengi. Everyone knows that. :P :D
#45
I put faith in Memory Alpha. They are all knowing Trek wise.
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:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/05/aicn-has-more-trek-rumors/#377586
BTW, I will have some cheese with my whine.
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.
#1-#2-#26–
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?
#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 !
#47
I think it is fairy set that this movie is just titled “Star Trek”.
#58
Agreed. We’ll just have to see they come up with.
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.
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.
#57
“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.
@50 - Wrong franchise!
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) :-)
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:TNG-ParallelsDisplay.jpg
Lower right image. From TNG. Utopia Planitia. Galaxy saucer. Ground. See? Discussion ended. :-)
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.
Folks,
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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!
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?
Roberto,
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.
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.
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.
Clank….clank….CLUNK!
Sounds like a real CLUNKER to me!
#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.
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.
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.
#74
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.”
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!
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?
#75
You are truy a wordsmith, Mr. Shalit.
#74
Precisely. Me too.
Can’t wait to see it!
#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.
#61
I concur.
It was in the Lost Years.
With the shuttle Enterprise, too. Seeing *her* in the film would be sweet, me thinks.
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.
: )
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.
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.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Utopia_Planitia.jpg
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.
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.
#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.
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!
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. ;)
Clearly the message is “From the ground up new beginning.”
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.”
let the “hateing” begin officially on Friday. Can’t wait to hear the collective whineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. “whaaaaa that’s not canon!!!” blah blah.
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.
The trailer sounds good.
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?
Where are people getting these ideas about area 51 (Didn’t Mr Orci himself deny this rumor?) + Scotty inventing the transporter?
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.
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 }:-|
Sounds pretty cool…
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!!!
#93
“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.
#65-#88-#91
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”.
EOD
We find out in two days. Ummmm crow is scruptious. “Chomp Chomp”
youse naysayers is a drag. i for one have faith of the heart. or cirrosis of the liver. something like that.
#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. ;)
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!
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.
@67
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?
I guess building the ship on the ground could be good and then lifted into orbit so it can be easily assembled in orbit.
#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?
#109 Wow !!! Take the sharp objects away from that dude.
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
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
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. :(
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.
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? :-)
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 ;-)
85% of people’s comments on this thread are incredibly stupid.
Didja see Stephanie Sanchez over at iesb.net 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*117
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
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.
How does a trailer sounds bad? I think it sounds cool. Just people building the Enterprise! What’s wrong with that?
“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!!!
“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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
#131 - steve623 - Are you Sanchez’s husband or older brother or something?
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.
Chronic smugness is unbecoming and tedious.
We’ll see how long that post stays up.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
Calm down. Its just a movie.
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.
SOMEONE HAS PROBABLY ALREADY MENTIONED THIS…
…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.
Maybe they beam the saucer section and other parts into space.
Didja think about that?
Hmmn?
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.”
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.
The last shot of the teaser should be the turbolift doors opening and Kirk walking into an empty bridge.
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.
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.
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.
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
#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.
cheers.
345 dtST
Do some of you guys know how much you are channeling the obsessed fans in Galaxy Quest?
It sounds like it’s going to be the coolest teaser ever! lol. Yeah, I’m excited. *Grins*
Sounds pretty!
Geekstorm Rising!
#130 Yes, I know. I’m implying that the Writers were not aware of that…
#156: By Grabthar’s Hammer, don’t remind us!
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!!!
SCOTTY DID NOT INVENT THE TRANSPORTER!!!
I THOUGHT THIS MOVIE WAS GOING TO RESPECT CANON?!!?!?!?
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.
#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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“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?)
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.
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.
“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???
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.
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!
#146:
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.
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”…
There will be LCARS computer displays and pre-holodecks in this movie.
The Klingons will have ridges.
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.
and the Scotty inventing the transporter… where’d that come from? More assumptions from a feverish mind or two
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.
AND WHERE EXACTLY ARE WE GETTING THIS “SCOTTY-INVENTED-THE-TRANSPORTER” CRAP FROM?
You don’t honestly think this is going to be in the movie, do you? Who came up with that???
and I saw someone pleading for Shatner’s return on THIS thread too?
Oh please…
#168
Yeah, what he said.
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!!
177. Friend - January 15, 2008
Sorry, too late and not for you to decide.
The best thing is that all you whiners will be dead by the 23rd century. ;-)
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!
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.
#177
GOD DAMN IT!
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 !
145. Jupiter1701 -
Amen Brother!
I’m with you!
manrum (#168) is using the Universal Translator. :-)
#185
The Klingons better NOT have ridges in this film!
ITS CANON THAT KLINGONS DON’T HAVE RIDGES IN THE 23RD CENTURY!
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…
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.
#145. Jupiter1701: HILARIOUS!!! DITTO!
186. Section 31 - January 15, 2008
calm down…. based on what?
Is the universal translator not in existence here, becuase, I know that it not here is.
–Manrum
***
REMEMBER DARMOK
#186
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.
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!
Naawww…
i have a bit much slivovice in my liver, so make me an understatement,
ask Darmok
–Manrum
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.
#193
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?!?!
#189
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”.
#198
Ever heard of Gravity Plating? It was established in DS9 and ENT!
#145. Jupiter1701: LOL! YOU MADE SPIT UP THERAFLU ON MYSELF. :-)
199. Section 31
‘Cause basically every Trek after 1982 sucked bad. Yeah, BAD.
#175 Spock’s Brain “some common sense”
A good number of the posts here clearly illustrate that common sense ISN’T so common!
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.
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.
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?!!?!?
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!!!”
i was on the orbiting of him!! the haves economic of the starship now on them withhhhh
hehehe remember darmok
–Manrum
197. manrum -
HUH?????
#207
If you were a loyal fan, you’d stop crying about the movie 11 months before it’s been released.
#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?
i ga de schuster vanavond bevochtigen… mm mm
–Manrum
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.
manrum
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.
I’m going to start my own company and create Star Tek TV shows that are loyal to CANON! Anybody here willing to join?
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!
#210 Michael
i believe i speak for everyone here when i say:HUHHHHHH??????????????????????/???
speak, Darmok!
–Manrum
manrum, Darmok used imagery and methaphor, not just poor grammar….;-)
The site that scooped this information (HollywoodChicago.com at this news story URL: http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/exclusive-star-trek-teaser-description) has its own thread of discussion going so you can post there as well! It’s here:
http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/forums/star-trek-teaser-description
I am annoyed over the trailer, and I gave myself any drink, in order to show it!
–Manrum
Allright! Break it up (and prosper)!
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z22/lukasketner/Spock.jpg
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.
#216
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.
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!
Canon Schmanon! You whiners are pathetic.
#219 Spock’s Brain
From the episode:
“Hersenen und Hersenen, wat zijn *Hersenen*?”
#225
Building the Enterprise on Earth and not in space dock is that serious of a cannon violation?
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!
#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!
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.
201. Section 31
#198
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.
230. Section 31
next complaint? You are just flaming and spamming
That’s a good idea Harry! Some of us are going to need it.
Section 31, I suggest you join us…
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.
#233
I disagree any post with the words “Duotronic Computer Systems” is fine on this board.
#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!
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.
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.
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.
like I said… some of you “know” everything that this movie contains and already dislike it.
COOL.
Stay home. I see no reason to get wound up when we no so little facts.
pardon me.. typo
Know
A haiku:
Star Trek will live on –
Construction underway where?
Who gives a rat’s ass.
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…
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/13/nimoy-on-aging-and-revitalizing-trek
#198
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.
MANRUM
I love Slivovica! Plum brandy from Serbia/Croatia. Sh*t will knock you on your ass.
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.
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.
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?
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.
#243 “A haiku”
I used to drive a Haiku………………………….but the wheels fell off!! :)
#243 - Ooh, a haiku! I much prefer those to limericks. Thank you!
Well, the trailer (which is not even released yet) is doing its job allready: getting us excited and stirring up discussion.
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…
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