Star Trek Teaser Trailer Review & VIDEO |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Teaser Trailer Review & VIDEO January 18, 2008

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

And so it begins. Up until today all this talk about a new Star Trek movie was just that — talk. But today, in theaters around the world, moviegoers seeing the ever-so-hyped Cloverfield were treated to the teaser trailer for Star Trek. This is getting real.

The Future Begins
Firstly the previously reported description of the Star Trek teaser is pretty much accurate. The trailer starts with a welder who could be from any time and slowly reveals that he and swarm of other workers are building the USS Enterprise in a dockyard somewhere on Earth. Ominous musical cues punctuate flashes between black, images of workers and glimpses of the ship in a dramatic fashion. Although shot in a highly stylized manner, the trailer depicts a very real…very human…kind of world of hard hats, sparks, grease and just guys getting the job done. Interjected into this world we hear the sounds of JFK and NASA during the heyday of the space race followed by the slogan “THE FUTURE BEGINS”– which appears to be the message of the trailer.

Everything old is new again
This is followed by Nimoy’s “space the final frontier” voice over, the reveal of the USS Enterprise saucer, the unmistakable Alexander Courage TOS sting, and the TOS transporter sound effect beaming in a title card stating “UNDER CONSTRUCTION,” the new TOS-style logo, and credits. These are all nice touches and should bring a tear to the eye of any Trekkie. By the time the “USS ENTERPRISE” reveal hit the screen the audience in the theater I attended started to applaud…a welcome sign for a bunch of young Culver City hipsters there to see the first midnight showing of Cloverfield. That being said, I wonder if the lack of the title “Star Trek” and the “construction” thing may be a bit too clever. The film makers always say they want to bring in the general audiences and it is not clear Cloverfield-like mysteriousness will work when you are re-branding something.

The ship?…out of danger?
As for the look of the ship at first glance it seems much larger than what we are used to and perhaps that is the point. From what can be seen of the design it clearly retains the general shape of the TOS Enterprise, but we see far more TMP style detailing and the proportions seem different…especially the engine nacelles which are ginormous. The design seems to fall somewhere in the middle between ‘exact copy’ and ‘radical redesign,’ possibly closer to the original than most might have expected. I have never been a purist and so for what I can see so far it looks pretty good. But I sure want to see what the whole thing looks like.

Land Ho
As for the Enterprise being constructed on Earth, this seems to strangely be stirring up quite a bit of controversy. Of course the plaque on the bridge of the USS Enterprise has the words ‘USS ENTERPRISE’ and ‘San Francisco, Calif.’ on it…and last time I checked, San Francisco is firmly attached to the planet. If you want to go further it was established in TNG that the Enterprise D was also at least partly constructed on the ground (in that case the Utopia Planetia on Mars). Star Trek The Motion Picture set up the notion of the Enterprise being refit in space and so many might assume that it was also entirely built there, but that is really just ‘fanon.’ After speaking to a number of canon experts, all seem to agree that constructing the ship (at least partly) on land is well within Star Trek canon. Plus an argument can be made that it makes more sense to build a ship on land as it is a much less hostile environment. Oh…. and…it’s just a TV show.

This is big
Bottom line is that the teaser trailer delivers exactly what it had to do. It sends the message that we today are linked to Gene Roddenberry’s future with the USS Enterprise and her crew. It shows that Star Trek is not a fantasy, not from a galaxy far far away…it is real and it is us. The trailer also creates a new sense of majesty and epic style for the franchise that has not been seen since the time of Star Trek The Motion Picture. The message here to the general film audience is, like this ship depicted, Trek is big…really big…and JJ Abrams is constructing it right now.

Money shot of the new teaser trailer (click to enlarge)

Related: Review of Cloverfield

VIDEO UPDATE: And here it is

The trailer is available now on YouTube in an unofficial form, but it really really does not do the trailer justice. You cannot see many of the details and it really should be seen on the big screen for your first time. So go to Cloverfield and then come back and watch it to review. I also think that Paramount should put this thing up today. When the trailer for Star Wars Episode III came out it was up at the same day.

…if it dissapears from YouTube, it can also be found at our German friends at

UPDATE 2: Trek Writer Roberto Orci’s Q&A On Trailer

VOTE: Did you like the trailer?
So did you like the new Star Trek teaser or do you feel that your childhood needs a hug? Vote in our latest poll (right sidebar).


1. robin - January 18, 2008

is it monday yet?

2. trekkie69 - January 18, 2008


3. Kirk, James T. - January 18, 2008

awesome-ness defined in two words; Star Trek!

4. Lousy_Canadian - January 18, 2008


Hello again, Enterprise. My girl sure looks familiar…

5. Bryan - January 18, 2008

It’s a wonderful teaser. The film itself may pale by comparison.

6. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 18, 2008

Like I said in the previous thread. Can’t they attach additional Nacelle plating around the engines to…

Wait a minute. It’s Sci-Fi. I get it now.

This will be soooo awesome onscreen. Please release this a month early!!!! November 25th sounds better to me!

7. DJT - January 18, 2008

Status = fascinated.

Can’t wait.

8. Section 31 - January 18, 2008

Respect Canon!!!

Why didn’t JJ Abrams just create another TNG movie? Tha way, canon will not be altered.

9. Daniel Broadway - January 18, 2008

I loved the teaser. Epic and majestic.

10. Lousy_Canadian - January 18, 2008

#8, TNG does not deserve another movie. This is Star Trek’s time to shine.

11. Nuallain - January 18, 2008

This was posted in the preview image thread too, but it bears repeating.

The Enterprise’s nacelles were *always* that big – we’re just not used to seeing them from such a *dead on* front view.

12. AJ - January 18, 2008

Will someone please post the teaser before Monday!!!!?

13. Billy - January 18, 2008

Let me guess….because the Enterprise wasn’t built in space, you guys are gonna start screaming, “J.J. ABRAMS RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!” We never saw the Enterprise being built in the first place, and the plaque does say San Fransisco on it, so to those who are upset about this…get over it.

14. Devon - January 18, 2008

“Why didn’t JJ Abrams just create another TNG movie?”

Because he didn’t want to. End of story

15. Section 31 - January 18, 2008

#10, #13

Star Trek canon has been destroyed by this new movie! They should just officially say that this movie is a TOTAL REBOOT!

16. AJ - January 18, 2008

Star Trek canon was destroyed when Klingons got ridges, Romulans got headbumps, Khan recognized Chekhov, Kirstie Allie became Robin Curtis, etc. We are all still alive!

17. PaoloM - January 18, 2008


“Canon” is what Paramount say it is “canon”.

18. Lousy_Canadian - January 18, 2008

The Animated Series destroyed the canon by Giving Spock’s mother Amanda her last name; Grayson. Wrath of Khan destroyed canon by linking Khan with Chekov. This is no reboot, it’s a revival.

19. Section 31 - January 18, 2008


But the Klingons’ ridges were explained in ENT!

20. Jacques Chirac - January 18, 2008

Totally agree, Section 31.

I would love to se new TNG film, or, even better, DS9 movie set after Nemesis. Star Trek: Return of the Emissary. :)

21. Section 31 - January 18, 2008

#20 Finally! Someone agrees with me!

22. Section 31 - January 18, 2008



23. Lousy_Canadian - January 18, 2008

So I guess Abrams raped your childhood. Get over it.

24. Section 31 - January 18, 2008

#23 Where’e the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit when I need it?

25. trektacular - January 18, 2008

This new movie will have a giant scope, I agree with the producer this isn’t your daddy’s Star Trek. No way. This is the big time now baby.

26. Anthony Pascale - January 18, 2008

section 31 you are spamming and trolling….so a warning
comments to

27. PaoloM - January 18, 2008


When Klingon ridges appeared, back in the 70s, no explanation was intended. They were a deliberate canon violation, and we all survived. As Roddenberry said, the ridges were intended to be in TOS too ;-)

28. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2008

Somebody REBOOT you out of this thread before you spam it to death.

Me, I’m happy the nacelles are round. ‘Nuff said.

29. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2008

(I was referring to #22, BTW… kind of irrelevant now, after post #26)

30. Barney - January 18, 2008

Anthony, you are a saint to include the very important words…
“Oh…. and…it’s just a TV show.”

It’s one we all love, but it can stand a little tweaking.

Looking forward to seeing the teaser!

31. Alex Trekek - January 18, 2008

20 & 21.. i agree too. my fav series.

great preview. too short, but i’m glad that almost a year before the release that so much effort is already going into it. obviously being taken very seriously by all involved. and i love the nacelles! beautiful, sleek and sexy! the scale of this thing is almost overwhelming.

32. KennyB - January 18, 2008

I will be keeping an eye on YouTube all weekend!

33. Florian - January 18, 2008

The ship is under construction in this image for gods sake. I’m sure they’ll add the beloved narcellcaps eventualy

34. AJ - January 18, 2008

I cannot wait for the Quicktime Hi-res version.

35. Lousy_Canadian - January 18, 2008

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see a TNG film as well, but they had their chance and lost it and this film is what we need to get Star Trek going again. Not just hope for TOS, but all the other series in the franchise as well. Called a reboot if you will, but I have my trust in Abrams, Lindelof and Orci.

36. Charles Trotter - January 18, 2008

Great review, Anthony, and a good summary of the trailer, as well. And I agree, there’s nothing in canon that says the ship couldn’t have been built on Earth… although it does say, in canon, that the bloody thing was built in San Francisco.

It was Abrams’ & Co’s intention to get Trekkie’s mouths watering. They certainly succeeded in my case, and I’m sure they will succeed with most everyone else.

Is it Christmas yet? :-D

37. trektacular - January 18, 2008

Berman was too small a mind for Trek in the first place, we need people in charge who think BIG.

38. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2008

Nacelles.. I like ’em big and round.

New bumper sticker, anyone?

39. steve adams - January 18, 2008

Everything old is new again,,,
Man, how many times have I heard that one…

40. Lousy_Canadian - January 18, 2008

I never saw the preview yet (I will on Monday, if it goes up by that time) but that pic is more than enough for our first taste of the movie. I am so excited. Good review, Anthony. Keep up the good work.

41. PaoloM - January 18, 2008

#35 “I would love to see a TNG film as well, but they had their chance and lost it”

The sad truth. Nemesis has been the final humiliation: I had to travel in another town to see it because no theather of my neighborhood was showing it, and it stayed for a week only. Not a single friend of mine was aware of its existence and not since ST V I felt that Trek was at its lowest…

42. NCC-73515 - January 18, 2008

#11. Nuallain
The Enterprise’s nacelles were *always* that big – we’re just not used to seeing them from such a *dead on* front view.”

This diagram that is always posted here as an explanation is WRONG. Just look at the font of the registry… :P
So whoever made that diagram… it is not official.

43. Chris M - January 18, 2008

Can’t wait to see the trailer. Sounds awesome to me!

44. oddballuk - January 18, 2008

I can’t wait to go see Cloverfield when it comes out in the UK. Am sure the studio knows Cloverfield will be a huge hit because of this trailer

45. Cheve - January 18, 2008


The people making the movie is bored to say that the movie respects canon storywise but redesigns the look of everything to make it more realistic.

The movie will be a canon precuel storywise but will redesign the looks. Its a fact and we have been warned several times.

Theres no point in getting surprised now if the lettering is a bit longer or if the plates aren’t painted white.

(Oh, and I insist, the Enterprise does have flames in TOS. On the sides of the lower body, following the yellow Enterprise logo, there are red lines which ARE flames. XDDD flames are canon)

The apparent “bumps” on the sides of the nacells look a bit like a visual efect produced by the line of lights it has there (placed by the constructing crew) and I’m sure the “fans” will be covered and explain the “blinking lights” inside them in TOS.

And if the plate says San Francisco, then Canon says it was built on the ground. It may not be logical, but it is obviously canon. XDD

the trailer evidently acomplishes its mission. OOOoooohhhh how much we want to see those uniforms.

46. NCC-73515 - January 18, 2008

I want to see the uniforms, but also the props!!!

47. oddballuk - January 18, 2008

I also like the Enterprise as it looks in that picture. Glad it wasn’t just a CGI version of the TOS Enterprise

48. cugel the clever - January 18, 2008

I’m seeing Cloverfield today for the sole purpose of viewing the trailer…. it sounds fantastic. I am tremendously optimistic at the reverence, respect, and joy with which Abrams and company is approaching this film.

#2 #8 #15 #20

Shut up and go away. TOS, the films, and the subsequent series’ violated your fanboy fantasy canon so many times, that you should be insane and incoherent by now (wait – you are!).

From what we can see so far in casting, set reports, and the trailer; Abrams is demonstrating an incredible respect for the franchise, the fans, and canon.


49. trektacular - January 18, 2008

Come on haters, let the hype flow through you.

50. Nuallain - January 18, 2008

#42 – All I’ll say is that if it’s a mistake,it’s one an awful lot of people have made:

51. Jacques Chirac - January 18, 2008

I strongly feel that “Trekmovie-ers” (general population, not you Anthony :) ) are mostly Original seires fans, which have a little apreciation to TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. That makes me very saad
beacuse I, and whole bunch of people like all Star Trek series. Namely, every Star trek series is worthy an appreciation and admire. Every of them is mirror of its time (TOS – 60es, TNG – 80es, VOY and DS9 – 90es, and ENT – first years of century).

52. SteveinSF - January 18, 2008

Like the Klingon ridges, someone will figure out how to explain the gigantic nacelles change to the smaller ones seen in TOS. The Star Trek continuity time line is flawed as it is–and yet, someone manages to logically explain everything.
I’m looking forward to seeing how this movie turns out.

53. NCC-73515 - January 18, 2008

50 – well, there the fonts are correct. except the second link, of course.

54. Michael Scott - January 18, 2008

Can’t wait!

55. Crusty McCoy - January 18, 2008

Continuing suggestions for Roberto Orci’s tell-all after-the-fact book:

Star Trek Too: The Wrath of Fan
Star Trek: The Search for Intelligent Fandom and Finding None at AICN
Star Trek: The Voyage As Far Away from You People As Possible
Star Trek: The FANal Lobotomy
Star Trek: The Undiscovered FANwankery

— teaser sounds great, thanks Anthony for the review

56. Cheve - January 18, 2008

#51. Jacques

You are not alone. I love them all. I love Enterprise, TNG, DS9, Voyager and TAS. Each one has things that make me enjoy a lot.

TOS is, for some reason, the one of which I can watch the episodes more times in the shortest time, but all of them I enjoy preety much. (and I have allways loved when they retro-feed, so I REALLY enjoy Enterprise which has got a lot of retro-feeding)

By the way, as this movie will also be mostly retro-feeding, I’m sure I’ll love it a lot

57. Moonwatcher - January 18, 2008

For christ sake all you “why is it being built on earth”-ers. It’s just a god damn teaser trailer! The construction of the Enterprise is a metaphor for the construction of the film. Do you think this is actual scene cut form the film that is almost a year away from completion? I’ll bet you a million quatloos that no scene like this makes it into the final cut. I’m surprised they didn’t replace the Enterprise inscription and call numbers on the saucer section with the film’s title card.

58. Captain Dunsel - January 18, 2008

I feel like I am in a time warp and it’s 1987 again. There is a significant portion of Trek fandom trashing and flaming, only instead of this being in advance of the TNG premiere, its about the new movie. At the time I decided to watch TNG and give it a chance even though I was expecting to hate it. I was wrong.

What is so blasted important about white paint or nacelle size or flames? Try to remember that much of what Roddenberry gave us was filtered through the prism of a restrictive budget (like the lack of Klingon ridges). Just because it’s what we got doesn’t mean it was what he wanted.

I expect to love this one but in any case it deserves a chance. For crying out loud, people, do what Shatner told you to do–get a life!

Wow–woke up too crabby on a Friday morning. Bailiff–Valium!

59. ZtoA - January 18, 2008

The Earth thing need not be so outlandish… what if the parts were assembled seperately in a dry dock, and the entire dry dock were a ship capable of lifting the unfinished E into orbit for final assembly…

60. TrekkiePinoy aka RoadSiren21/Mnl - January 18, 2008

good review!

she sure is a beauty!! the first time i saw the picture of The Enterprise it literally gave me goosebumps!

i can’t wait to see the teaser trailer on monday!

greetings from manila, philippines…

61. lwr - January 18, 2008

#2, # 8, #15 and anyone else…

LISTEN… and for gosh sakes go out and read:

” THE MAKING OF STAR TREK” by gene Roddenberry and Stephen whitfield

it clearly states that the Enterprise was built ON EARTH and assembled in SPACE.

as to the STAR TREK TECH MANUAL and the ENTERPRISE BLUE PRINTS by Franz Joseph as AUTHORIZED by PARAMOUNT and Gene Roddenberry.

how clearler can it be than that???

62. konar - January 18, 2008

The decision to focus these early “brand refreshing” teasers and such on linking the ST universe to ours more clearly — clearly enough for even the “nonbelievers” to get it is the PURE GENIUS that the current team is bringing to this effort, and I think it will work miracles. By focusing there, they are highlighting the aspect of ST that differentiates it from other fantasy universes — making it relevant to a world steeped in inescapable realities. Think about it… Isn’t one of the biggest complaints you hear from non-fans something like “but it’s just a fantasy! It’s not real!” This fights against that attitude. I have a feeling it will win a lot of people over.

63. NCC-73515 - January 18, 2008

62 konar: you’re right… think of ST4 – the most successful film was also set in the real world (our time and our most beautiful city).

64. PaoloM - January 18, 2008

I like the steam, the cranes, nuts, bolts, welding machines and sweat involved in constructing the Enterprise instead of unimaginative beams, transporters and glowing devices. The whole thing is more… human. And Star Trek is about humanity.

65. Matt - January 18, 2008

It seems the key relationship of Star Trek seems to be back. That between a crew and their ship.

Enterprise and Voyager lost that. We can talk about character axis all we want, but Star Trek is about human beings entrusting everything in their small vessel to travel the great and infinite unkown. “Hornblower in space” Roddenberry would say, because he thought of the bravery of navigating the wild and unexplored seas using only a wooden vessel for protection. The love for the ship must be cultivated as it fight to keep its crew alive. She’s a character.

I greatly applaud Abrams/Orci and Kurtzman for the way in which they are treating the old girl, taking the time to re-introduce her. Prior to this, the best man/ship relationship in recent time had come outsideTrek with Mal Reynolds and Serenity; and I am glad to see it back in Trek.

I mean, for all the faults of TMP, is there a Trekkie alive that doesn’t love the look on Kirk’s face when he gazes at the re-fit Enterprise for the first time?

66. Sebi - January 18, 2008

In the words of the Great Shat to those people who are angry about the whole “on earth – in orbit”-canon violation crap..

“Get a life”

… oh, and btw, be happy that there WILL BE a new ST movie. Who would have thought that after that suckfest Nemesis…

67. Tim Handrahan - January 18, 2008

Everything about this film just keeps getting better. Between the shots of the Enterprise and the photos of the cast at the Cloverfield premiere, I can’t express my enthusiasm for this film and what J.J. and his team have done.

68. AJ - January 18, 2008

Canon is also being destroyed by the passage of time: No Eugenics War, or Botany Bay in 1996, no Voyager VI, etc. This makes TMP and TWOK non-canon, if you wanna get technical.

69. CanuckLou - January 18, 2008

Excellent review Anthony! Glad to hear the teaser is succeeding at making the link between today and the future. Gives me goosebumps to read that the audience applauded.

Everyone else, please take a moment to relay audience reaction when you get the opportunity to see the teaser.

May the winds be at our back!

70. Mikey Doofer - January 18, 2008

I reckon the more traditional engine nacelles are actual under the massive engines you see in the image.

I expect the ship needs these to break out of earths orbit and once this has been done they will be dispensed and you’ll have the more familiar engine nacelles?

You can see within the engines and see the shape of the old engines, take a look and let me know what you trekkers think.

71. Dom - January 18, 2008

A shame Garth on Dark Horizons seems so down on the trailer. According to him, the audence was pretty derisive of it! It’s that derision the teasers and trailers are going to have to change to enthusiasm!

72. Artrek - January 18, 2008

My two cents for what it’s worth and I hope I’m correct. As previously posted “The Making of Star Trek” book by Whitfield & Roddenberry, does state on page 171 that components were built on earth and assembled in orbit. I am hoping that the saucer is one hell of a big component that will be transported to orbital space dock by that winged nacelle piece in the photo. I hope this is accurate if it is and it turns out to be a spoiler, sorry. (This would explain the winged design that was spotted and previously commented on too).
It certainly will be better than what the Lost in Space movie (Revival or whatever), did. They had the movie Jupiter 2 essentially break out of what looked like the original design of the Jupiter 2. I hate to have to make this comparison, don’t want to offend anyone by mentioning LIS in the same space as Star Trek.

73. Laughable - January 18, 2008

I am in disbelief about all the winging about canon. Just enjoy the fact they are reving a franchise they was second away from its death rattle. Enjoy it. They obviously honored the original when looking at the styling of the new ship. Who cares whether it was built on Earth or not. All winging about that – what about the thousands of other continuity errors that appear throughout the series??????? I hated Voyager, but of the few I did watch I noticed Tuvok wearing a pair of Jordan’s in a training exercise or sum such thing. Seriously, calm down and just enjoy it.

74. Viking - January 18, 2008

Canon, shmanon. I am SO digging where these guys are going with this movie right now.

75. Trek or Treat - January 18, 2008


Hear Hear!

76. subatoi - January 18, 2008

Not official, but it’s here:

77. Fansince9 - January 18, 2008

I haven’t seen the trailer yet, but I just can’t wait! I think Abrams is doing a great job, and I feel like we Trek fans (and even the “nay sayers”) are going to owe him a debt of gratitude when it’s all said and done.

78. Holo J - January 18, 2008

Post 68. AJ – “Canon is also being destroyed etc…”

Although I have never read them, I am told there where some books explaining how the Eugenics War fitted into History as we know it. Khan meets some other TOS characters in them.

ENT mentions the Eugenics War in a few episodes with a few lines here and there. I know it’s not necessary to mention Eugenics War in this movie but perhaps for the fans they will mention it in a sentence or two. A non Fan can just ignore it and a fan will love that they have referenced it.

79. Dom - January 18, 2008

51 and 75

With this movie being about the TOS characters, inevitably a lot of TOS fans will be here! Plus a lot of TOS fans (like me) were disaffected by the later Treks and have been brought back by the new film.

I don’t ***hate*** TNG and its successors, but they just don’t feel like Star Trek to me! They just don’t have the passion and melodrama (or psychadelic music) that I loved in TOS. In fact, I really dilike having to refer to Star Trek as TOS it really should just be referred to as Star Trek.

80. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - January 18, 2008

teaser sounds ace, cant wait for a camcorder leak on ‘you tube’

has anyone actually given some thought to what will happen if this film sucks?

Star Trek would probably die… although Star Trek: Titan may be made into a series… I WANT THIS SO BAD (not the trek dying part, the TITAN part!!)

anyway… roll on Christmas 08

81. Streator - January 18, 2008

Some body better call the waaaaambulance for you canon sooks. I have been a fan of this all my life and I couldn’t care less whether the Enterprise was built on Eart on in space.

82. david - January 18, 2008

the trailer has arrived:

woot :)

83. Doorchime - January 18, 2008

Awesome. Can’t wait to see the lady fly.

84. Alessandro - January 18, 2008

The REAL trailer:


85. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 18, 2008

For the second day in a row, my head exploded.

86. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008

Great review, Anthony!

I am looking forward to watching it tonight!

87. KHAAAAAAANN!!!!! - January 18, 2008

Okay… I have goose bumps!! Thanks #76!

88. Stef* - January 18, 2008

When can we see this teaser in Germany?????

*totally exited by now*

89. Urban - January 18, 2008

Hmmm… Looks to dark to be real TREK.

90. Coffee to the Stars - January 18, 2008

I don’t get it.

Roddenberry only invented transporters because they couldn’t afford to show the ship land each week. It became a very good compromise.

Even Voyager landed.

So. This Enterprise will literally BLAST OFF!!!

91. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 18, 2008

#89 Remember how in Generations the E-D suddenly got all dark. Especially the Bridge and Ten Forward?

92. Stef* - January 18, 2008

Thank you 82

*klick play and eeeeeeeek*

I love the Internet – and love this teaser.

93. Daren Doc - January 18, 2008

My Childhood was raped.

But it was totally asking for it from the way it dressed.

94. mada101 - January 18, 2008

I’m surprised that no-one has commented on the theme of the trailer. The feeling. The Tone.

Which I don’t really like, myself. It has lost the unique pulp sci-fi feel of TOS and drawn it more into the nBSG world of ‘gritty’ and ‘welded’. There is little to no retro feel about the tone of the teaser. It’s saying that the 23rd century is as harsh and as cold as the 21st century, which is not the message Star Trek is supposed to give.

Oh, and yes, this only further cements my view that the film is not set within the original continuity. The ship is just too different, proportions-wise, to be an earlier stage in the NCC-1701’s design lineage.

95. Timncc1701 - January 18, 2008

The nacelles are bigger than original. I wonder if I can get used to it. Also, in Stephen Whitfield’s book, “The Making of Star Trek,” which was written contemporaneously with TOS, the Enterprise was constructed in space. Maybe it can be finished there? Or maybe the movie won’t even show any of this construction stuff and it is exclusively for teaser trailer. I don’t see how the movie would devote time to this anyway. It adds nothing to the story of how Kirk got command of the Enterprise which appears to be the focus of the film at this stage of the rumors. Hopefully after the writer’s strike they can work the Shat in post-production.

96. PaoloM - January 18, 2008


I have to resist the temptation to watch it. At first glance it seems the real trailer but I have to find the willpower to wait until monday, for good quality images and sound.

97. John, Mary Jo, and Nicky Tenuto - January 18, 2008

Leonard Nimoy’s (not Zachary Quinto’s) voice

Familiar words from the television show

Utilizing the theme from the show

Utilizing the logo from the show

Utilizing the familiar beaming sound effects

Utilizing a pretty respectful version of the Enterprise

How does this not respect the Kirk era Star Trek?

98. Mr Darcy - January 18, 2008

Geekout Moment!

99. John, Mary Jo, and Nicky Tenuto - January 18, 2008


Please check the Stephen Whitefield text again, page 171. The ship was built on Earth, assembled in space. Please see the plaque from the Enterprise which clearly states “San Francisco, CALIF.”

100. Stef* - January 18, 2008


You’re so right!

101. waterhouse - January 18, 2008

my first impression : it’s terminator + nBSG + trek…

this is a very bold move…but i think a right one

102. Storma - January 18, 2008

Well it proves one thing:

Abrams does not have the slightest idea what TREK is about!

– The Enterprise is built on Earth? Even the NX-01 was build in space… 100 years prior to this one!
– Humans are building the ship??? HUMANS? I mean, they are what… 300 years ahead of us, and even today ships, planes, cars etc. are built more by machines than by men, and then this??? I had to laugh so hard, when I have seen this one?

It is a worst case scenario… the new look of the Enterprise won’t help it either, it only offends long time fans, who came to appreciate and love the original look…

Sorry JJ… this one is a loss.

103. Admiral_Bumblebee - January 18, 2008

#90 Doesn’t Scotty invent the Transporter in the new movie? ;)

104. Dbhays - January 18, 2008

oh my ….. I just had a trekgasm!

105. VOODOO - January 18, 2008

Well done

106. Dom - January 18, 2008

mada101 (94)

Please please PLEASE give it a rest! I am so sick of whingers on this site bleating on about irrelevancies!

It’s a trailer, for crying out loud! How do you think they put the ship together: with modelling cement?! DS9 showed guys with welding torches in the opening titles, so why shouldn’t TOS?

This is a movie about the characters from TOS and the first six movies, not a slavish copy of the show itself! By your rationale, TMP to TUC must be out of your and your canon-obsessed friends’ continuity too, given the many changes to the technology and non-human make-up!

It’s a sad sign about how narrow-minded a section of the Trek fanbase has become that the change in Klingon make-up even required explanation.

Are you guys so pathetically small-minded that you just can’t get it into your thick skulls that a 2008 movie on BIG cinema screens is going to do its own thing?

You should be grateful to get any kind of Trek movie, especially one where the makers are so keen to try to respect what has gone before! If you want a carbon copy of TOS, watch New Voyages, but you and the likes of your buddy Section 31 have to stop trying to spoil everyone else’s fun. You’re clearly the kind of people who walk into lively parties and turn off the music!

And, just as a heads up to you people who are obsessed with this canon garbage . . . you few might worship this non-existent deity of your faux Trek ‘religion’ but no one else cares. Not one bit! There are so many more interesting things out there that require attention! It’s people like you lot that get the rest of us sci-fi fans all the abuse we get. That’s right: sci-fi as a genre is mocked because of people like you!

Get a life, grow up, chill out and accept it’s only a movie!!!

Phew! I know, I know, but someone has to say it!!

107. J.D. Lee - January 18, 2008

I love it!!!



108. Ty Webb - January 18, 2008

How do they get that saucer section into orbit?

109. mada101 - January 18, 2008

#97. John, Mary Jo, and Nicky Tenuto

There is a big difference between ‘respect’ and ‘canonical’ ;-)

‘Casino Royale’ was respectful. ‘Batman Begins’ was respectful. ‘Transformers’ was respectful. Part of any previous continuities? Not one of ’em.

‘Star Trek’ is likely to be a fantastic film. Just not canon. And any producer/writer/other staff member of the production who says otherwise is just lying to get the classic fanbase to buy tickets :-)

110. Allan Cook - January 18, 2008

That it is indeed going to be depicted as having been constructed on Earth, at the bottom of a massive gravity well, has now been confirmed by no less a source than one of the screenwriters, Roberto Orci.

This is really too bad.

Mr. Orci; I’ve read your every comment here with interest (and ignored the ones from the fake lower-case-‘o’ roberto orci) and a certain sense of reassurance that Trek may be in good hands.

I find the overall notion of canon to be largely laughable in Trek, since that very canon is so convoluted and inconsistent as to be largely unworkable any more (Misters Bennett, Berman, Braga et al can take their bow now).

If it hasn’t been heard or seen on screen it should be ignored is how I’ve always looked at it, and if what has been seen and heard on screen contradicts itself, well that just gives us some freedom to interpret things as they best suit us.

The best part of Trek has always been its pure Science Fiction heart. In my posts I’ve consistently stressed the science part of that equation, because Science Fiction without the science is Fantasy. I’ve always been encouraged by the fact that all those entrusted with Trek over the years have maintained that commitment to keeping Trek scientifically believable. Roddenberry hired hard SF writers for TOS. Asimov was a special consultant on TMP. Andre Bormanis’s staff position on TNG.

Then I read you making a statement like this and I despair: “Created in space = not as durable or strong.”

I’m flabbergasted that none of the ‘research’ you performed revealed any of the hundreds of real-world studies performed by NASA, the ESA, JAXA, and universities and corporations world wide showing the advantages of microgravity construction and fabrication and the new materials of unheard-of strength that can only be constructed in space.

I can’t imagine anyone of a knowledgeable scientific background accepting the notion that the Enterprise was built on the ground. There’s been a lot of brandishing the ‘but-it’s-science-fiction’ as an excuse to justify the concept, which is just as saddening, because it ignores common sense. Yes, absolutely, the technology of Trek (one of the more internally consistent articles of Trek-canon) would allow it. It makes as much sense as building ocean liners on mountain tops. Sure we could do it, but who would bother? (and what Roddenberry and Whitington wrote to the contrary be damned).

There is nothing worse than a blatantly stupid notion to draw a viewer out of a story. How do you expect intelligent, thinking people to respect a Starfleet that would build an ocean liner on a mountain top?

How do you expect people to remain confident that you did well by Trek when you write something as blatantly misinformed and outright wrong as “Created in space = not as durable or strong”?

My hopes for a strong and true Trek are in real jeopardy.

111. Cheve - January 18, 2008

Dear 102. Its been stated in this news thread and the prior one a thousand times that since TOS, it has been stablished that the Enterprise 1701 was built on SAN FRANCISCO’s shipyards, Earth. Canon says so, as it is printed on the plate of the bridge since TOS.

And yes, humans are building it. Any problem with that since it is being built on Earth?

So, who doesn’t have the slightest idea of Trek?

112. Cleverli - January 18, 2008

113. J.D. Lee - January 18, 2008

My trekgasm is back!

I thought I lost em …..but omg its back!!!!!!!


Happy Vibes!!!

114. Timncc1701 - January 18, 2008

#99 Please check my post. I said this could be fixed if construction was completed, assembled, or whatever you want to call it, in space. Also, this is a tempest in a teapot. I doubt that this will make it into the movie. And even if it does, I will see it anyway. They way I read The Making I concluded that it was completed over San Fran. This should not be about who is the bigger Star Trek nerd. It should be about seeing whether the movie will honor TOS and be worthy of being called Star Trek. With the possible exception of TNG, I didn’t see that in any of the spinoff series.

115. Red Spar - January 18, 2008

They’re using a stick welder to assemble the Enterprise?!?!? Is this the steampunk version of Trek?

116. mada101 - January 18, 2008

#106. Dom – January 18, 2008

Erm, once again, you’re incorrectly putting me into the ‘hardcore purist’ bracket. I don’t dispute any points that you’ve made. This is a new movie for a new generation by two capable (I can’t really judge – I’ve only seen ‘Transformers’) writers and a good producer.

And yet, you seem to have a problem with me pointing out that this new movie is just that: new.


117. Chris M - January 18, 2008

Seeing that trailer has made my night! I can’t wait to see what the whole ship looks like!!!!

Thanks to those who posted the clip.

118. Driver - January 18, 2008

The trailer proves that no fan outside of $Hollywood$ can do Trek justice.

119. PaoloM - January 18, 2008


The Enterprise hull is made of metal alloys (some canon expert would call it duranium, I think). What’s wrong with stick welders? I would not be surprised to see nuts and bolts, too. That’s fine to me.

120. cameron - January 18, 2008


121. Stef* - January 18, 2008

OMG – we so much need a serious discussion Board, where all these canonical nerds can have a high time to debate about welding and assembling – on erth, in space, here and there …

… and where we just happy and thankful fans can be otherwhere and far away from this canonical technobabble to simply cherish this special feeling of

“Trek is back”

Thank you so much, all involved in making this happening and …
….. it will be a loooooong year until cristmas 2008

122. Yendis - January 18, 2008

Actually I think the TOS episodes established that the San Francisco Fleet Yards were in orbit.

However this does not mean parts of the ship were not built on earth and later assembled in space much like the International Space Station.

I’ll reserve judgement dor the final film, I think the series and movies work best if you just remember them the way you saw them on TV and not hold up every single detail to extreme scrutiny.

I mean, lot’s of trekkies think the last episode of Enterprise was super cool with Riker and Troi in there, but they don’t look like their characters did when the original episode was shot (The Pegasus).

Kang and the other original Klingons were changed to new Klingons, with ridges. Still most fans love the new Klingons and especially the way they were reïntroduced.

Several actors played the same characters before, nobady objected to that either.

123. Ensign Ricky - January 18, 2008

I used to get excited about Christmas coming, something that I grew out of as I grew up. The last 30 or so years it has been just another holiday….it looks like all that changes in 2008. This is one Christmas that I am eagerly looking forward to….what is old is really new again!

Absolutely awesome trailer, Trek XI team! Thanks for reviving the dreams of a lot of Trek fans :-)

124. Kirk, James T. - January 18, 2008

^ I think many fans would like to think they know it all but in reality, all they know is what they want to know.

Awesome trailer can’t wait for monday so i can D/L the HD version! woo weee this film looks as tho it will rock!

125. KC - January 18, 2008

I for one have been a fan for 25 years, since my childhood. To see the Girl redone in this fashion is in one word “awesome”. All you nay sayers are just that, nay sayers. I for one will support this movie in what every fashion it is in as long as it has GR vision. So far in one picture and a brief trailer it is.

I will not let Star Trek die on my watch. JJ has my full support as he has the support of the people more involved in Star Trek then me. If Nimoy who said a while ago was not going to be in any more ST movies, ie ST VI and he is in it, then it will be good.

Can not wait to see it.

126. MoJoD - January 18, 2008

So is Gabe Koerner working on this thing or not? The new design looks a hell of a lot like his Enterprise, down to the oversized NCC-1701 and huge nacelles.

127. Driver - January 18, 2008

Star Trek should easily be #1 for three to five weeks and make at least 250 million domestically.

128. John, Mary Jo, and Nicky Tenuto - January 18, 2008

#109 Mada101

Thanks for the reply. However, we don’t need a lecture on the difference between the words. We know the difference. Apparently, a few fans do not.

The Enterprise being built on Earth is CANNON.

It is in every single episode of the Kirk era television show.

On the plaque of the ship it reads “USS ENTERPRISE” then later “SAN FRANSICO, CA”

In the very first book ever about the making of television show, The Making of Star Trek, written in 1968 by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, on page 171, it says the Enterprise was built on Earth, and assembled in space.

I think something that is shown in an episode is canon.

I think something written by the writer of the fictional television show is canon.

Thanks for the lecture, we didn’t need it, though.

Although conjectural, Enterprise the television show did mention that the engines of the Enterprise would be built “at this site” refering to Earth by Zefram Cochrane. TNG showed some of the Enterprise D being built on the surface of Mars. We have never seen a starship being built before, only refitted, which makes sense in space. With respect, we will believe Gene Roddenberry and the artists of Star Trek which clearly show the Enterprise was built in San Fransico.

129. Mike Stivic - January 18, 2008

If you look closely at a large picture of the nacelles, you can see beneath the outer shell the red, rounded style that they had in TOS. I think that the reason they look so big is that what we’re seeing is a cover, or some kind of construction apparatus, NOT the nacelles themselves. Look closely at the front of each nacelle and look for the red, rounded look that we know so well. There you have it.

130. SPB - January 18, 2008


…it’s a RE-FIT.

131. cugel the clever - January 18, 2008

68 78 94 102 109

This slavish devotion to canon is BS. TOS and all the other series were never 100% consistent with canon, so in effect, there IS NO CANON. There is only the philosophy and the general setting/universe of star trek. Details are IRRELEVANT.

And, if you really must relate everything back to canon, then re-watch the TNG episode “Parallels”. This was one of the “official” TV broadcasts and therefore in your pea-brain is also canon. It clearly established that there exist an infinite number of parallel universes in which any variation on a basic theme can exist – the Enterprise with flames, the Enterprise with baby-blue nacelle caps, the Enterprise with big honking wings for G*D sake!

Remove your collective heads from your rear ends and get a life.

132. Yendis - January 18, 2008


Just one thing, why is everybody here so angry at everybody else?

If they do this movie they should respect canon as much as they van and not do things that don’t fit if there is no good reason to. For instance, if they just decided to build the Enterprise on earth because the were ignorant of the previously established canon, that’s something I would object to, because that just prooves some-one being lazy or not paying attention. However if they decide to consciously retcon or change something because it serves a story purpose, that has been done so often no-one can really object, as long as it’s done well.

So canon-devotees: Trek has always changed and retconned if it served a purpose, why attack them for doing it now

And non-canon fans: if it serves no purpose why not respect the canon?

133. John Tenuto - January 18, 2008

Here is something to think about

From an article I wrote from, here is Gene Roddenberry’s quote while talking to Dan Madsen about the future of Star Trek

“I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, “Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!” And that would please me!”

Seems like Roddenberry thought it was okay to improve or change Star Trek no?

134. AJ - January 18, 2008

If they actually show the E being built in the film, canon will be set at that point in time. The trailer, as was said, is simply a metaphor for the film project itself.

135. mada101 - January 18, 2008

#128. John, Mary Jo, and Nicky Tenuto

‘TNG showed some of the Enterprise D being built on the surface of Mars. We have never seen a starship being built before, only refitted, which makes sense in space.’

Not quite true. TNG ‘Booby Trap’ showed us that the ship was built in a drydock in orbit of Mars. And we did see the NX-02 being constructed in a space drydock. And some unnamed ships on VOY ‘Relativity’.

Still, not relevant to this new movie. I’m glad that the teaser is having the intended effect for a lot of newer fans.

136. Kirk Thatcher - January 18, 2008

Having seen the trailer now, I’m even more convinced that this is simply an allegory of the “construction” of the movie. My guess is there won’t even be an allusion to the construction of the Enterprise in the finished film.

That being said, in my mind’s eye, that’s not how I pictured the Enterprise being constructed. Not sure I care for its “dark” tone, but I understand that’s a convention which lends to the mystery of the clip. Throwing the whole “built on earth vs. built in space” out the window, I think a much more effective trailer would have been close-up, sweeping shots of the enterprise hull fading into one another. Have all of the NASA, John Kenedy narration in the background. Then slowly pull back, revealing worker bees floating around the hull. Then a fade to a reveal of NCC-1701 USS ENTERPRISE. Cue the classic theme’s horns. Then a quick cut to a faraway shot of the E in drydock with the Earth in the background. Fade to the black screen with the words “Under Construction”

137. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2008

The teaser has successfully teased me. Clearly, I am not alone in this.

The whiners are whining just to get attention. The best strategy is to ignore them. Let them get left behind, it’s what they want, and ultimately what they deserve.

Star Trek is being done right, hallelujah.

138. drlondon - January 18, 2008

As soon as I heard Nimoy’s voice and heard the oh so familiar music every nerd molecule in my body began to vibrate and the hair stood up on the back of my neck.

‘m stoked.

139. VOODOO - January 18, 2008

Is that a new voice over from Leonard Nimoy?

140. Bart - January 18, 2008

You know, if you re-read many (not all) of these posts out loud using the voice of Jeff Albertson, Comic Book Guy, they are really hilarious.

2nd from the bottom (as of this posting) seems apt.

141. John Tenuto - January 18, 2008

#135 Rewatch “Parallels” which clearly shows that the Enterprise D was on the ground at the Utopia Planitia ground facility when built. It was assembled in space, which is what we see in “Booby Trap”

142. Craig - January 18, 2008

I liked the Trek theme music at the end when they showed the Enterprise. Anyone notice the original Transporter sound effect at the end? I wonder if they will use that when they beam down to a planet but have a new transporter effect?

143. drlondon - January 18, 2008

#139 The voice does sound a little ‘aged.’ I’m thinking so.

144. Chris Peterson - January 18, 2008

Everyone wants to see what the movie will look like. I want to hear what it sounds like. Do they use sound effects when the ship flies by in space? (there’s no sound in space.) Do they use some of the background bridge sounds from “The Cage”, or from TOS? We’ve heard that the score will be new. How new? I wanna hear the original TOS theme redone with modern electronic music. Oh, and if the intercom whistle isn’t the same as TOS, it won’t be cannon. :-)

145. cugel the clever - January 18, 2008

“Parallels” is the best remedial-watching exercise for all of these canon-obsessed idiots. It solves all of the canon objections that the pea-brain canon-freaks have been whining about.

146. Storma - January 18, 2008

@ 111:

San Francisco Earth Yard – ORBITING above San Francisco…!

That is where the Enterprise NCC-1701 and at least the NCC-1701-E have been built!


147. Steven - January 18, 2008


148. AJ - January 18, 2008

I just listened to the Roberto Orci interview over on IESB, and he says (and I paraphrase), that if you come into the film with no knowledge of Trek, and then go watch everything that’s come before, and then watch it again, it will be a completely different film. And he uses the word “canon.”

I don’t think it’ll be a few “in-jokes” for the fanboys, as some have speculated.

I expect this film will kick some serious butt.

149. Captainfirst - January 18, 2008

Let me see if I have this right. Some people here feel as if their childhood has been “raped” (using that term in that context bugs the hell out of me). Some are stating that they have no intentions of seeing this film, though they have no real idea of what the quality of it will be Yet others are screaming back and forth at each other about whether or not the ship was constructed in orbit or on Earth’s surface.

Good God, people, chill out already. Let’s review:

Leonard Nimoy, who has so often been Trek’s conscience (refused to appear in “Generations” because he felt the opening scenes were poorly written, threatened to walk out on the Animated Series when Nichelle Nichols and James Doohan were to be excluded from the show) is coming out of retirement to make this movie. The classic “fanfare” has been used in the teaser trailer and will probably be in the opening music of the film. The Enterprise is clearly recognizable as such. The opening lines of “Space, the final frontier…” are being used. One of Hollywood’s top directors is making this his personal pet project…

So far, I’d say we have very little to gripe about. IF the movie comes out and is no good, then we’ll have reason to complain.

Remember, this is the second time that Paramount has risked a whole lot of money on a Star Trek revival film. We fans should be grateul that we’re getting new Trek that by all accounts so far, will be faithful to the original version.

Just my two cents…

150. doubleofive - January 18, 2008

I didn’t read the original trailer descriptions that got posted yesterday, neither did I read the reviews or anything. I was proud of myself.

Then today comes and I read this article and I start getting excited about it. Now there’s a video. Of course I watched it a few times already.

Still seeing Cloverfield tonight, still probably going to tear up like I am now.

151. PaoloM - January 18, 2008

#142 “Anyone notice the original Transporter sound effect at the end? I wonder if they will use that when they beam down to a planet but have a new transporter effect?”

Not an important detail, but I think that the original transporter sound is one of the most stunning effects in sci-fi history. It has not aged a single year and is fascinating.

152. VOODOO - January 18, 2008


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

I for one don’t care how old Leonard Nimoy is, it’s great to have him back where he belongs.

153. RaveOnEd - January 18, 2008

WOW! Not gonna get much work done today, I’ve already watched the trailer 3 times!

I felt some chills with the photo of the Enterprise yesterday, this gave me chills all the way up my back!

Star Trek is back!

154. Bernd Schneider - January 18, 2008

If anything, I could imagine that only parts of the ship would be built on the ground. Maybe segments of the nacelles, maybe the complete nacelles, but certainly not the whole ship. Well, unless the ship is designed to lift off like the Intrepid class.

Saying that structures built in space are weaker confuses the cause and the effect. Actually, structures built for use in space are made weak because it is necessary to launch them into orbit, no matter if in small pieces or as a whole. The astronauts of Apollo 13 would have been glad if their spacecraft had been sturdier, and it was not even built in space.

Clearly by the 23rd century Starfleet would have the technology to lift a starship of several hundred thousands of tons into orbit. But why would they bother, if they can easily get the components up there, and assemble them under zero-G conditions? I can well imagine that the 23rd century welding in space is advantageous, not just because of zero-G but because of the vacuum which avoids unwanted chemical reactions.

155. kmart - January 18, 2008

Mr Cook, you might be the only person online right now who has his head on straight. The ‘not as durable’ thing from the writer redefines moron for me. If you haven’t before, head over to trekbbs and help out, there’s only a few folks who know anything over there, and I think they’re all getting burned out from dealing with this kind of tech-backwards thinking.

Trevanian on trekbbs

156. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2008

Watching the trailer again, all those discussions vis-a-vis the sense of “mass” in the TOS remastered episodes come back to mind. Tell me this Enterprise isn’t just OOZING with MASS!

I mean, people, we’ve got the big, beautiful pre-refit Constitution class Enterprise — with round nacelles! — looming large on our screens. What more could we possibly ask for? JJ, we humbly thank you for this generous, nay sumptuous offering, succoring our poor, Trek-deprived souls! ;-)

157. TrekkiePinoy aka RoadSiren21/Mnl - January 18, 2008

just watched the trailer….and i… i… i……. i … (too amazed say anything)

i have never been THIS excited about a movie…

Can’t wait….

Greetings from Manila, Philippines..

158. Admiral_Bumblebee - January 18, 2008

#152 But Shatner belongs there, too. No matter how old he is or how much he weighs or if his character died in one of the movies…

159. Gina - January 18, 2008

I was reeeeeeeeeeeally hoping for some of the cast to be in the trailer, especially ZQ as Spock. So I’m really disappointed about that, but for a teaser trailer it ain’t bad I suppose.

160. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

Nicely done trailer. Let’s hope the movie lives up to this level of visual creativity.

161. joe1306 - January 18, 2008

Oh my…! This is so great! Star Trek really is back. Since I saw this teaser, I have absolute confidence in Mister Abrams and his team! This movie is going to be BIG! God bless the team of the new Star Trek, you´re doing a really great job! Thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing back the greatest show ever!
I´d like to thank:
JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Jeffrey Chernov, Edward Milstein, Bill Todman, Paul Schwake, Leonard Nimoy, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Zoe Saldana, Bruce Greenwood, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Eric Bana, Rachel Nichols, Paul McGillon and of course Gene Roddenberry!!! (and everyone else working on this movie!)
I. Can´t. Wait. To. See. This. Film.!

162. bdrcarter - January 18, 2008

If there was any doubt…I think we can all feel certain the franchise is in great hands. (I can’t remember this much anticipation since 1979!) Our ship looks to be intact. Nimoy’s voice-over. The iconic fanfare. And maybe best of all (for me at least)…the transporter sound effect. (I was always a little disappoinnted in the sound FX changes in the movies…the door hiss, phasers, torpedoes seemed to become very vanilla.) Clearly this production team respects and loves their source material.

Absolutely can not wait!!!

163. PaoloM - January 18, 2008


The Shat will be in the movie. Do you accept bets? ;-)

164. Redjac - January 18, 2008

Enterprise built on Earth or not…I really liked the trailer! Can’t wait to see the new ship in all her glory…


165. Kirk Thatcher - January 18, 2008

I much would have rather had Shatner intoning, “Space, the Final Frontier…”

166. AJ - January 18, 2008

Did someone just refer to Mr. Orci as “stupid” and a “moron?” C’mon, guys. Learn some manners.

167. Trek Nerd Central - January 18, 2008

#58 Capatain Dunsel.

Excellent point. On a number of occasions people have used Shakespeare interpretations as an analogy, and that would work here, too — i.e., just because men played women in the Elizabethan era, does that mean it’s somehow sacrilege or historically incorrect (non-“canon”) to cast women in those roles today? Of course not.

Or consider those historic-performance aficionados who insist that Bach (for instance) should never be performed with vibrato, or that Beethoven should never be performed with a full modern orchestra. Maybe Beethoven would have *loved* to have his 6th Sympthony performed by 90 people on a huge stage. By all means, musicians can perform all such music in an historically echt manner. But that doesn’t mean *everyone else* has to do it the same way, with the same adherence to past habits and techniques.

Adherence to historic performance (or Star Trek canon) is one thing. But at some point, it becomes a fetish. And no one is saying that JJ Abrams has changed the actual content of the Trek universe — he hasn’t turned Spock into a full-blood Vulcan. He isn’t taking a red pen to Bach’s Mass in B Minor or changing the words to Beethoven’s Ode to Joy. He’s just interpreting the source material with a modern voice.

I know this is kind of a rant. But I had to get it off my chest. All this griping and moaning about “canon” this and “canon” that is absolutely insane, a complete waste of energy.

168. Aelora - January 18, 2008

No, those aren’t tears in my eyes. Just allergies!


Is it December yet???

169. me - January 18, 2008

Great style, very new for Trek and exactly what I hoped when i heard the Name JJA :)

Can’t wait till december :(

170. Trek Nerd Central - January 18, 2008

Correction: Beethoven didn’t write the words. They are Frederich Schiller’s. Beethoven just borrowed ’em.

171. ctiii - January 18, 2008

Yawn. Seeing the Enterprise being welded together excites me about as much as unwrapping a box of rocks at Christmas.

Even if Nimoy is the only one from the original crew to be in the film, his voice shouldnt be the one on the trailer. The captain of the Enterprise should be the one doing the voice over…whether it be Chris Pine or the guy who is playing Pike. Again I dont get the use of old NASA countdowns and Kennedy speeches in the trailer as an attempt to tie it to today(or really the last century).

Yeah the space program started and Trek were both started in the mid to late 20th century, but none of the “new” fanbase they’re hoping to attract were even born then, so whats the point. The last time a Trek series tried to tie in closer to our present day was ENT and it flopped…way to follow in those giant footsteps JJ.

172. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

Hmmm…Alphabetical credits.

I doubt the movie poster will be like that (i.e. Cho’s name first because it’s first alphabetically).

173. Cheve - January 18, 2008

As things are with the whole “Shatner not in the movie” story, If they had used Shatners voice, they would be, as we say in Spain “trowing stones on their own roof”

If not Nimoy, they should have used Pine instead for coherence, but as Nimoy already did the speech in Kahn’s it should be ok.

174. The Gregster - January 18, 2008

Well, this is a TEASER trailer after all. This scene may not even appear in the movie, at least in this form. It may be a stylized way of announcing to the world the movie is well and truly in production. To draw ANY conclusions about the story from this tasty tid-bit is very premature, IMO. I LOVED the trailer. I have to admit, it gave me the chills to see THAT ship’s name, hear THAT music and THAT voice. To quote Animal House’s Flounder, “Oh boy, is this GREAT!”.

175. kmart - January 18, 2008

Yeah, I used moron. This built on earth thing is about on par with the guy who wrote NEMESIS having a reference to Mercury always keeping the same side to the sun in his first draft, something that was disproved back in ’64.

176. newman - January 18, 2008

less than impressed!!!

177. Iowagirl - January 18, 2008

Nimoy’s doing the “space the final frontier” voice over.

They’re definitely introducing an alternative timeline.

178. Turgenev - January 18, 2008

I think this is strictly a teaser and that such a construction scene will not be in the movie.
It is an exciting visual metaphor to say “We’re filming now! It’s coming!”

Of course, thye could have just shown Spock in-utero; you know an embryo with pointy ears.

179. lwr - January 18, 2008

as to this trailer being in the film:

anyone see the original transformers “teaser”?

i believe that much in the same vein, IF this clip will find it’s way into film, it will only be as a flashback or some other background piece.

the big E will already be built, in service and commanded by Chris Pike during the main events of this film.

180. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

That is effing brilliant!

181. VOODOO - January 18, 2008


No doubt, Shatner belongs in there.

182. Ripped Shirt Kirk - January 18, 2008

It’s impossible to improve perfection and the TMP Enterprise is it. This new design is awful; the nacelles appear to be as big as the secondary hull. This is as bad as if Abrams had turn Kirk into a woman.

183. xizro345 - January 18, 2008

I don’t understand all the fuss. I’m curious to see it but since it’s a teaser trailer it’ll probably be totally useless.

184. Jim Durdan - January 18, 2008

Remember this is a teaser folks, and a lot of the imagery may be just for that, the teaser. Lots of movies use teasers that have no actual images from the movie in them. The major tag line from the web site is “Under Construction” and “Coming Christmas 2008″. This may all be just images tied into the Under Construction phrase. It’s a teaser of the Enterprise Under Construction. Images that may have nothing to do with the acutal movie.
Either way, I love what I am seeing so far. Trek, pre JJ was, and is, a mess. A patchwork of continuity that was truly demolished by Enterprise. Don’t get me wrong. I loved Enterprise. but it was the beginning of the end for any sort of sensible continuity.
Remember this is also a time travel story that may have a huge reset button by the time the movie is done.
Either way I am along for the ride, no matter where it might go!

185. Jay - January 18, 2008

looks great.. nothing against canon as far as i can see…. those that think so simply need to get a life….

Another thing, the Klingons getting an updated look for the movies was Gene Rodenberry’s idea. He didn’t feel there needed to be any “explanation” as was done in ENT for no reason. Because he felt they always looked that way, just the budget constraints and technology contraints in tv makeup made it impossible to do that in the 1960’s. Doesn’t mean that isn’t how he thought they looked all along.

No one with a brain and any common sense thinks there needs to be any explanation at all for the Kingons looking different in the movies than they did in the TOS shows, including Gene himself. Only obsessed canonites who think that anything that appeared in the 1960’s show has to look EXACTLY that way forever in any future movie or tv show about Star Trek. That is just pure lunacy.

As for the time period. I see some people saying that the construction of the ship is before the time period this movie is suppose to be set in and therefore won’t be in the film.

Hogwash. Why?

We already know that Spocks birth will be seen.. .i’m betting that the childhoods of several of the main characters is depicted. That would fit with the “epic” description of the project we have seen from many people involved. I bet they will spend some time at the begining of this film depicting the birth and growth of several main characters giving the audience a sense of history and where these people came from and how they came to be on the bridge of the Enterprise, and i think this will include the birth of the ship itself and some of it’s history before Kirk became captian.

So, showing the ship underconstruction may very well be in the film’s final cut.

186. newman - January 18, 2008

ok……maybe it is kinda cool…

187. cugel the clever - January 18, 2008

Looks like nobody has noticed that there’s a new interview with Abrams on the main news page.

188. Checkpoint Charlie - January 18, 2008

I want to see another TNG movie too, and I’m afraid of the new movie a’lá JJ. His previously films (what I’ve seen before) don’t belongs to the best movies of the history.
JJ is not the best director/producer of the world and Stuart Baird isn’t the worst. Paramount should have more creative stuff in the PR and marceting. After 3 years without trek and 6 years without movie not a big deal to increase the interest.
I hope the new movie will be very good of course

189. fatman bruno - January 18, 2008

Now it is officially my birthday!!! (44 if anyone really needs to know)
What a present.!!!
personally I think Gabe should sue because that sure looks like his design, maybe that’s been the plan all along, testing the water for fan reaction

190. lwr - January 18, 2008


the Nacelles only look so big because of the camera angles that are on it.

take a look at the directors cut of TMP and look at the Vger scene were we see Kirk and company on hull, or the scene after Vger dissipates and the big E approaches screen, showing the saucer section come at you upslose.

the Nacelles look enormous to to the forced prospective of the camera.

I think when all is said and done all will look very proportionate. why go to the trouble to be so close, and then be so far.

does not make sense.

191. Terpor - January 18, 2008

Star Trek is back! the teaser is so freaking awesome

192. Checkpoint Charlie - January 18, 2008

marketing of course:)

193. steve - January 18, 2008

Ripped Shirt- Industrial Light and Magic has over 30 years experience designing spaceships–I wouldn’t worry about that too much!

194. Cervantes ( sleeping a little easier tonight... ) - January 18, 2008

Didn’t get here in time for the previous, now closed thread, but I really like this teaser, and as a designer, and someone here who has been especially interested in the look of J.J.’s ‘Starship Enterprise’ for a long time now, here’s my own thoughts on this PARTIALLY revealed (finally!) design…

I’m delighted that the ‘Aztec’ panelling from ‘ST:TMP’ has been retained, as I always thought that particular previous design decision (along with numerous ‘spotlighting’) helped to sell the large ‘scale’ of the ‘miniature-work’ used in that Movie.

I’m also delighted that the makers have opted to retain the ‘cylindrical’ look of the TOS’s ‘E’s twin ‘warp nacelles’ overall, although I will reserve judgement on the ‘fins’ sticking out at the rear of them till I see them properly. However they will probably look fine, if a little different from the original ‘E’s’ protruberances near the rear.

I am comfortable if this particular ‘E’s coloration remains ‘silvery’ and ‘metallic’ looking, as seen in the teaser, as opposed to my favoured more ‘white’ look, as this is STILL far better than the ‘dull gray’ scheme that CBS Digital opted to go with in their ‘remastering’…

One of the things that I still wonder about at this point, is WHAT color (if any!) will the ‘nacelle CAPS’ end up? At the moment, we see an interesting amount of detail, but I hope this is NOT the finished item…
I hope for a ‘constantly changing’, overall ORANGY glow, as what we have been used to on the TOS ‘E’, and pray this has not been turned into RED…or even worse, BLUE…

Time will tell, but overall, a success so far in my mind, and a pleasant surprise from what it COULD have ended up like. :)

195. Alex - January 18, 2008

I’m really happy with the trailer.

Love the lighting, love the human involvement in the building of the ship, love the sheer sense of scale and epicness transmitted to the audience.

Star Trek lives again.

I understand now.

196. Mac - January 18, 2008

After I saw Cloverfield, I heard a college-age girl say to a friend of hers that she’s never seen an episode of Star Trek, but she said she really wants to see the movie when it comes out. I think the teaser has done its job.

197. Ron - January 18, 2008

Remember the good old days, when we fought over stuff like politics and whether or not Harlan Ellison is a prick? Those bygone discussions now look like the Scopes Trial compared to this “construction on Earth vs. in space” stupidity. Maybe it would be nice if the Canon Police, the “Enterprise Must Be Constructed In Space Or Its Not Star Trek” whiners, and the “Just Happy To Have A Cool Trailer” folks could all have their own forums, but for now perhaps we could all just agree to disagree, and wait to see what the future holds?

198. Viking - January 18, 2008

Man, this is gonna be great.

199. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#177 Nimoy DID do the “…Final Frontier…” voice-over at the end of Star Trek II, albeit his character had just died….but I’m just saying it isn’t unpecedented.

200. Stef* - January 18, 2008

I find myself hoping that this films duration will be more than just freaky 90+ an average Minutes.

I’m so ravenous and since they have the crew already there …

… please!!!!!!

201. Alex - January 18, 2008

One of the things that makes it SO hot and appealing is the fact they use welding torches instead of Post-production laser FX… It makes it much more beautiful and realistic vs seeing someone act like they’re firing something when they are not (à la DS9 or VOY)…

Love that hands-on feel. Gawd.

202. Leonel - January 18, 2008

AWESOME!! can’t…. wait……

(and btw you know what they say about camera angles)

Seriously folks, I’m just glad and thankful we have a trailer and a movie on the way. And the folks at Paramount and Bad Robot are definitely accomplishing one thing, no matter what their opinion:

people are and have been talking.

203. jim N - January 18, 2008

This might sound a bit crazy, but a friend of mine had some original plans of the Enterprise and it had some kind of landing gear (I think maybe just in the saucer section). So it’s not totally impossible that it was built on land. Also keep in mind that the saucer was meant to be detachable…possibly to land in case of emergency. So again…not impossible that it was built on land… Welp, flame away…

204. star trackie - January 18, 2008

Wow. I love how they make the ship look HUGE , much like the wonderful work of TMP. In the first film the ship looked like a huge ocean liner..then as the films progressed they seemed to look smaller and smaller…but in TMP, the ship felt real. This evokes much of that same sense of scale and wonder.

Well done…and for crying out loud, I hope they DO show it being built on the ground…just so it can put the silly argument to rest.

Can’t wait to see it tomorrow on a 75′ screen. Thanks to all involved, great job!

205. Doug - January 18, 2008

Trailer: More! More! We want more (but AM very happy for what we got too)!

Construction of Enterprise: I see nothing wrong with the idea that canon, (not cannon folks, I’ve never seen the Enterprise or any other starfleet vessel fire a cannonball) –grin– “The Making of Star Trek” be observed.

Who’s to say that components of the ship were not built on earth and then tractor beamed up to the orbital drydock for final assembly? Or even using the transporter to beam up components (although that sounds rather energy prohibitive)?

If you think about it, NASA builds its components of the International Space Station on earth and shuttle them up into orbit.

BUT if they built the entire ship in space, I have no problem with that either. Canon is fun, but don’t be so restrictive that you cannot recognize a new spin on things. EVERY movie has added to the mythos and each have contradicted something along the way. Heck, who can even agree today about the news that was on last night’s TV?

If the ship looks different, just chalk it up to “those damned engineers that like to change things.”

206. Scott Robert Ladd - January 18, 2008

Damn the canonists.

Star Trek isn’t about the shape of nacelles or the font on the Enterprise’s hull — it is about the human spirit, and what we can accomplish.

When it came to a choice between his crew and his ship, Kirk chose the people over the hardware.

They can paint the Enterprise pink and make the engines square for all I care, so long as the move inspires people again.

We desperately need inspiration. Society has devolved, as we have moved from being doers into being mere consumers; we’ve stopped creating the future in order to max our credit cards for immediate gratification.

It is time to inspire people to greatness. And if this movie can inspire even one young person to pursue a brighter future, it will be succeeded.

Oh — and I really want to ladies to be in mini-skirts. :)

207. D - January 18, 2008

My wife thinks it will be part of an opening “narration by Spock” sequence right at the beginning of the movie, similar to “Transformers” with Prime talking about the Allspark.

208. Jay - January 18, 2008

This trailer makes me excited to see what they’ve done with the bridge. What they’ve done with special effects, like phaser firing, transporter beeming, jumping to warp.

Don’t expect those things to be the same. What would be the point of that? That is where they will show off thier newest special effects and i can’t wait to see what they do with those things.

209. The Forbidden Planet International Blog Log » “These are the voyages…” - January 18, 2008

[…] has a much bigger image here where you can make out a lot more detail; they also have a YouTube (so not best quality, but still watchable) clip of the teaser trailer for the movie which is being shown in cinemas in the US with JJ Abrams’ ultra-mysterious Cloverfield flick. We don’t see much except for the glare of welding torches as the Enterprise is finished off. On the soundtrack a medley of soundbites from the golden age of the Space Race – the era which gave birth to Trek – from Kennedy’s inspirational speech to Armstrong’s “one small step” line, as the image pulls back to reveal the Enterprise and a certain Mister Leonard Nimoy utters the immortal lines, “Space, the final frontier…” You know, I’ve said before I am half-excited and half-worried about this film: I trust Abrams as a great storyteller, but am just not sure about how I will be able to accept other actors in those classic roles, playing younger versions of the characters I grew up with (repeats of 60s Trek and Doctor Who were my formative SF viewing in the 70s). But this tiny little clip just sparked something into life in my geek warp core. Go now and look.     Print this Story    Send to a Friend […]

210. richpit - January 18, 2008

The teaser was awesome. I don’t care where the ship is built…’nuff said.

211. Trek or Treat - January 18, 2008

Just saw the trailer for the first time.

LOVE the tone and feel of it. I hope the movie is the same way.

GO JJ! It’s your birthday…

212. Yendis - January 18, 2008


According to Memory Alpha:

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 in San Francisco and launched in 2245, was christened the Enterprise. Larry Marvick was one of the designers of the Enterprise. (TOS: “Tomorrow is Yesterday”, “Is There in Truth No Beauty?”)

According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space.
According to a computer display that was created behind the scenes, but never used on screen, Jonathan Archer was present at the launch and died the next day. This information remains non-canon because it was never photographed on film.
Captain Robert April oversaw construction of her components and commanded her during her trial runs and early missions. (TAS: “The Counter-Clock Incident”)

Dialogue given in the episode claims the Enterprise was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive, however, this not only violates canon established by Star Trek: Enterprise, but also dialogue given in TAS: “The Time Trap” claiming that the Bonaventure was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive.

I INCLUDED THE LAST BIT just to show Trek is not a static thing, they change things around, even the Great Bird of the Galaxy did it.

213. Blowback - January 18, 2008

The TOS sting was good to hear but for some reason the sound effect used for the transporter in TOS gave me goosebumps…


214. Black Fire - January 18, 2008

Well, (figure of speech warning) blame the reboot or whatever you want to call it on the success of “New Voyages”. Thanks to them maybe Paramount realized that they had something called Star Trek, no bloody A, B, C or D, to quote Scotty. After the failure of the last installment they might have realized a need for a Star Trek that was untouched by the influence of Rick Berman within the fan base and acted on it. This is just a theory, but I know I kind of was hoping then that if they ever would do a new series a totally new production team would get a hand on it. We get a brand new feature film instead now, and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (trailer = goosebumps).

# 24 Section 31: Where’s the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit when I need it?

You got a warning from Anthony, but your quip really made me laugh when I read through all the canon vs. non-canon stuff.

215. Henry Spock (no relation, to either of them) - January 18, 2008

“That it is indeed going to be depicted as having been constructed on Earth, at the bottom of a massive gravity well”

Yes. Luckily, it has engines, though, so I imagine it won’t be a whole movie of them failing to get off the ground.

Anyone who sees that trailer and doesn’t get a little tingle in their spine … well, you know where your Voyager DVDs are. Go suck on Neelix and Chakotay for a while.

It’s a teaser. It gets across the sixties space race stuff without going all retro. It gets across the sense that building the Enterprise was hard and involved human effort.

It looks great. There is, finally, a bit of buzz and excitement around Star Trek again amongst people. If your first thought involves the word ‘canon’, you need to reorganise your thoughts.

The best Star Trek movie ever made was Master and Commander. This is a teaser, so who knows, but it gives me that same vibe. The Enterprise is something impressive and real again, not just a collection of redressed sets.

216. Ty Webb - January 18, 2008

The trailer’s great, but why do they still have men welding 300 years in the future?

217. AJ - January 18, 2008

Will the Enterprise actually have a major role in the film? I guess, since the film is Spock-centric, he will serve with Pike on board. But his service with him, if I recall, was “11 years, 4 months, 5 days,” an eternity before JTK.

This film will have to cover quite a bit of time. Perhaps it will conclude with Kirk getting command and the crew we have come to know. And the Big E will warp out for the sequel.

218. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008


I’d like to amend my comment about the alphabetical cast listing…

Bana and Nimoy weren’t in the Alphabetical listing, but rather listed separatly under the rest of the alphabetical cast…Does this make Bana a bit more important, or were the looking to list the “crew” all together in a democratic fashion…or maybe a little of both.

219. Craig - January 18, 2008

Wonder how they get her into space? Under her own power? Space elevator?

Was it “Piece of the Action” that kirks say the ship doesn’t land? Or can’t land? (maybe it need a special dock to land on.

Remember Gene saying he couldn’t land the mother on every planet because of budget reasons – hence the transporters.

Also keep in mind, as technology get better in the trek future they could build more and more ships in space. This trek is earlier in the scope of things.

Building the ships on the ground would mean lots of dirt, germs and junk inside. But I guess you can’t build something of that size in an inclosed environment. Even in dry dock (ST: TMP) there would be junk in orbit, dust, micro meteorites.

Can’t wait to see the film! Trek will go on and get better and better…

220. simonkey - January 18, 2008

holly shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! great music theme,it vibes !!!!!well lets see !!

221. Navid Daystrom - January 18, 2008

There are legitimate reasons to criticize movies, there are stupid reasons to criticize movies.

A little mental exercise. Which column does this criticism fall into:

‘It contradicts my Star Trek fanfic’.

If you get the answer right, you win the best prize of all: this Christmas, you get to see a great Star Trek movie.

222. PaoloM - January 18, 2008


To show that great things come from sweat. Its sort of a symbolic thing, in my opinion.

223. Rary Gussell - January 18, 2008

‘The trailer’s great, but why do they still have men welding 300 years in the future?’

The women are all inside, answering the phones.

224. RaveOnEd - January 18, 2008

One thing the trailer had me thinking: in the 20th Anniversary of Star Trek TV special, Gene Roddenberry said, “Aliens didn’t build the pyramids – human beings built them!”

In the Berman era, it was forgotten that Star Trek was, at its base, the story of ourselves going out into space, and exploring more to make ourselves better.

Human beings are building the Enterprise, on Earth, to show that we believe in a future beyond a “flash and a bang”.

Abrams, Orci, Lindelof, and everyone else making this movie get it. They know the engine driving this, something that got lost (pun not intended) in the prior regime of Star Trek.

225. Doorchime - January 18, 2008

#182 You know what the last episode of TOS was, right ;) ?

226. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008

To all those who are screaming and hopping mad, and are saying that they won’t go see the movie (#2 especially):

Fine. Don’t go. There will be less nerdy people coming out of the theater after the movie — and the regular folks standing outside might actually wonder why all these cool people are happily coming out of a Star Trek movie. They might even want to go see the flick.

Go watch The Wrath of Kahn on DVD for the 843rd time instead. Meanwhile, many of us will go watch and enjoy a new Star Trek movie.

227. CommonSense - January 18, 2008

How do you know it isn’t in space? Maybe it is being built in spacedock, just because the guy isn’t wearing a spacesuit, doesn’t mean it isn’t still in space

228. Kigs - January 18, 2008



229. trekfansince1977 - January 18, 2008

Clearly some people are confused about this Khan Chekov deal, Wrath of khan didn’t destroy canon, chekov was in the series at that point, he just wasn’t in that episode, and it’s not like we see the enire encounter in one hour, So they were bound to meet at some point. that’s like saying that every new episode of SW destroyed it’s canon, it did, but what the hell i’m not that big od a SW fan…

230. Ancient Fan - January 18, 2008

As a fan(atic) from the first in ’67, I will always and forever simply be happy to see the words “Star Trek” and “Enterprise” be real and in front of me again. It never really mattered how good or bad all the iterations were or how much they let me down or lifted me up – they were some form of trek and that’s all that ever mattered. In fact, I’ve never seen a show or movie that lived up to all the expectations or fantasies I had. A first love is forever, and even the teaser’s giving me the feeling of seeing my old love, changes and differences not withstanding. Welcome home.

231. neal - January 18, 2008

Very respectful to the old stuff, yet a very modern and exciting feel. Quite a feat to have accomplished that. A job well done, and I can’t wait to see the HD download.

232. Pragmaticus - January 18, 2008

216 – Why the heck not? People still need jobs 300 years from now. We can’t have everything done by robots or else we’d become a very lazy people, which is exactly the opposite thing Roddenberry envisioned.

233. non-belligerency confirmed - January 18, 2008

this image is the most canon thing i’ve seen since 1969.

234. PaoloM - January 18, 2008

Do the Trek-XI guys realize that today I am not doing my work? Christmas is far, far away…

235. Alex Rosenzweig - January 18, 2008

#51 – Nope, some of us like more than just TOS. My favorite three are TOS, DS9, and ENT, but I enjoy tthem all.

#66 – I think most folks will rest easier when they realize that, on that issue, there is no canon to be violated. ;) It was never previously established.

#68 – Nah, ‘s not an issue. the Trek Universe is a *fictional* world. It is not our own. It merely serves as a portrayal of a future world in which Humanity has perservered and survived and become better. (In some ways, that’s why keeping at least broad consistency within that fictional world is even more important. Without some level of consistency, believability begins to fail.)

#136 – I generally agree, Kirk. (Are you *the* Kirk Thatcher, BTW?) OTOH, I think part of this trailer might be aimed at trying to grab the attention of an audience that has a tendency to tune out the moment a spacescape shows up on the screen, so they went for something that might appeal to them. Roberto could correct me if I err here, but I think it was a deliberate choice as part of the marketing strategy.

#194 – Actually, what I sort of hope for is that the forward nacelle domes, once the ship is fully up and running, will be filled with glowing, convecting plasma, suggesting that the captured hydrogen is being compressed and heated for the reaction process with the antimatter…and it’d make for a heckuva cool visual effect, while still being true to TOS. :)

236. Jaz - January 18, 2008

I’m disappointed, it isn’t a nearly as revolutionary as I thought it would be. I was hoping they would try to get rid of the tarnished StarTrek theme tune or atleast moderise it.

237. David P - January 18, 2008


238. Alex - January 18, 2008


greetings to all of you from Alex in Cologne/Germany. I was at the age of 7 when in 1972 TOS first appeared on German TV and I was allowed to watch it.

It´s an awesome feeling. I just can´t get enough and gooseflesh is coming up when I see this trailer, especially to hear the beam sound of the original series. I can´t really wait until christmas 2008.

Star Trek lives!!!!!

239. Kevin - January 18, 2008

I cannot believe all this whinning! Screw canon! Canon is anafterfact trying to match TNG with TOS. Who cares. As long as they stay in the ballpark. Star Trek was 1960’s epsiodic television story telling with the exception of well written characters, stories (the majority) and the best damn design of space hardware (from the Big E to Mcoy’s salt shakers) . I have been a fan since 1966 (I was seven). I have been hoping since Trials and Tribulations that somebody would update just the effects in my beloved TOS. Done! I wanted more stories with my crew of the USS ENTEREPISE. Well, this is it, I hope they get it close (hard to beat the original-Shatner will always be Kirk!) but I am willing to give them leeway. I am open to a new interpretation and new stories. It is 2008 for christsakes! Those of you who have been spoon fed the ” feminized-soap milqtoast TNG-Enterprise” version of Trek. Relax! I for one am excited at this first look! As Mr. Spock says” There are always alternatives!” Be open minded-that was the point Gene was always trying to make. Time to look ahead to the future.

240. Jim - January 18, 2008

#227 – right on – that’s the first thing that struck me. I can’t see anything on that tiny screen that positively shows WHERE the construction site is! It’s certainly possible that the hub of activity shown is enclosed in some kind of containtment field – or even an internal spacedock with gravity and environmental controls. If some details emerge on the big screen to the contrary, then I stand corrected.

I’m not going to engage in a huge diatribe about the differences between constructing a large object and lifting it into space on a planet with no atmosphere and lower gravity than Earth which is why ground construction on Mars makes far more sense than on Earth. Star Trek has NEVER been for the hard core SF fan – its largely been space opera with some of the trappings of hard core SF. Gene Roddenberry said it best in his original treatment for the show – “Wagon train to the stars.” And my friends, what’s in that little clip looks like one HELL of a wagon!

241. Rob - January 18, 2008

I am pleased with the trailer as well. Still worried as to the feel and tone as I don’t like the talent behind the construction of the film but at least Orci gave a good reason for this whole Earth vs. Space nonsense. Maybe some of you should go read it.

242. Clinton - January 18, 2008

Very nice. Can’t wait to see it on the big screen.

Yes, I think it grabs your attention. And there is no telling if this is a scene from the movie or something produced just as the teaser.

The adventure continues…

243. star trackie - January 18, 2008

..what’s the point of arguing “canon” in an altered timeline anyway? It’s familiar, yet it’s not. It can’t be the original crew so they have introduced a story device to get us to a ship, new actors, etc. Nimoy remains as the common threat to the past. and the subsequent abominations of Berman’s dullified 24th century haven’t happend yet.

So here we are, Spock is not a woman, the ship is still sleek (sorry star-warsies) doesn’t have crap all over it, there are serious nods to TOS that suggests a similar time-lineof what once was, its all good. I have a feeling Star Trek 08 is going to be fun… wow Star Trek and fun in the same breath..haven’t experienced that in about 17 years….

244. Jake - January 18, 2008

Anyone notice that John Cho got top billing? And Ben Cross second?

245. ivy - January 18, 2008

I’m not quite a purist, though I might teeter on the edge sometimes… but right now I’m very happy with the way she looks.

I can’t wait to see it on the big screen tonight!

246. Cheve - January 18, 2008

#237. At home.

And he can’t play Kirk becasue he is 70something and Kirk died at 60something.

247. Darryl - January 18, 2008

That was beautiful, I damn near cried!

248. haissemguy - January 18, 2008

#244 did you notice that amazingly everyone is in alphabetical order

249. Catlas - January 18, 2008

Here Here!! Well said!

250. Buckaroohawk - January 18, 2008

Canon. Non canon. Reboot. Remake. Refit.

None of that matters now. I’m sitting here wiping tears of joy from my eyes.

STAR TREK has returned.

Even if the film itself somehow ends up being a disappointment (and I do not think it will be), I want to thank Mr. Orci and everyone else associated with it for this one moment of incredible happiness and wonder. I’m going to have this smile stuck to my face for the rest of the day!

251. TREK LIVES! - January 18, 2008

People who insist on rigid “canonity” are the people that ruined Star Trek. There I said it.

Star Trek used to be about ideas and the hope that our future will be better – that we have progressed as humans, and use our technology in a way to improve us – the implicit hope back from the TOS is that technology would enable us to better people and that it would lead to our destruction (i.e. we would be nuked out of existence)

ThenParamount and Rodenberry got wind there was a lot of fans and they insisted on more and more detailed explanations and trinkets. So they started churning tech manuals, novels, comics, toilet paper so people could live in some type of fantasy world.

In doing so, in order to sell stuff, they built this notion of official explanations for everything…because that is what sold the goods. In doing so, they cloaked Star Trek with so many rules, datapoints, it became nearly impossible to tell good stories. The original movies were able to avoid a lot of that stuff by simply ignoring it, but then the TNG movies became trapped in those rules and the small-mindedness of B+B.

I really like this trailer – it shows that Star Trek is about humanity. Its about blood, sweat and tears of a human race dedicated to explore its universe. Its about why we got into space exploration in th first place. I have no idea if the movie will be as good, but I can only trust the people at the helm. Make it so.

252. Jimbob - January 18, 2008

It’s a film. Nothing more or less. It’s two or so hours of mindless fun. Who cares where the Enterprise was built? Who really cares how big the bloody nacelles are? Who cares what is or is not canon, I mean come on it’s fantasy and where did anything in ST have a canon.

Seems to be people here over-analysing a film? A story.

Go and see it, enjoy it or hate it but remember folks…IT IS NOT REAL!!!!

253. FREAKAZOID - January 18, 2008


254. TREK LIVES! - January 18, 2008

I meant “technology” would not lead to our destruction :)

255. Kevin - January 18, 2008

Right on #251!

256. Victor Hugo - January 18, 2008

“115. Red Spar – January 18, 2008
They’re using a stick welder to assemble the Enterprise?!?!? Is this the steampunk version of Trek?”

No, it´s most likely a homage to BABYLON 5 first season intro, in which a welder is making sparkles and then the camera zooms out to show the huge space station. ;O)

about TREKGASMS..i had one when i saw Generations on the Big Screen in a kick ass movie teather :)

257. dalek - January 18, 2008

Not bad, but cant really see anything on YouTube, need a high res quicktime!

258. Alex Rosenzweig - January 18, 2008

I’m sorry…. I can’t wrap my mind around the idea of the Courage fanfare and TOS theme as…tarnished…

259. roberto Orci - January 18, 2008

Can someone provide a good, specific definition of “REBOOT?”

260. me - January 18, 2008

# 251

You’re reading my mind.
Exactly what I think.

The Fans hated everything a little bit different, so the ST producers stopped making anything new after DS9, so that Voyager, ENT and Nemesis failed compared to the other series and early films, so that Non-ST Fans didn’t like to watch Star Trek anymore, coz there couldn’t be something new without braking the canon.

261. bill hiro - January 18, 2008

From the DarkHorizons review:

“Certainly the only sounds coming from a packed audience at the screening I was at were mock laughter and comments like ‘nope’ or ‘pass’.”

Its easy to get caught up in the echo chamber effect of a site like this where everybody is super-excited but everybody is also already a fan. And given how much cheerleading Anthony has done for the project, never missing an opportunity to do damage control in regards to every unflattering rumor that has popped up online, I can’t imagine anybody is susprised that Anthony thought the trailer was terrific. But greater question (and this one is still unanswered) is whether the general public is going to give a damn about another Star Trek movie – canon, cannon, non-canon, prequel, requel, reboot, refit, bold re-imagining, whatever you want to call it – regardless of who’s behind it. I think this movie is going to be a harder sell to the mass audience than it is to a fanbase that is pretty obviously happy with anything, because of the “haven’t we already seen this a dozen times before” factor. The mock laughter, “nopes” and “passes” of sneering, sarcastic teenagers and twenty-somethings carries over to the box office, and its those same sneering sarcastic folks that put movies into the $200 million domestic territory. It’ll be interesting to see how the production gets past that hurdle.

262. Blowback - January 18, 2008

Next battleground: Uniforms and hairstyles….

I can userstand the importance of keeping the Big E as close to TOS as possible but is anyone planning to howl if the miniskirts and go-go boots vanish?

Not that I would mind seeing a little more leg and black boots…. :)

263. secondbassman - January 18, 2008

Reboot: To start over

Seems simple enough: To turn off and on again. (per

264. RaveOnEd - January 18, 2008

259 – Roberto:

Re-boot: v. To take off a boot from one’s foot to place a new one on.

Good golly, I thought you were a writer, and knew that!

265. SpaceCowboy - January 18, 2008

WOW cool trailer! One of the best I’ve seen so far….

This is going 2 be a great film! I know it will be!

We just have 2 let it happen people……


266. Matt - January 18, 2008

Mr. Orci:

Reboot as I understand it, would be the slate being wiped completely clean, and the universe being re-built without consideration for the continuity previously established. The only thing necessary would be to retain elements that make that universe identifiable as what it is (Superman, Star Trek etc)

So to answer your question, no I can’t :)

But SR would be a continuation/re-imagination whereas Battlestar Galactica is a total reboot.

267. Admiral_Bumblebee - January 18, 2008

Actually, I can’t hear those words anymore, reboot, re-imagining etc.
Why does no one re-imagine the Mona Lisa painting by da Vinci or the Bible?
Personally I think that it is disrespectful, taking the intelectual property of someone else and change it, twist it, warp it and even call it “better” afterwards.
If you come up with an idea, make it original and don’t change someone elses ideas…

268. Vulcan Soul - January 18, 2008

Since the camera is panning up to reveal the final shot, it looks to me like you could actually see the underside of the saucer and part of the engineering hull… COULD, if it wasnt so damn poor quality.

Anyone got any insights?

269. Alex Rosenzweig - January 18, 2008

259 – These days, the term seems to mostly be used in the vein of what was done to “Battlestar Galactica”, where the basic idea of a production is retained, but an entirely new version, beholden to nothing except maybe the premise and a few character names, is made, with the idea that it is an entirely new continuity not intended to be a part of the same fictional world at all.

nuBSG is a fairly extreme version of this. Other versions are common in comic books, where they seem to restart their continuities over and over again, with no intention that what was done before be retained except the basic characters (Superman, Batman, Lois Lane, etc.).

Of course, more generically, a “reboot” could also be a simple “restart”, a la what happens with a computer, but that connotation isn’t used as commonly in the current entertainment vernacular. (Thus why folks like me, who hate the idea of doing to Trek what was done to Galactica {come to think of it, I don’t much like it having been done to Galactica, either ;) }, tend to get our hackles up when people talk about rebooting Trek.

Does this help?

270. Ralph - January 18, 2008

As much as I love the trailer, William Shatner leading off the movie would have been better. Mr Shatner has what it takes to put the emphasis into the voice of James T. Kirk and to lead off the new generation of viewers.
I never realized how much Kirk is needed until I had seen the clip. Sorry Mr Nimoy.

271. MrRegular - January 18, 2008

I watched the Trailer. I FORGOT where I was(in cold, wintry Nebraska with temps below freezing) for more than one whole minute, 1’14 to be exact.
Works for me! Thanks Anthony for the brightest moment of my entire day thus far! Thanks JJ and Co.!

272. Matt - January 18, 2008

270, are you the ralph from Bluetights?

273. AJ - January 18, 2008

Awwww, c’mon, guys. Canon can be fun, especially when Trek pulls out great shows like Yesterday’s Enterprise, Trials and Tribble-ations, In a Mirror Darkly, and even VOY Flashback. We all jumped up and down when Kang faced Sulu in battle, called him “Mister Sulu,” and applauded his promotion to Captain.

The richness that episodes like Amok Time and Journey to Babel added to Spock’s backstory is amazing. Throw in some “Yesteryear,” and wow. I think JJ has this type of film in mind: To add to the histories of some iconic fictional characters, and have a huge, huge adventure that brings them together.

But nacelle caps and fonts, or whether California is on Earth or in space don’t matter.

274. lwr - January 18, 2008

# 261–

saturated advertising.

when i saw the 1st Transformers teaser, i snickered and literally said ” you have to be F’n kidding me”

i looked at my teanage and 20 year old son and made that Mock Megatron snarly voice ” I’ll get you Optimus Prime!!”

then laughed my ass of.

turned out it was the most intense, kick ass movie i saw all year.. i can only pray Gi JOE is half as good.
(ince the original megatron voice was also cobra commanders..LOL)

so I am not worried about snickers at the teaser. once Paramount starts saturating the media to show that this is not another adventure of the Geritole crew, things will work out OK.

275. Turgenev - January 18, 2008


Right. Movies are supposed to make money… if that means Scotty listens to hardcore rap, then so be it. All this breast-beating about details doesn’t mean squat if Star Trek cannot become a profitable franchise again and thus contunue on, which I would think is what we would all like to see.

Hey- maybe the enterprise can turn into a giant robot???

276. Lord Cheescakebreath - January 18, 2008

I couldn’t fight the YouTube temptation. It looks really great! Amazing.

I’m still going to see it tonight on the big screen anyway.

I need more cow bell!

277. Trek Nerd Central - January 18, 2008

#259. It’s what the cobbler does to the heels of my shoes. I tend to supinate.

I dunno what a reboot is, and I don’t frankly care. I was just thrilled to hear the that snatch of the opening trumpet voluntary, followed by shimmering transporter sounds. What a geek I am.

I’ll say again that I still don’t get all these nit-picky fetishists. I can watch the old shows any time I want and enjoy them. All I want, from this movie, is to revisit the characters I love in the universe I know and be surprised what I find there.

278. AJ - January 18, 2008

267: Star Trek is the intellectual property of Paramount Pictures

279. Blowback - January 18, 2008

#267 – Because Trek has been built over the years by the contributions of hundreds (maybe thousands) of individuals. Others have made changes and additions to the original vision, why should the current team be excluded?

I applaud the effort to find a period in Trek history that has been largely undeveloped and put meat on its bones (so to speak). I also recognize that it’s 40 years later and the production values and sensibilities of the current age have to be considered while showing respect to past productions…

280. ObiWanCon - January 18, 2008


281. Chris Roberts - January 18, 2008

The Enterprise looks similar to the one In Star Trek The Motion Picture.Seriosly Books have long been treated as non cannon.If they say The Enterprise was built on Earth there Is nothing that says It wasn’t.There Is a lot to be excitied by with this film.As someone who has supported this film because It wasn’t going the Galactica route the teaser confirms they picked the right people to revive Star Trek.We have to give them latitude on sets,costumes,props,Visuals.As long as they are true to the characters,and basic basic history they are In good shape.

282. Ryan - January 18, 2008

#259 Mr. Orci – To me a reboot is just the same as turning your computer off and on. You only do it to remove any minor problem you have with it, and other than that the operating system and/or programs really don’t change at all. So in respect to the movie, the term “reboot” doesn’t fit IMO.

Now, “reimagining or reimaging” may fit better. For example, if someone gave you a basic set of ideas about something and said visualize it you would most likely come up with something different from another person would. The key is that the basic concepts are the same, but look different. So the movie is taking the ideas of ST and “reimagines” them to look different.

283. star trackie - January 18, 2008

The term “reboot” never made a lot of sense. It seems to me, if you reboot a PC, it is simply starting over…but starting over with exactly the same PC you had before. The term re-make, is much more suitable. ANd as far as this version of Trek goes, I’m not sure what term applies. It’s neither a reboot or a remake. It’s really rather unusual in that it keeps aspects of the old but infuses new by way of a storyline that will explain it away.

Like T’pau said, de air is de air. This is what it is.

284. Blowback - January 18, 2008

#270 – Surprisingly I would have liked to hear Shat’s voice also. Not going to go nuts about it cause I think Nimoy’s body of work in this series is the gold standard, but it still struck me as odd…

285. Jon C - January 18, 2008

YOU GUYS COULD SEE THAT? Way too dark on my computer screen.Frustrating.

286. MikeG - January 18, 2008

Original Trekkie here… STILL looking forward to the NEW Star Trek. I think this movie will simply be to previous ST movies what TMP was to the original series. I really don’t know what all the fuss is about for you poor canon-addicts…

287. hitch1969© - January 18, 2008

Everything that I have seen to date regarding this new movie has exceeded my expectations as a fan. The teaser gave me chills. Excellent work! I am very excited about things to come. I’m still in awe from just the picture yesterday. This is going to get better and better.



288. Brian - January 18, 2008

Nowhere in canon did it say the Enterprise was built in space….remember, the placard on the bridge simply said “San Francisco”.

I liked what I saw…..need a cleaner copy(some of the early shots are tough to make out).

A good start!

289. Ralph - January 18, 2008

272. Matt – January 18, 2008
270, are you the ralph from Bluetights?

Huh? No to what ever that means.
Bluetights network? Nope not me.

290. Judi Dench - January 18, 2008

Reboot: Start again from scratch.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service goes to great pains to establish that Lazenby is the same James Bond as Connery. Later Bond films cement the idea (however implausibly) that ‘James Bond’ is always the same guy. Moore and Dalton were both married to Tracy from OHMSS. Brosnan is seen surrounded by props from every movie in Die Another Day. It’s the same guy. Somehow.

Casino Royale ‘reboots’ the series. Within the fiction of that movie, James Bond’s first mission is in 2006, the Cold War is ancient history. It can not plausibly be the same guy who was in Goldfinger.

There are movies like, say, Live and Let Die where it’s ambiguous – that movie goes out of its way to be different – Bond has a magnum, not a PPK; drinks whisky, not vodka martinis; there’s no Q

Sections of Star Trek fandom are obsessed with which of the only three possible options this movie is. And not, for example, whether the movie is funny, exciting, action-packed, well-written or has good actors. Which is why anyone who self identifies as a member of ‘fandom’ should be kicked out into the desert to give the sehlats something to chase and eat.

James Bond fandom was furious at the news that Daniel Craig had been cast and forecast great disaster and the beginning of the Tribulation foreseen in the Book of Revelation.

Casino Royale made $600M at the box office. Comfortably more than any Bond film before. Because within thirty seconds of that movie starting, you have no doubt at all that you’re watching the best Bond movie for many, many years.

Not one of those Bond fans had the decency to admit they were wrong. But they were wrong. And that’s the point: fandoms are always wrong, about everything, all the time, everywhere. It’s more of a universal constant than the value of Pi.

291. Steven JB - January 18, 2008

I was pretty disappointed. The whole trailer was basically the picture we already had with a little music ad special effects.

292. T2 - January 18, 2008

What a trailer! I’m already in line…waiting. It was fantastic, until Nimoy spoke, then…yeah I lost it. Awesome job. If you need to mess with designs, canon, etc. to make the movie better and better, go right ahead, J.J., you know what you’re doing.

293. Phil Smith - January 18, 2008

I think the trailer is brilliant. Well done.

A ship that size would be built in orbit, as this seems more efficient. The energy necessary to transport huge assemblies from the ground up makes no sense whatever to me. Still, it is just a movie, and I really don’t care. It’s just an academci issue for me…

294. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#223: :0

#244: As I posted before: Cho, Cross, Greenwood, and many of the others (including Pine and Quinto) are listed alphabetically — Only Bana and Nimoy are listed separately — Nimoy for obvious reasons, and Bana because possibly he is the biggest “Name” star in this film.

295. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

oops: in response to # 223 I meant to say :), not :0

296. LookingForward - January 18, 2008

Looks really exciting, I’m so pleased to have a new team, a new vision and a new direction for Star Trek. The trailer is perfect- those of you making this film, I hope you succeed in bringing in a whole new generation of fans, while a certain crowd of crazed old timers fight over the colour of the hull or the size of the nacelles, it’s so sad and pathetic to see that.

Good luck with your film, it’s going to be amazing, I’m so grateful we’ll have brand new Star Trek, with such a high profile presence. Bring it on!

297. maxx flash - January 18, 2008

. . . . brings a tear to my eye. can’t wait! off to see it on the big screen!!

298. E Huf - January 18, 2008

The teaser sent chills down my spine, I feel that this movie is really going to make Star Trek more amazing than it already is. Even non-Trek fans in the theater thought that teaser was cool.

Oh and for all you crazy nerds complaining about the ship being built on earth instead of space…live with it, get a life, and enjoy that we are all getting a new trek movie, it’s this or nothing at all.

299. Ryan - January 18, 2008

If I’m blown away by a crappy youtube version of it then, quite frankly, I’m afraid of what will happen at the movies tonite.

300. Mary Jane - January 18, 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 in San Francisco and launched in 2245, was christened the Enterprise. Larry Marvick was one of the designers of the Enterprise. (TOS: “Tomorrow is Yesterday”, “Is There in Truth No Beauty?”)
According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space.
According to a computer display that was created behind the scenes, but never used on screen, Jonathan Archer was present at the launch and died the next day. This information remains non-canon because it was never photographed on film.
Captain Robert April oversaw construction of her components and commanded her during her trial runs and early missions. (TAS: “The Counter-Clock Incident”)
Dialogue given in the episode claims the Enterprise was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive, however, this not only violates canon established by Star Trek: Enterprise, but also dialogue given in TAS: “The Time Trap” claiming that the Bonaventure was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive.
Captain Christopher Pike commanded the Enterprise from the early 2250s into the 2260s. His missions included voyages to the Rigel, Vega and Talos systems. Pike’s half-Vulcan science officer, Spock, who served under him for over eleven years, would become the starship’s longest-serving officer. (TOS: “The Menagerie, Part I”)

301. Chris Dawson - January 18, 2008


302. domo_arigato_Mr._Roddenberry - January 18, 2008

The trailer on the whole, from the presentation of it, to the idea famous quotes through out it, made it a smashingly awesome trailer.

However, I also find fault with the idea that it was built on Earth, can anyone say theoretically impossible? The energy needed to launch a ship the size of the Enterprise into space from a standing stop on Earth is near impossible!

Abrams needs to do his homework…..

303. Jake - January 18, 2008

294- good call.

I gotta say that even if there are a few tweaks here in there, isn’t that what we have been looking for for 15-20 years! I get the feeling that this movie will get back to the “humanistic” part of Star Trek w/ action being secondary. I think everyone should give this a try!

JJ and team are incredibly good at what they do, Lost is probably the deepest show on television and I can only imagine what great things they can do for Star Trek.

304. Blowback - January 18, 2008

#290 – Well said. I can sit and watch any Bond film (with the exception of Moonraker and Never Say Never Again) but the latest was by far the best experience. Sadly I am one of the few who liked Timothy Daulton because he was darker, grittier, and more realistic. Good idea but it wasn’t til now that the public was ready for the change.

Not that the older films are bad but they are seriously dated. The production values and sensibilities are from another time. I like em, I watch em, but the drawbacks are there also. At the risk of being burned at the stake I have similar feelings about TOS. I like em, I watch em, but I hunger for something new…

305. Not A Cretin - January 18, 2008

“However, I also find fault with the idea that it was built on Earth, can anyone say theoretically impossible? The energy needed to launch a ship the size of the Enterprise into space from a standing stop on Earth is near impossible!”


306. Ryan - January 18, 2008

#302 – new here? It’s the 23rd century, they’ve invented FTL travel, the transporter, and fusion power, and you believe they can’t find a way to get a ship into space?

307. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#290 Dame Dench

A little OT, but I’ll get to my point: Bond is ALWAYS the same guy — I don’t care if they re-booted for Casino Royale. These are ONLY MOVIES and I can suspend my disbelief for a moment (or 2 hrs.) to make myself believe that all Bond are the same guy. There is absolutely no need to have continuity throughout all 21 (22?) Bond films.

Back on topic: I feel sort of the same way about Star Trek. While in the case of Star Trek I DO feel there needs to be continuity between this film and the existing body of work, I can suspend my disbelief and say that these actors are the same characters, and that ship is the same ship; and as long as the movie has the same FEEL and tone of a Star Trek film, and is set in the familiar Star Trek universe, then I can definitely believe that this is a Star Trek Film.

308. LookingForward - January 18, 2008

302… so you have a hard time beliving a ship can be moved from the ground to space, but are absolutely find with faster than light travel, transporters, tractor beams and all the other PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE technologies in Trek? LAL!

309. Mary Jane - January 18, 2008

#305 & all the others:

It didn’t need these warp engines. It never launched from Earth. It was built in San Francisco and ASSEMBLED in space.

310. Andy Patterson - January 18, 2008

I don’t seem to be having the problems with this that some do. I really can’t see that much TO have problems with it (with the limited amount that is shown).

The original show is really Trek to me and all that matters. Every other incarnation has been of little or no consequence to me to be honest.

I’m going to, as I’ve been saying all along, wait and see the movie to make an opinion.

311. dan hurley - January 18, 2008

it is THE BIG E grow up and get over it . not canon .what ever. it,s kirk spock and the damn crew. the only ones with staying .the ones that started trek the ones who will save it .nuffsaid!

312. DesiluTrek - January 18, 2008

Wow, all I can say is it “feels right.” so much so it made me cry. After many years, shows and movies that used the Star Trek name, just this taste “feels” like genuine Star Trek to me.

As I have always argued, Star Trek is about explorers, not military men.

P.S. I love the inclusion of the original transporter sound effect.

313. Craig - January 18, 2008

This can’t be the San Francisco ships yards – on the ground.
We all know San Francisco and most of California sinks to the bottom of the ocean in Aug ?? 2063.

End of canon as we know it. :-P

314. simonkey - January 18, 2008

come on guys the bird of prey flew on earth in star trek 4!!!!

315. Aragorn189 - January 18, 2008

Great trailer. My mouth is watering just to see the theatrical trailer. It’s looking good.

316. AJ - January 18, 2008

305: TMP, which had isaac Asimov as its “Science Advisor,” maintains that warp engines can only be used outside the solar system.

I have no idea why, and it’s probably been ignored several time since then.

317. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008


Anti gravity, anyone?

There is established (albeit a little conflicting) information that the Enterprise was at least partially constructed on Earth…So I would say Abrams DID do his homework, since he was knowledgeable enough to realize only FANON — not canon — has said it was constructed in space.

As said before on this board, both and the book ‘The Making of Star Trek’ say that the Enterprise was at least partially built on the ground…IMO Abrams must have known this, otherwise he would have blindly followed the direction taken by the other films which showed a ‘Spacedock’ (i.e. TMP)

318. table10 - January 18, 2008


Loved all of that. Totally put into words what I was thinking.

Reboots are a good thing. With time, and with the manipulation of many different people, a franchise can start to wander away from what the original source material intended, and did well.

By rebooting the franchise, your not rewriting history, Orci and co. could make another dozen movies without ever touching a single storyline or plot that was introduced in TOS because of the time spent on that ship that we didn’t see. 5 years right?

To reboot star trek back to TOS is to try to regain its soul, what made it what it is today. So you change actors (cause its 40 years later), so you update the effects, so you have better knowledge of present day technology which makes you design it differently, so what?

Casino Royale was far more entertaining than any pierce brosnan one. Batman begins was far more entertaining than batman and robin.

319. TREK LIVES! - January 18, 2008

Hey Mary Jane sure looks like they are assembling the thing on EARTH. Sorry. So Sorry. All the cannonites can get off the train, because its time to junk 40 years of garbage designed to sell products and actually start telling stories again. I’m sure there are some fundamental things that shouldn’t be messed with – like having Darth Vader being Spock’s father, but the rest of it can be junked.

The king is dead, long live the king!

320. Turgenev - January 18, 2008

Hey someone mentioned talking about politics and isues rather than going on about nacelles… # 197?- I could throw out a topic:

Is it a form of ageism and a sign of the almighty “youth and beauty” culture that young attractive actors were hired for all the parts -well, except Simon Peg : ) ? The same nonsense in which only pretty people can make popular music these days?

I really have nothing more to contribute to a discussion of a film trailer so I just made up an issue to debate…

How about this:
Harlan is a prick… but a very good writer, particularly his thought provoking essays… Writers Guild strike is doing more harm than good…

321. Craig - January 18, 2008

You wouldn’t warp off the ground guys. You would fry everybody nearby and crash into all kinds of things. You wouldn’t really want to warp from within the solar system for that matter. Impulse out past the Oort Cloud then warp.

322. Ethan Shuster - January 18, 2008

#305: Hahaha… my thoughts exactly!

Transporters are also very likely impossible, due to various laws of physics.

As for the “was always built on Earth” idea, there is not tons of information to indicate this, and I believe it was never stated on screen in a film or tv series. Places like the Star Trek Chronology and the Encyclopedia are probably where this stuff comes from. But, by the Chronology’s own admission, for example, lots of their information is “conjecture”. In fact, though they are considered more or less canon, those books have in a few instances later been contradicted by something on screen, and a later edition included the changes.’s encyclopedia of things seem to get most info from those books, too.

The point is, the E being built in orbit is a concept introduced in only arguably canonical sources, many of which have never really dictated what happens in the movies or tv shows. And this is not some vital fact that much of the Star Trek universe rests on. Changing it makes little difference to anything. And as I tried to say above, it’s not really changing anything official.

And the fact that we’ve seen other ships docked in space has no bearing on this Enterprise. And again, the movie (ST1, ST2) Enterprise is the same ship as the original and was simply “refit” in space, not constructed there.

323. GARY - January 18, 2008


324. Judi Dench - January 18, 2008

“At the risk of being burned at the stake I have similar feelings about TOS. I like em, I watch em, but I hunger for something new… ”

If this new movie is to Star Trek what Casino Royale was to Bond, then … well, there is no possible way that’s a bad thing.

But Casino Royale wasn’t good pr popular *because* it was a reboot, or *despite* it being a reboot.

The entire discussion is completely irrelevant. Anyone who would prefer a bad Star Trek movie that stuck to continuity … well, sheesh, you’ve got at least four of those already. Anyone who thinks that, by definition, a Star Trek movie is bad *because* it doesn’t stick to the letter of the Star Trek Encyclopedia … well, bye.

I want a Star Trek movie that’s like the new Doctor Who series. One that I love and that’s the biggest thing in the country. Relative to the size of the country, more people watch Doctor Who now than Americans watch the Superbowl.

The way Doctor Who did it was great writing, understanding exactly what the appeal of the show was, getting to the core of it.

The core of Star Trek is not ‘the Enterprise was built in space’. The core of Star Trek is this: ‘mankind’s fantastic now and even better in the future’. That’s the nine word pitch for Star Trek, that’s the controlling idea, that’s the *point*.

325. JBS - January 18, 2008

93. Daren Doc – January 18, 2008
said “……But it was totally asking for it from the way it dressed.”

Daren, that was an extremely insensitive, disrespectful, neanderthal comment. Please, don’t ever say that again regarding rape, even in jest. It’s not funny.

326. Dave Sulu (no relation) - January 18, 2008

“You wouldn’t warp off the ground guys. You would fry everybody nearby and crash into all kinds of things. You wouldn’t really want to warp from within the solar system for that matter. Impulse out past the Oort Cloud then warp.”

Shit. Good point.

327. Thomas Jensen - January 18, 2008

The original Enterprise was purported to be 947′ long. I wonder if we’ll know the size of this ship? I always hated that in the spin-off series the Enteprise got bigger and bigger, so much so that it really didn’t seem realistic that these gigantic vessels couldn’t get themselves out of danger.

328. CaptainRickover - January 18, 2008

Well, my most fears has not come true and that is very satisfying. The new Enterprise seems to look good (as far I can see her). Can’t wait to see the rest of her (engeneering hull, deflector dish).

The proportions are all right, she’s not too big (this “bigger” effect might be a illusion, because the camera is very close). The bridgemodul seems like two decks high, what compares very good with the TOS-Enterprise (even if there’s just one window row).

The lettering is more like the TMP-era, but I have no problem with that. But is it only me, or have the hull a silver or chrome shining? But even with that, I will have no problem. The nancelles have the right porportions. They are really big, when you are very close to them. This ship is at last 289 meters (if you go after the established books) or 300 meters long. That’s as long like an Aircraft Carrier and the Enterprise is four times higher and two times wider (with saucer section of course).

But I have to say, constructing the entire ship on Earth with workers (!!!) and without robots or workbees seems a bit stuipid and illogical for a 23rd century shipyard. The energy and power to transport a 200000 tons (or far more!) vessel from the ground up to space should be enormous (and not very enviromental-friendly i guess :)) After that, they have to test it in space and must bring it in a spacedock, for checks and double-checks and for the case, something don’t work in the runs. Constructing that ship in space seems far easier (and cheaper) for me.

But it’s just a teaser and have not to show up in the final movie. If it does

then it will destory Star Trek for me!!!! ARRRGHH!!

Just a joke. I would not like it, but there are so many things in Trek I don’t like, but live with that (the stuipid destruction of the Enterprise-D for example).

329. AJ - January 18, 2008

320: Attractive young actors bring in the demographic which this film is reaching for. It’s about cash and franchise longevity (more cash).

330. ensign joe - January 18, 2008

I watched the first 10 seconds or so.. then stopped it.. i’m gonna catch this one in the theaters tonight!!!

331. BobbyG - January 18, 2008

Exclusive script scene from new Star Trek movie!

Young Kirk: This… new… Enterprise… It’s… beautiful!
Welders: Thank you! It’s taken years and thousands of man hours to construct!
Young Spock: Indeed. Tell me, what becomes of it in the future?
Old Spock, to Young Kirk: He blows it up forty years from now.
Welders: HE WHAT?????

332. haissemguy - January 18, 2008

I get shivers everytime i watch this.

333. SPB - January 18, 2008

#171 – CTIII –

Still spitting into the wind as always, I see.

“I’ll say this for him… he’s consistent.”

334. Jaay - January 18, 2008

I wonder if Leonard Nimoy got into the cast list simply because they use his voice in the teaser and possibly in some sort of flashback (or should I say flash forward)? As I recall James Earl Jones was in the cast for Star Wars Ep. 3 and all he had was a few lines at the end of the movie.

335. Stringfellow Hawke - January 18, 2008

I’m not going to pick on physics of a *TV creation* nor do I really care so long as I enjoy the movie, but I just want to say a few things for the sake of conversation and friendly debate. :)

1. It doesn’t matter if the fictional ship has warp engines or super-powered kryptonite fuelled nethicite. The simple structure of a ship that size would collapse under its own weight if *fully assembled* on Earth and launched as it stood.

2. Engines that size and that powerful, if ignited in atmosphere, would rip the ship to shreds, and leave a hole the same shape as the one on Io (or whatever moon has the massive crater). You’d never have to worry about the San Andreas fault again as the entire landmass of the Americas would be gone.

3. Using common sense, a ship built for efficient interstellar travel is designed for a weightless vacuum, not atmospheric travel. At least, not a ship of that size. I think it was referenced in at least “TOS: “Tomorrow is Yesterday”‘ that starships were not designed for atmospheric travel.

4. Using the excuse for advanced tech to do something so ‘simple’ as flying out to space is a false hope, for lack of a better word. We today have craft that fly, and submarines that travel undersea, but we don’t have flying submarines. Or Back to the Future/Blade Runner-type flying cars.

My somewhat-educated guess as to the whole one-shot deal we see here on the trailer is that we are indeed seeing the saucer section assembled on Earth. We know the saucers are capable of atmospheric flight from an albeit future future in TNG, but the same basic physics are there. Saucers are round. They can take the gravimetric and aerodynamic forces that would assault the ship on its way out.

It was also mentioned in some literature somewhere that the NCC-1701 was capable of separation, and it has been documented that the writing team have been reading the novels. It’s a safe bet they know about the separation and a possibility that it could be put on screen, in a reverse kind of way – as in, the saucer leaving orbit under its own power, or… and this leads into the next section.

Those aren’t the true final nacelles. They could be the method of how they get the saucer into orbit. They sit low enough to the section to reduce shearing, and it would take massive powered propulsion to get the thing into orbit in the first place. They could be an evolved version of modern day shuttle booster rockets.

The other idea is that they could be the first prototype nacelles, evolved from the Enterprise TV series, placed on the struts for fitting purposes. It could be that they fail in testing, or they try sending it up under its own power, and it fails for purposes mentioned earlier.

I’m of the opinion they aren’t the final product, though, since we don’t see the rest of the ship (struts and secondary hull), and this is, after all, only a *teaser* trailer. They gave us a taste, and that’s all we get until the later trailers are released, or until the movie itself if they’re holding off the final reveal Cloverfield-style.

336. Gillis - January 18, 2008

For everyone arguing canon about whether the Enterprise was built in San Francisco ORBIT or IN San Francisco (ON THE GROUND) – if anyone can cite a specific line of dialogue from any canon aired episode of any of the trek series or movies confirming/denying this, please speak now, or forever hold your peace. Enterprise 1701 says “San Francisco” on its plaque — We all expect to nitpick the “canon” of ST11, but the debate over whether Enterprise was built on Earth or space is downright silly, IMHO.

337. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008

#189 Fat Bruno

I think Gave Koerver stated that the JJ Abrams crew already contacted him about starships in one of the previous articles here.

Gabe, may you please confirm it?

338. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008

Wow that was great, a great teaser, possibly the best Star Trek teaser because it treats it like a movie, and not a “Star Trek Movie”, Bring it on.

I think that as more info comes out and “young” audiences see more info and see cool efx, youngish actors, etc. it just might cross over.

I mean plenty of kids saw Transformers who werent eve born when the cartoon first aired. I had to explain the backstory to my 17 yr old brother in law.

I think what might be laughable to the kids would be if this looked like a 2 hour t.v. episode which is whith the exception of Generations and First Contact the other 2 Next Gen movies looked like.

And If this works in 20 yrs we get a new crew and start all over again

339. AJ - January 18, 2008

Comic books have been made into films with varying degrees of success and care. Batman descended into stupidity before the reboot, and Fantastic Four started stupidly, and gave the fans a giant middle-finger when Galactus turned out to be a cloud (after a way-cool Silver Surfer).

This seems different, and I think JJ and team will do it right. Mr. Orci wrote that he reads all posts here, so they are fully tuned in to those who have supported Trek these 40 years.

I think the darkness around the Big E in the teaser is emblematic of the secrecy of the film project itself.

340. DesiluTrek - January 18, 2008

Sigh … I am so sick of these picky arguments about canon!

For pity’s sake, what good is canon anyway if we never had Khan or the Botany Bay sleeper ships in the ’90s??? Do you want to start an alternate Star Trek Earth universe where that happened, or do you want the Star Trek that is supposed to be an extension of our universe? What year would Star Trek’s Earth history start diverging from ours? 1979? Because there was never a Voyager VI that would become V’Ger? We are fortunate the original series was very lucky in getting the approximate date of the lunar landing right. Had they been wrong, we would never have a Trek “canon” that fits our Earth.

What passes for canon in Star Trek comes in recapturing the spirit of the original series — a group of advanced, enlightened humans (and others) who as explorers want to expand our knowledge by boldly going into the final frontier, where no man has gone before — and have fun doing it. The trailer gives me hope that the new team gets that.

341. Promoboy - January 18, 2008

Attention purists: You should read up on your show history before complaining. As per Gene Roddenberry in the book ‘Making of Star Trek’ (1968),the Enterprise’s components were constructed on Earth and the ship assembled in orbit.

However, Abrams and Orci have a right to do whatever they please. It’s now their sandbox– and this new Trek is their vision for a new generation.

I’ve been a fan since the early 70’s– and if they want to adjust Star Trek’s minor details, I’m fine with it– as long as the characters are consistent, and Roddenberry’s vision remains true.

If it helps attract new fans– and keeps the franchise alive— I say go for it.

342. Bubba 2008 - January 18, 2008

From the DarkHorizons review:

“Certainly the only sounds coming from a packed audience at the screening I was at were mock laughter and comments like ‘nope’ or ‘pass’.”

And this response is EXACTLY why they need to jettison all the encrusted canon and make this a Star Trek for a new era. I would have absolutely NO problem if they took the basic ST framework and hung a totally new skin on it, like they did with Battlestar Galactica.

the 20-somethings are WAY too cynical for the same old ST pattern.

343. DarenDoc - January 18, 2008

Please don’t be a “word fascist”. You know very well I didn’t mean any disrespect, Insensitivity, or “neanderthality”… That was a comment on the line of joking on here. I’m sure you are an intelligent person. Don’t let your sensitivities cloud you into thinking ill of others when there is none.

Take a lead from Lt. Uhura in TOS… “We have learned not to fear words.” Direct your anger to the evil people in the world. The ones who commit unspeakable horrors on others. Gain strength from your passions and sensitivities, don’t be made cripple by them.

peace and long life.

344. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008

#323 – Gary

Not needed.

You can download the teaser here on the right menubar. I just downloaded it with no problem if you use real player or similar type of software.

345. Wrath of Khan - January 18, 2008

Apologies, just know another Ralph who posts at BTN. Big Trek fan.

346. Craig - January 18, 2008

Its the training vessel or simulator on earth for this new class of ship.

Maybe prototype like the nasa enterprise shuttle. It never went to space.

347. Ryan - January 18, 2008

I believe the Enterprise was constructed on my dining room table using Testor’s model glue and paint. How it got into space is a mystery to me.

348. Stringfellow Hawke - January 18, 2008

Heh. I just watched the teaser, but it doesn’t change anything in my previous comment. JJ and his team are pretty darned good at misdirection, so I’ll keep my mind open until later in the year, when more is revealed. :)

I wonder if we’ll see an SF Shipyards site open up from their viral marketing team at some point?

I’m going to feel the forum mods pain acutely when they open them up. That’ll be a big ouch when the trollers and AICN naysayers arrive on the scene.

349. Kirokwannabe - January 18, 2008

Great trailer!

Do I care if “canon” is violated for a fresh start? Not a bit, and I’ve been watching every incarnation of Trek since the early ’70’s. My favorite: TOS.

I must reiterate for those of you still living in your parents’ basement: “Get a life.” If the new film illustrates of the relationships between the characters that made the original such a classic and so rewatchable, then Abrams will have succeeded. The rest of the details are just incidental.

I for one love the more gritty, realistic look a la BSG.


350. Blowback - January 18, 2008

#324 – I agree 100%. I want the movie to be mindful as to its roots and the fact that it’s standing on the shoulders of previous generations, but it must draw me in with its story…

351. jonboc - January 18, 2008

Looks really really good. But just a reminder. Trek was about magic in a bottle. Not “moreality plays” “social commentary” bala blah blah. Those truly were in the minority. And it was never, nor should EVER be about fancy FX..thats for the Star Wars video gamers. Bottom line, the show was incredibly fun , wildly imaginative adventure with characters that were damn fun to hang around. Something that is not easily recaptured.

To work, as StarTrek, this movie has to succeed on soo much more than updated looks, FX, etc…that is just the wrapping. Inside the package you must have characters you care about and like. That is where the ever so important element of on-screen chemistry comes into play. If you don’t get what that is, let me help. It’s Robert Redford and Paul Newman. It’s Shanter and Nimoy. Nimoy and Kelley. Shatner and Nimoy had chemistry. Sulu and Checkov did not. It’s Shatner and James Spader. Its Londo and G’Karr from B5. That magic connection, when actors “click” on screen is rarely planned and rarely re-captured. That will be the true test of this film. But really, I don’t give a rat’s ass if its built in space, on earth or my uncle Abner’s garage. I just want to walk out of that film and say..”that was some fun Star Trek!”

Having said that, damn it does look good, doesn’t it??

352. Dr. Image - January 18, 2008

Watched the low-res clip.
Couldn’t resist.
Interesting, well-executed, but as a purist, (OHHH!! GOD, WHAT A CLOSED-MINDED FCKHEAD!!!) I disapprove of and question the need to change the design of the E so radically.

353. Brian - January 18, 2008

Isn’t it entirely possible that once the ship is completed they simply used thrusters to levitate it out of the dockyard and then full impulse to reach orbit? It wouldn’t need the warp engines.

BTW, the bird of prey in STIV went into warp WITHIN earth’s atmosphere.

354. PaoloM - January 18, 2008

#348 “I wonder if we’ll see an SF Shipyards site open up from their viral marketing team at some point?”

What a fascinating thing this would be.

355. Victor Hugo - January 18, 2008

20-somethings are always cynical. They were mocking the ZATHURA trailer, but then afterwards they were crying in wonder and amazement like if they just saw “Neverending Story”.

20-somethings are sissies too.

356. Steve S - January 18, 2008

#259. Reboot; the new Battlestar Galactica. It has a few character names and the basic idea, but it has its own identity and I agree totally with 269, it doesn’t have to hold with anything that came before. The main reason is to throw out things that make absolutely no sense dramatically. Example. In the pilot movie for BSG-TOS, the 12 Colonies of Mankind are totally destroyed by the Cylon Empire. The human race is reduced to a few thousand refugee survivors trying to find a planet called “Earth.” Next week, the “rag-tag, fugitive fleet” gets to go to a space disco. Need I say more?

A great example of what I would call a “refresh” is Doctor Who. This is not a reboot as some have claimed. Chris Eccleston and David Tennet are the ninth and tenth Doctors, something happened to Gallifrey in the time that the series was on its forced hiatus, and now the Doctor is all alone. This version respects everything that went before, and adds some cool new stuff without alienating the fans of the series.

BTW, what you and Mr. Kurtzman did on “Transformers: The Movie” was amazing. When my daughter, who is the biggest fan of Transformers ever discovered that you guys were writing this movie, she became interested in Star Trek for the first time in her life. THAT brought a tear to this ol’ fanboy’s eye.

357. Turgenev - January 18, 2008

#348 I always thought Stringfellow would be good name for a son.

Perhaps better than Jan-Michael…

358. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008

Doc, that was the funniest thing I have ever read here! You owe me a new flatscreen now that I have doused mine with coffee!

The east coasters have been on here all night and the west coasters don’t sleep either. I’m starting to think that all threads have 300 posts to begin with.

When I saw the trailer for the first time, it wasn’t seeing the E that got to me. It wasn’t hearing the strains of the theme. Nor was it Nimoy’s voice-over. It was the sound of the transporter at the end that had my eyes welling up. Odd. I wonder why?

359. Ethan Shuster - January 18, 2008

Can we even really see the design of the ship? Seems to me you can barely see it.

360. Chris - January 18, 2008

It’s amusing to me that so many complaining about canon cannot even spell it.

It’s CANON, not cannon. One “N” only.

361. Turgenev - January 18, 2008

Think they’ll go hog-wild on the shuttlecraft design? – I’m stirring the pot now : )

362. AJ - January 18, 2008

351: Gene Roddenberry thought it was about social commentary.

But mixed with a good dose of Wagon Train. He was happy that TNG went directly into syndication so he could air shows about tolerance and anti-militarism during a conservative US presidency. Things got a little silly (Earth is a Utopia), but I always felt there was a reason that these guys were the good guys. Why use force against something one doesn’t understand?

Know your “enemy,” and maybe it was never an enemy after all. Diplomacy even in the face of hostility, and force as a last resort. For me, Trek was about that.

The chemistry thing in TOS? Yeah, that was there, too.

363. PaoloM - January 18, 2008

#358 “It was the sound of the transporter at the end that had my eyes welling up.”

I always wonder, how the hell did they make that incredible sound effect in the 60s?

364. Craig - January 18, 2008

Ok one last thing.

If a ship can go warp seven, do battle with klingons, explore strange new worlds, and encounter fantastic unexplained spacial phenomenon.

By golly, it raises to space under its own power (anti gravity – thrusters, whatever) and goes where no man has gone before.

So proud of the trek creative team… thank you for bringing trek to the big screen.

365. Alex Rosenzweig - January 18, 2008

#316 – Sure has, perhaps most notably in “Star Trek IV”. At first blush, it might seem like an odd line in TMP, since TOS itself had indicated that the ship went to warp practically within a planetary orbit before. OTOH, with the engines as yet not fully tested, getting out into at least the outer solar system would have minimized the likelihood of exactly what happened, having a chunk of space flotsam pulled into the wormhole created when the engines malfunctioned at warp-engage.

366. ensign joe - January 18, 2008

#336 Nothing I can think of off the top of my head..

but here is the memory-alpha link for what its worth.. (fwiw?) that states that the enterprise was built on earth (probably posted before but what the heck).. I myself don’t really care one way or another.. like you say there are bigger fish to fry..

and as far as being critical goes here is my order of importance:

1. Spirit of the show.. i.e. the spirit of adventrue.. the human condition.. can I walk out of the theater and say “now THATS star trek”

2. continuity… I expect some liberties to be taken its just going to depend on my interpretation that determines if they are deal-breakers or not…

367. DesiluTrek - January 18, 2008

362 — hear, hear!!!

368. fan1701 - January 18, 2008

How about getting ideas of your own . Tos is perfect just like it is. Go ahead and take a dump on it like Transformers or Battlestar galactica. You wont sell me any tickets.

369. Lancelot Narayan - January 18, 2008

I really don’t think that this teaser should be take so seriously. If you want to, then yes, The Enterprise was built in San Francisco, what’s the problem?

I think that what JJ is saying in this trailer (apart from “Come see my movie”) is metaphorical.

I think that everything else in the trailer should be paid more attention to. Those builders and welders….they are US. WE are building the future. That wonderful universe that Gene Rodenberry created is possible; WE just have to do the construction work. Listen to the other voices echoing around that shipyard. It has a sense of inclusion, we are all part of this. If we all work together and in the same direction, we can move on and out…for the better.

Or should I just go *beep* myself?

370. PaoloM - January 18, 2008


You really got the point!

371. AJ - January 18, 2008

364: That would have been strange, the Klingon BOP returns to the 23rd century to find that their entry into warp drive while in the atmosphere destroyed the West Coast (as someone here opined)?

“Uh, yeah, thanks for the whales and all. But you’re still under arrest.”

Kirk: “Why is Starfleet Command in Vegas?”

372. AJ - January 18, 2008


373. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

I wish you didn’t put the trailer up Anthony. I saw the trailer last night at a midnight screening, and I was blown away by how it looks. It definitely got the audience talking.

The trailer has a style and look that has been lacking in other Treks. I hope this look will be in the movie as well.

374. Freddie Wise - January 18, 2008

Dang people. This is a modern movie. Just because they change the set design, costume design, or ship design doesn’t mean they are violating so called “canon!” Modernizing the set, costume, and ship etc. is the same as modernizing the FX in my honest opinion.

375. Mazzer - January 18, 2008

I like the visuals of the trailer. But I have to say it, the ST music and Nimoy’s “Space, the final frontier” really sounded cliche and corny to me. I know many will disagree, but I think these elements need to be played down in the film to keep things fresh.

376. Chris - January 18, 2008

For the next teaser trailer, If Willam Shatner does the “Final Frontier” voice over then we’ll know he is part of this epic movie.

377. Will Johnson - January 18, 2008

Reminds me of a frickin Apple Commercial. I’m still waiting for something about this to make me go “Ok, I’m fine with the changes.” So far, Nimoy is still the only saving grace I can find.

378. Alex Rosenzweig - January 18, 2008

#328 – FWIW, minutiae lover that I am, I started counting what looked like decks in the close-up of the primary hull (working from the open sections). When I figured out that we were at Decks 6 and 7 at the widest part of the saucer, I quit counting, since while certain of the shapes are a bit different, it looks like the basic overall size is comparable to the original.

#340 – “Do you want to start an alternate Star Trek Earth universe where that happened,”

I don’t have to start one. That’s the one that Trek is. That it doesn’t match our reality is immaterial. Moving on…

379. Dansk - January 18, 2008


I think I just came.

380. Allister Gourlay - January 18, 2008

Re: 342
I totally agree…. I even remember hearing ” not again” or ‘ same old crap”
at the trailer for Nemesis!

Yes as long as Roddenberry’s vision remains true…
I just hope we dont get the OC in space with all these young beautiful people.
This film will sink or sail Star Trek again…good luck JJ and crew

381. Paul B. - January 18, 2008

#369 – Well said! Although I’m concerned about canon, etc., I’m much more concerned about the purpose and meaning of Trek, and this teaser shows that. Unlike Star Wars, Trek is about OUR future, and this movie seems to be trying to place it in that context.

I think that’s what one of the actors meant by comparing this movie to “Batman Begins.” Unlike the other, highly stylized Bat-flicks, Begins tried to place the character into the “real” world. (Gotham looks like a real city and not like Tim Burton’s cardboard playset.)

It looks like this Trek film will have that “real” look, which I like after 20 years of the TNG-style look.

382. 24thCenturykryptonian - January 18, 2008

I love all trek, tos, movies, tng, ds9 voy, even enterprise was not bad. I hope this movie fits in nicely with the rest of the entire series not overwrites it.Star trek does not need to be redone, ever, maybe just a fresh production team and some fresh ideas to kick start the whole thing into life. There seems to be a lot of TNG era haters here. TNG is what got me crazy about trek and made me go back and watch all the originals with a fresh perspective. If the new movie overwrites what we already have it will be a great shame. Im sure JJ aint daft enough to mess with it.thats like someone trying to “reboot /remake” Star wars…there would be riots. Besides if he aknowledges kirks death then he has to acknowledge generations.
I Think the trek future is safe.
The nacelles only look big because we are viewing them from a certain angle. The fact that so many people have an opinion(conflicting or not) on all this is only a good thing, its shows we care ,It shows what the star trek universe means to people.there aint many shows with a following like this, for this reason it will never die.

383. Rod of Rassilon - January 18, 2008

First time poster, long time reader.

I have held back from commenting because of the bickering, but after seeing the head on shot of the big E. all I could hear in my head were Gene Roddenberrys words to whoever it was designed the big E in the first place, I think this head on pic makes those words ring VERY true.

“Make her look like she has POWER!”

man a tear in my eye, but this feels SO much more “real” now :)

a side note, (I’m sure the thread is long enough so no-one to mind too much if this goes slightly off topic) but I’ve had this thought since I first heard about the new movie, but havent seen anyone mention it.

I believe what JJ and co should have done was spent about 7-12 million on 6-12 45min episodes so that the cast got used to the roles, and Paramount would have had 6-12 xmas specials for the next number of years.
That way the fans get actors that have settled into the roles and got some of the chemistry going, and if we “never” get another movie, we have a bunch of episodes that we wouldn’t have ever got. a “Good Business Decision” ? yeah, I think so.

Heck one of those episodes could even have dealt with shatner coming back :) everyone could have won.

384. David (now over the wings & flames thing. Sorta.) - January 18, 2008

Canon – established continuity in the original medium. “To Paramount – anything that made it on the screen”.

Reboot – a re-envisioning of the original, either as a continuation (ST:TNG), or as a new entity (Battlestar Galactica) that exceeds the originals success by exploring a new direction or subject matter. Also, a delightful animated children’s TV series.

Obsessed Fan – allows the individual to replace the ‘c’ in canon with ‘f’, thus enabling self-perpetuating arguments to increase online postings. These are the individuals identified in William Shatners classic Saturday Night Live skit.

Great Movie – after braving the Obsessed Fans, calls about reboots, and the inane discussion about canon – they succeed in bringing back the fun to Star Trek, in a well done movie.

Epilogue: Paramount is happy; they make money, and a sequel (or continuation of the canon-al reboot obsessed fan war-cry) is commissioned. Gene does not turn in his grave, and the Section-al guy gets his own blog to explain why he thinks the movie failed.

On behalf of the overwhelming percentage of Star Trek Fans, I apologize to those involved in the production of the current movie for the comments made by the ‘Star Trek Fringe’.

The needs of the many Fans, outweigh the needs of few or the obsessed.


385. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008

Gosh, it’s January already, they better start working a little faster or they’ll NEVER get that ship completed in time for a Christmas launch.

386. Cheve - January 18, 2008


They know they are under schedule. Don’t you see they are wielding at night?

387. j w wright - January 18, 2008

surprisingly, i like this trailer… but i prefer shatners preamble… or stewarts to nimoy’s gravely delivery

the 1701 was built in orbit. period.

asteroid belt mining and refining is what facilitates space based construction of space ships and space stations. its much more efficient; cheaper and energy efficient. its also a staple of science fiction and widely embraced in star trek.

it is a simply ridiculous notion that the constitution fleet would be built on a planetary surface. already a fundamental flaw in this new movie… how can they get anything right if they cant manage this simple aspect?

well, let ‘er rip…

388. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#335 —

Actually in ‘Tomorrow is Yesterday’ the ship WAS actually operating in Earth’s atmosphere — low enough for Captain Cristopher to get a good look at it from his fighter jet (which can fly at 75,000 feet, tops)

To be geeky about it, I would think impulse engines would work fine in the atmosphere.

389. CaptainRickover - January 18, 2008

# 290 Judy Dench

I tought this discussion was about the new E and the teaser, and not about the entire fandom.

Nevertheless, there are big differences between Bond and Star Trek. Bond allways have changes (and not just the girls :)). The entire Universe change with every new actor. It would not wonders me, if it would be said in Bond # 23 (just for example) that Daniel Craig was always the guy Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan played. But you’re right. The Craig-Bond seems to be a really re-boot of the franchise (I might be in the minority, but I like the old ones with Connery and Moore better).

Star Trek on the other hand has a continuing timeline and a fandom that can’t just be ignored. The new Trek will sucks, if the majority of fans avoids it . Or why do you think, Abrams hired Nimoy or the Enterprise is labeld with NCC-1701 or look very familiar to the TOS-design? There was allways something “nerdy” about Star Trek that Bond never had. And if everything is meaningless and unimportant, fans have to say, why they changed ENTERPRISE to STAR TREK – ENTERPRISE or they gave TOS a third season?

You count four bad and unsuccessfull Star Trek movies? If I’m not mistaken, there are only two. (V and X)

BTW: I have the impression, that there are many Orci-clones around in this message boards. Who is now the real Roberto Orci? The roberto orci or the robero Orci?

390. USS Enterprise NCC-1701 - January 18, 2008

Would everyone please stop referring to me as “the old girl?” I’m only 42, for heaven’s sake!

391. Paul B. - January 18, 2008

Does anybody else think the “transporter” sound at the end of the teaser is actually the “alien planet” sound they used in “The Cage” and others? It’s not quite transporter-y to me.

Anyway…I tried to resist watching it on the computer, but my inner 9-year-old Trekkie screamed for it, so I did…and now I’m gonna go see Cloverfield just to see and hear this on the big screen… Hearing Nimoy’s NEW voiceover, just those four words, made me tear up a little…sniffle…

The fact that “Space…the final frontier” is used along with the Kennedy and Armstrong quotes shows that Abrams & co. are on the right track. Let’s hope they STAY on track!

392. david - January 18, 2008

Isnt it funny, soooooooooo many bitchy ‘canonists’ on here screaming their little tantrums over the size of a nacelle, or whether a fictional starship was built in one fictional place or another entirely fictional place…and yet look at the poll on the side, overwhelmingly everyone loves the trailer.

I love this site, Anthony does a great job, but some of the messages on here are like something off another planet! I want to enjoy this movie, maybe I will, maybe I wont, but I am sick of sulky middle-aged men winging about the tiniest of points about a film THEY HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN YET!

Star trek is an important part of my life, a greatly entertaining and inspiring creation, but come on guys, as Shatner once said himself – GET A LIFE!

I think some of you have simply decided you dont want to like this movie and that is that. Sad really, one of Star Trek’s greatest lesson was to keep your mind open, not to prejudge, and to embrace what life gives you.

Abrams is giving us another Star Trek film. I dare you to enjoy it, go on…just a little bit…oh, no, sorry you can’t can you :-)

Well the rest of us are at least open to that possibility – and my enjoyment of this movie will have **** all to do with the shape of the ship;s nacelles, the number of nose hairs protruding from Captain Kirk’s left nostril, or whether the Enterprise was built in space, land, or in a giant plate of custard for that matter.

I want a great story, well acted, well presented and well made.

From the look of that trailer, I think I will enjoy my trip to the Odeon in December!

393. S. John Ross - January 18, 2008

#5 said it for me :) Sweet, sweet trailer. Here’s hoping!

394. Captain Pike - January 18, 2008

It’s just the teaser. Teasers usually have little to do with the final film. I think the whole construction of the Enterprise we see in the teaser is just a metaphor for the making of the movie. I guess we’ll see in a few months.
Everybody here has heard my rants before so I won’t go into it again.

395. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#387 JW

Don’t blame this movie for having it built (at least partially) on the ground…blame the established (yet conflicting) Star Trek canon that suggests otherwise. Abrams was just following (and maybe clarifying)that conflicting canon, rather than the fanon.

396. AJ - January 18, 2008

389: In this one, you’re a newborn.

397. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

oops! I meant that there is conflicting canon suggesting that it WAS built on the ground

398. OneBuckFilms - January 18, 2008

Okay, I’ll jump in.

This is a subtle way of telling the audience 4 things:

– Star Trek is Back.
– It’ll be different.
– It’ll have the same spirit of exploration and discovery as the original series.
– It’ll be kick-ass cool.

The Design of the Enterprise in the Trailer may not be completely what they will use in the new film.

I like this one.

399. Mazzer - January 18, 2008

#390: Nice nacelles, baby!

400. CW - January 18, 2008

For the most part, I liked the trailer.

I’m just gonna take a “wait and see” attitude and render a final opinion later.

401. Allister Gourlay - January 18, 2008

ding dong!

402. J M Enterprise - January 18, 2008

Bring on Monday when we can get an even clearer look at what promises to be a fantastic movie for every Trek fan, and perhaps we might even draw in non-trekkies too.

403. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008


Or the one

404. Judi Dench - January 18, 2008

“There was allways something “nerdy” about Star Trek that Bond never had.”

405. CaptainRickover - January 18, 2008


Sorry if I might be a bit to direct, but you’re allready dead and that since nearly 100 years (you died with 40 years, my dear). The 6’th sucessor is around now.

But I’m glad to see earlier adventures of you, when your was in your prime.

406. Kirk, James T. - January 18, 2008

399, how can this not be the Enterprise they’ll use in the film??? this is the real deal, of course in the film i think this teaser will be a segment of a scene

407. Doug Haffner - January 18, 2008

Reboot: Aye laddee that’s an easy task. A reboot is a mechanical tool designed to do repetative tasks. Did ya ne hear of “I Reboot” by that Asimov fellow from Glasgow? I wouldna trust a reboot with me bairns, or ta make scotch, but she’ll be fine for doing things tedious for we humans…ye welding deck plates.


408. CaptainRickover - January 18, 2008

# 404

I was meaning that not negative, that’s wyh I set in in “…”

409. robert gillis - January 18, 2008

With apologies to the Simpsons…

Frink: Yes, over here, n’hey, n’hey. In episode BF12, the Enterprise was clearly said to be built in space above San Francisco, and now you have it built on Earth, Please do explain it.

Lucy Lawless: Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, the temporal cold war changed it.

Frink: I see, all right, yes, but in episode AG4, the lettering on the hull —

Lucy Lawless: Temporal Cold War.

Frink: But the Nacelles are clearly not proportional–

Lucy Lawless: Temporal Cold War.

Frink: [under breath] Aw, for glaven out loud.

410. EM - January 18, 2008

It’s so obvious people.
This “Teaser” is Romulan propaganda!

411. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

Wow! Tease me some more, please!

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

412. Sular - January 18, 2008

I don’t care who dogs this teaser. The point is, TREK IS BACK and for the millions of followers and fanboys (and girls) around the world, it’s long overdue. The mother of all sci-fi is alive and well.

And to quote the end of TMP, “The human adventure is just beginning”.

413. Cal-Techer - January 18, 2008

This is FRIKKIN’ AWESOME!!!! Here at Caltech, several of us are actually working on the theoretical and applied physics of making this dream a reality. We’re not so much interested in the minutiae of a fantasy universe… but in stories to keep inspiring us (and the public who fund us) to reach that goal.

From what I’ve seen so far Mr Abrahms, Mr Orci, a job well done! ;)

414. diabolik - January 18, 2008

OK, folks, here it is…

FILMED Trek = canon

Before: Enterprise building, never seen or referred to on film.

Now: Enterprise seen being built, on film… NOW CANON.


415. kalabro - January 18, 2008

For all the whiners or strict canonists or True Trekkies or whatever who are saying that they won’t go see Star Trek–based on a 30-second trailer, mind you–I have to say, “Thank the Great Bird! That’s one less Comic Book Guy to ruin my moviegoing experience with their incessant fanboy whinging!”

416. Judi Dench - January 18, 2008

“There was allways something “nerdy” about Star Trek that Bond never had.”

Honestly … no. That’s not true.

Star Trek has been a huge mainstream success. Wrath of Khan had the highest opening weekend of any movie to that point. Search for Spock was one of the highest grossing movies of 1986. TNG was consistently
getting as many viewers as a top ten networked show.

This movie could be the highest grossing movie of the year if everyone who kind of likes Star Trek goes to see it and every single ultra-fan stays away. It will be the biggest flop in movie history if only the fans go.

Star Trek has always attracted fanboys. That’s great. But fanboys were never even anything more than the tiniest minority of the audience. Most people watched Star Trek to get some good jokes, watch people punch weird looking aliens and see sexy ladies show loads of green skin.

Ideally, it should appeal to both fans and norms alike. But the producers only have to *choose* to appeal to the fans. They *have* to appeal to people who like good movies first and foremost.

Optimism is cool. Space is cool. The future is cool. Painting Rachel Nichols green … that’s way cool. Everyone loves Star Trek, not just the nerds.

417. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008

I have a question:

When did “whinging” become a substitute for “whining”? And why?

I’m a bit old-school when it comes to spelling, so I am slow on the uptake on things like AOL speak or text short-hand. Took me a couple months to get “pwned”. Until I accidentally typed it that way.

Please to be informing.

And, Vulcanista, I would love to, but I am a married man.

418. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#384 —

I’ll even go as far to say:

“The needs of the Star Trek Franchise outweigh the needs of the anal-retentive canonist fans.”

419. Judi Dench - January 18, 2008

“# 290 Judy Dench”

Sheesh. I won that Oscar and people still can’t spell my name.

I’m the real Judi Dench, you know. Ask me anything if you don’t believe me.

420. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

Judi — boxers or briefs?

421. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

Judi — is it true there is nothing like a Dame?

422. Turgenev - January 18, 2008


Perhaps if the trailer had a clip of Senator Obama in it, he would then gain an enormous lead over Clinton in the primaries.

He could have been a welder and said something like “It’s time to think about the future and to get from here to there.”

Then a voice in the background whispers “And I’m Denny Crane now, damn it.”

423. Star Trek XI | Primo teaser - Film 3D - January 18, 2008

[…] Guarda il teaser di Star Trek Vai al sito ufficiale di Star Trek […]

424. Rick James - January 18, 2008

This new Enterprise looks like it borrows heavily from the look of the Archer era NX Enterprise. Frankly it doesn’t really bother me that much. After Star Trek First Contact, I consider the time line of Star Trek’s “past” to be contaminated beyond repair. At least this ship does not look like the ship did in the first two TOS pilot episodes. That look IMO is dated and has to go. I like the TMP era Aztec pattern on the hull. I hope this movie actually depicts where the shield grid lines are too. It never made sense to me why Starfleet would add more MASS to a star ship by giving it a coat of paint.

As to launching a big ship off the ground, who knows. Maybe they will tow the sucker using gigantic 23rd century Chinook style helicopters. Once the ship is up in the air maybe a set of throwaway booster rockets, attached to the hull, will do the rest of the work. Spaceship One was launched by being flown up into the air by Whiteknight. Then the actual Spaceship One module was detached and fired its booster rocket to hit the altitude needed to achieve orbit.

425. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

419 Judi Dench-
What’s Jeff Palmer REALLY like? And was that purple dress uncomfortable in Shakespeare In Love?

426. sisko - January 18, 2008

First, the teaser trailer is enough to get me excited about a Star Trek movie again.
Second, I still the teaser from Star Trek VI is the best one.
Third, interesting that they had Nimoy re-record the “Space, the final frontier” line rather than use the one from KHAAANN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fourth, there is no fourth.
Fifth, there is no fourth.
Sixth, remember folks, no matter what good or evil Abrams and folks do to this movie, you will always have your Star Trek: The Original Series on DVD. Berman and crew did evil (in my opinion) with VOY and ENT but I can happily ignore them and their “contributions” to Trek and go on with my Trek life. (Don’t even get me started on Star Trek IX: Take 1, Star Trek IX: Take 2 was a better attempt, so to me, technically this movie is Star Trek X not XI.)
And seventh, I bet that teaser looks kick butt on the big screen and on the official internets release.

And on that note, we cue the music…

As Capt. Pike once said, “Engage!”

427. MvRojo - January 18, 2008

Well, that gave me chills. :)

428. Prologic9 - January 18, 2008

So what are the audience reactions like why you guys saw it at the theater? Unfortunately, mine was a little quiet with a lot of laughing mixed in…

429. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#419 Dame Judi…

That’s why I referred to you using your title ;)

430. Bono Luthor - January 18, 2008



I was kind of expecting to hear Russell Watson singing though.

431. Bubba2008 - January 18, 2008

Just to prove I have fan-boy credentials regarding the nacelles….

Is it just me or do the front domes look eerily like Gabe Koerner’s re-imagined Enterprise? It looks to me like they flare out as the come forward.

432. Anslow - January 18, 2008

I am a big Trek fan and admit to being displeased when inconsistencies pop up between the various series. But I’m not entirely sure I understand the enormous objection to the new movie violating canon. After all, every single Star Trek movie and series has violated canon, to some degree or another, of movies and series past. The Klingon ridges are perhaps the most obvious example, but there are dozens if not hundreds more, ranging in severity from subtle to mind blowing. We all cringe when we notice these things, I’m sure, but I doubt many of us threw up our hands midway through watching DS9 and vowed never to watch it again because of some slip up somewhere that contradicted something established in TNG. Why should this movie be any different? We’ll all go see it, and we’ll all enjoy it primarily based on how good the story is. Those of you saying you won’t enjoy it or won’t even go see it just because the nacelles are too big, or just because the Enterprise wasn’t built in space, should have stopped enjoying and watching Star Trek long ago, maybe even as soon as the second episode of TOS.

433. Paul - January 18, 2008

“She is a Beautiful Lady and we love her very much” Damn she looks gorgeous!

434. Chain of Command - January 18, 2008

Finally, STAR TREK is back.
No more A, B plot storylines that don’t relate to each other.
No more “meanwhile on deck 8″ episodes with no adventure.
No more psychologists sitting on the bridge.
No more stilted,bland camera work.
No more hotels in space.
No more phased tachyon pulses (see next).
No more technobabble
(Hopefully) no more wince inducing dialog
No more Bermaga.

Nope, no more. STAR TREK is back. Star Trek’s 20 years of “colon” cancer has been cured. It’s not just STAR TREK, with the LEGENDARY characters that made it work in the first place.

435. table10 - January 18, 2008


The marketing for this thing is gonna have to be really intelligent, and really innovative.

I don’t know any other two words with as bad a reputation in mainstream as star trek.

My opinion, use the quote from Keith Urban about the radio station being in high def, and build a campaign around it. The big thing right now is high definition and flat screens, you either have one or want one. So present a film about a subject that may have looked blurry and uninteresting to you before, but if you give it a seconf chance in high def, you will see a whole lot more there than you did before.

436. MaddTribble - January 18, 2008

Doesn’t anyone seem to remember the Big E getting chased through the clouds by an Air Force interceptor?! (Tomorrow is Yesterday) Doesn’t Voyager land on a planet? Can we please put this land or space thing to rest? Relax, take a deep breath, and enjoy. This should be a fun ride. I for one like how they give the building of the ship a gritty edge, like the epic undertaking it would have been. Can’t wiat to see it!

437. bill hiro - January 18, 2008

“Everyone loves Star Trek, not just the nerds.”

Based on the ratings for the last two shows and the box office for the last couple of movies, that remains to be seen. Star Trek, in whatever form, has always been a niche property that occasionally broke out into wider mainstream success (i.e. Star Trek IV and mid-to-late seasons of TNG). How much will Star Trek have to change to crossover into the realm of the mainstream blockbuster that the film’s budget clearly suggests the studio is looking for? The $200 million+ domestic/ $500 million+ worldwide territory? To appeal to a wide audience that clearly hasn’t been that interested in Star Trek for a long time? And how much can it change and still be recognizable as Star Trek to the people who have loved it and gotten behind it for the last couple of decades? They’re thorny questions, and certainly in light of a movie like, for example, Superman Returns, which was also ‘sort of a reboot, sort of not’ of a once hugely popular franchise. A talented, bankable director with a vision and a great track record, the backing of a major studio, all the money in the world thrown at it, a good cast, a built-in fanbase, and an almost $400 million worldwide gross, yet its still considered a “disappointment” by fans and the wider audience. So tracking the fortunes of Abrams’ “Star Trek” over the next year (as well as its audience) is going to be an interesting endeavor.

438. Doug - January 18, 2008

Okay, purists of the “mighty canon,” explain this…

Kahn and his followers took over the earth in the mid 1990s.

Voyager VI was launched from earth at the end of the 20th century.

the Eugenics War took place in the 1990s.

Now we all know none of these events happened. Canon is good up to a point. BUT this is a movie, “Star Trek” is a series and somethings evolve with time (or wither away). What technology that was available to the film makers in the 1960s is “dinosaur fodder” compared to today. Should the new producers stick to 1960s technology just to appease fans from back then or try to build upon that and add a ‘next generation’ to its fanbase?

I say let’s move on and boldly go…

439. Chain of Command - January 18, 2008

Change “not just Star Trek” to “now”!

440. Kameron - January 18, 2008

Ok let’s think about a few things. Earth in the Star Trek Future is dependant on Solar Power. Since this is renewable then they should be able to harness enough power to do what they want. As mentioned above they do have warp power. If the warp engines are enough to pull away from the gravity of the Sun they should be able to break Earth’s atmosphere. In STIII they first introduced an actual space dock at earth. If people’s theory that it is built in space it could be here. Even if it wasn’t there are tractor beams and I’m sure there are a couple of ships in starfleet that could help “tow” this into space. Either way like so many people are saying this is a teaser and it’s just attributing to how this film is being “built” Built on Earth’s past, the desire to move forward and the time for something new. As for the darkness, it looks like it might be night. So what!! When you are trying to tease you don’t have long fly by scenes showing every detail. You leave some things to the imagination. There are so many fans in the world today that feel the so called timeline is an absolute and it can not change. I’m sure that JJ is trying to pay homage to this fan base as he should. The flip side of this is that they are also trying to get new people to watch. If the new people wanted to watch things they way they were they would simply sit down and watch reruns. If this is successful new people might just do that. If that happens then the Star Trek Legacy truly lives on. Fans of the world think about that.

441. bill hiro - January 18, 2008

“Okay, purists of the “mighty canon,” explain this…

Kahn and his followers took over the earth in the mid 1990s.

Voyager VI was launched from earth at the end of the 20th century.

the Eugenics War took place in the 1990s.

Now we all know none of these events happened.”

They took place in the fictional universe of Star Trek. I no more expect them to have taken place in the real world than I do for anything in the new movie to take place in the real world, a couple of hundred years down the road.

442. Mike - January 18, 2008

Actually canon states that the ship wasn’t build in space, it was built on earth.

443. lwr - January 18, 2008

just saw it at Marley station regal:

it was awesome.
one the big screen it is amazing.
without a doubt emotional.
(my only grip is that instead of Nimoy’s voice, I would have used a grainny shatner voice from TOS to tie in with the countdown, kennedy speach, and armstrong speech.)

after seeing this i would not care if the Enterprise was built in my pool!


444. Alex - January 18, 2008

Do you think it’s a coincidence that the first image of the Enterprise in high-res war released on 17/01/2008? You know, as in “1701”?

445. The Quickening - January 18, 2008

My reaction was pretty much half and half.

Everything was great about the teaser, until the STAR TREK music began, along with Nimoy’s voice over and the appearance of the same old ENTERPRISE ship. My heart kind of sunk a little and I couldn’t figure out why, and then it hit me: there was nothing really special about it because there has been so much TREK over the years, I am already full of it. There was no magic or spark. Nothing. Only the “new” worked for me. The familiar, left me cold. It was not like seeing a teaser about a movie you never heard of or a franchise just beginning. It wasn’t fresh or new at all, just a variation of what has gone before.

As I thought about it, that same fear I have had since the film was announced crept back: there simply hasn’t been enough time yet to really NEED new TREK–to long for it like a former lost lover–not only from the public’s perspective, but from the average fan as well.

If I feel this way, is it possible that peripheral fans–or, people who have not gotten TREK in the past and have laughed at it like it’s a cult or something; why should this change their minds?

Don’t feel the masses of film audiences are just going to start liking TREK because it looks “cooler” and is contemporarily designed, and if they do, as soon as the traditional elements appear–those done to death by 10 movies, 5 TV series, etc.–they will feel and react just as I did.

This is why my argument from the beginning was that if a new film was produced after only a few years of no TREK, it had to be TOTALLY new–no Shatner or Nimoy, no strangely designed ship, silly pajama uniforms, etc… radically different.

Since the film makers keep claiming this film is aimed at both new and old audiences, then what can we get from it other than a hit and miss movie and a hit-and-miss reaction to it… exactly like the one I got from the teaser trailer.

Hate being dark here, but that was my reaction.

446. Captain Robert April - January 18, 2008

Time to stop with the crap and just admit that it’s a reboot.

447. bill hiro - January 18, 2008

“So what are the audience reactions like why you guys saw it at the theater? Unfortunately, mine was a little quiet with a lot of laughing mixed in… ”

Again, this illustrates my point that our reactions on this board are in no way representative of the wider audience.

448. VOODOO - January 18, 2008


How is it a total reboot if Nimoy is playing Spock in it?

449. catchupwiththesun - January 18, 2008

awesome. gut instinct says this footage is for trailer only. i love that the fan blades are moving. easier to tell when i saw it on the big screen.

450. Terpor - January 18, 2008

Still is Star Trek Enterprise canon to STXI?

451. CaptainRickover - January 18, 2008

# 416

You’re right about everything.

But you’re not a Star Trek fan in Germany. Most people here think Star Trek is just for “nerds” or teenies. The last three Star Trek movies attracted an audience around 2 – 4 million people (and just 1,5 million for Nemesis), the last Bond attracts around 7 million people (if I’m not mistaken, but I have to say, I’m not sure).

German TV handled Star Trek allways like a not very well loved stepchild.
TOS was translated in a horrible way, to make it attractive for a young audience (additional jokes and stuipid rhymes that was called “cool” in the 70’s). TNG never runned in the prime-time, but if you where lucky, you could watched it daily in the early afternoon. The same with DS9 and VOY. ENT was running just sometimes in the weekend; monthly, if you get luck.

But Star Wars is something entirly different (to the people I know). Darth Vader is cool, Spock is a nerd.

I will not say, make Star Trek just for the fans. By myself, I tought Voyager was a bit lame and Enterprise was the lamest Star Trek show ever. First Contact was the most sucessfull Star Trek movie (here in Germany), mostly because it runned a few months after Independence Day and the trailer was showing a big Space Battle and the Borg. People like that, even the non scifi-fans.

In an artistic sense, it would be more interesting to re-design everything and creating a complete new future. But for the new movie, I don’t thnik, that will happen. It it is supposed to be new and old together. I like that, but as an irrational fan (most fans are, but aren’t humans irrational beeings?) I have my doubts, until I’m convinced. I would have prefered a movie placed somewhere in the 25th century with an entire new ship and crew. But that’s not what happend and so be it.

I think, giving the fans some sweets is not a mistake , as long the story and the look rocks at all. A wise Star Trek fan (I think it was Bernd Schneider) sayed: “First the movie, canon later.” (or something like that)

# 419

I’m sorry for the wrong spelling. I will know better for the future.

452. Plum - January 18, 2008

… Just checked this out on YouTube… noticed the number of views are at 5,888 already!!!

453. cameron - January 18, 2008

I do not care one bit about it Enterprise was built on Earth or in space.

The trailer is awesome. JJ is giving everyone, including new fans, the true beginings of ST.

Enterprise was commisioned in 2245 and Kirk got her in 2263. The teaser trailer is giving us something we never had a kids growing up, the very start of the most famous ship in scifi history.

So what it looks more metalic or bigger, it has a saucer section, two warp nacells, an engineering hull. Same basic shape, and most importantly this….


Try not to bash this too much. At least it is not Berman doing this!?!

I will be in line to see it 12-25-08

454. Paul B. - January 18, 2008

#445 – A lot of us HAVE been missing Trek for the past 20 years. I gave TNG a chance, but it still bores me worse than the average “Charles in Charge” episode. DS9 is growing on me (I’m watching on DVD from the start), but it’s not the “final frontier” and “strange new worlds” of Star Trek.

The last time I felt like I was watching “Star Trek” was STIV:TVH. (Well, “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was the one TNG episode that I’d pay money to see on the big screen…) Since the dawn on TNG, Star Trek was already being rebooted/reimagined: Romulans with bumpy heads, Cochrane as a drunk from Earth, etc…

For me, the “new” and the “old” mixed perfectly in this teaser. Hearing Nimoy and the TOS notes cemented that this IS Star Trek….something I’ve been missing for 20 years.

455. lwr - January 18, 2008


the guy next to said cool ( he was about 18-25)

heard afew guys in the back mumble something about “did not even know star trek was still around”

and a group of two or three directly behid me laughed and thought it was part of Cloverfield ( because there was no preview notice attached, it just started with the Paramount/bad robot logo and then said from JJ abrams), then i heard one say they thought it was Transformers 2(??)


I distinctly heard one of them say ” what is this?” and then” shit that’s the Enterprise?).

456. Sean4000 - January 18, 2008

I actually got a lot, and I mean A LOT, of boos in my audience. Strange though, this is supposed to be a happy time for Star Trek, no more Berman, no more Braga, and a bold new director; J.J. Abrams.

I agree with #446, they ned to say if this is a totally new reboot or just the back story we always knew happened but never really saw. Once I know definitively, it will make accepting this move much easier for me.

457. AJ - January 18, 2008

I agree with some here that the Big E and her nacelles + Nimoy and Trek musical intro made my 43 year old heart pitter-patter. But that trailer would have no resonance for an 8-year old or a teenager.

I think they attached Cloverfield to this trailer to bring several demographics together into one room, but JJ will have to reveal more of his “construction” project over the year in a way that will attract younger viewers.

Also, the flick has to be damn good for the critics, so they can pass on the good news to the non-fans.

458. Doug - January 18, 2008

#115 stick welders?

What? Did you think they were going to use super glue to fasten the hull plating together?

KIDDING!!! (BIG grin)

459. Sean4000 - January 18, 2008


This new look sure seems to be decendant of the NX-01, it also had aztec paneling, etc.

How this 1701 “de-evolved” into the TOS Enterprise remains to be seen.

Time will tell……

460. Russ - January 18, 2008

Great teaser trailer. :D

Look forward to checking it out on the big screen this evening.

461. Sam Belil - January 18, 2008

Judi Dench — Casino Royale was a re-boot (I’m a huge fan). That happened to be my favorite Bond movie along with From Russia With Love of all time!!!!! What made Casino Royale so great was that Daniel Craig not only played Ian Fleming’s Bond to the book, but it happened to be a fantastic and gritty spy adventure (no gimmicks, no fancy bells and whistles, backpack rockets etc). Though the Bond franchise made a lot of many — it lost some luster because of the gimmicks (though I did like Brosnan and Daltons Bond). The point is Casino Royale was FANTASTIC STORY TELLING! That what’s this movie needs to be great story telling, and I biggest fear is that it will all “bells and whistles” — and NO SUBSTANCE!!!!

462. Dilithium'R'Us - January 18, 2008

Re: Earthbound Enterprise construction

I’ve been reading with amusement all of these posts from people dissatisfied that the USS Enterprise is depicted in the teaser trailer as being built on Earth, presumably in San Francisco. The only conclusion I can come up with is…

You are all acting very silly!

Why is it so easy to accept anti-gravity and artificial gravity technology in the Star Trek universe, and NOT accept that starships can be built on the ground? You wouldn’t even need scaffolding or structural support – just anti-gravity generators! You wouldn’t need the life support systems that would be required in space, either. And launching would be just as easy as it is for Trek shuttles and starships (yes, starships!) to take off from the ground without rockets.

And the idea that all of the construction would be automated by machines is ridiculous too. If you could automate so much of the constuction, couldn’t you also automate much of the functions of the starship itself, too? Why need a 400-person crew?? Even present-day highly-automated automobile factories need hundreds of auto-workers to function.

Don’t you think the writers of the movie (and TOS, and all of the other Trek series) would have thought about all this already, ESPECIALLY when they know that anti-gravity and artifical gravity exists in the universe?

Kudos to JJ Abrams and the writers for sticking with “canon” and NOT “re-booting” the franchise. It would have been very easy for them to change things around and say “The Enterprise is too big to be constructed on Earth. Apparently anti-gravity technology is NOT as powerful or useful as the original series depicted it.” I would have been very disappointed if they had attempted such a thing.

I am confident that Star Trek is in good hands, and I am very pleased that they are sticking to established “canon”.

463. Sean4000 - January 18, 2008

Anyone remeber when Henry Archer stuck the little “warp core” in the toy ship and it was magically floating in Earth’s gravity? I guess the same principle applies here.

464. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008

Anybody else out there think Nimoy sounds a bit like John Huston?

Anybody out there remember who John Huston was?

465. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

I’m psyched. The Atlanta TV station I work at is running a blurb on Star Trek The Tour. Shatner’s in the video, sitting in a recreation of the TOS Capn’s chair. (Anthony: it’s APTN material carried by CBS, if you have those connections. I’m sure lots of news media in Long Beach, CA have it. It’s better video than the home grown stuff in an earlier post.)
Wish I knew when the tour hits Atlanta. I can’t find a date. But, fun to see, anyway.

466. Rastaman - January 18, 2008

Contrary to popular opinion, the memory of my childhood has the Enterprise being built on earth. I always imagined it built on earth, and I am happy that JJ agrees.

I even seem to recall some commentary by Gene Roddenberry himself that he wanted to continue the naval tradition of ship construction in San Francisco. It is a homage to naval history that the Enterprise was built in the San Francisco shipyards, as the ship’s plaque indicates.

As for the trailer, I wanted to see more; however, that is probably a good thing.

467. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

Captain —
John Huston was a director who filmed “The Bible” and cast himself as God.

468. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008


Ah so someone remembers well, doesnt Nimoy sound a bit like the almighty in this trailer?

He also played Noah in the Bible, oh and the Lawgiver in one of the Planet of the apes movies.

I remember his distinctive voice from the old Lord of the rings/Hobbit cartoon, I think.

Oh and he directed some old humphrey Bogart movie….:-)

469. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008

Let’s move the conversation to something a little more interesting than debating “canon.” Here’s an interesting question to debate:

When building a huge starship such as this, would you build it’s frame and shell first, then build the insides afterwards? Or, would it be easier to build the decks of the ship, move all the innards into the various decks, then as the last step put the outer skin on to seal it up?

To me, it makes more sense to build the ship from the inside out. And with all the work that needs to be done on the inside, it would make more sense to do it on earth with gravity and air to breathe. If you build the outer hull first, then you have to move all the stuff from the innards through doorways and various portals.

Granted, when constructing buildings on earth, they get it under roof and closed up before working on the inside.

Whataya think?

470. Judi Dench - January 18, 2008

“Based on the ratings for the last two shows and the box office for the last couple of movies, that remains to be seen. ‘

The Enterprise pilot and Voyager TV movies showed that there was an audience there … but it couldn’t be taken for granted.

Everyone knows Star Trek. Everyone, at one point or another, has enjoyed Star Trek at some level. I think the fans have come to overshadow the show, and came to dominate the agenda of the show. But it’s a really strong idea, quite unlike (and much more grown up) than any of the trendy ‘dark’ SF that’s around. Everyone knows the set up.

The franchise is at rockbottom at the moment … but that’s a great excuse to try a few new tricks, relearn what was great in the first place.

Star Trek is a great idea.

Look … Doctor Who went through this twenty years ago. It was written off, the BBC thought it was a dead show for nerds. But that’s a great idea for a show, too. It just needed the right writers. Now it’s the only show in history to win a TV Quick and Hugo award in the same week, there are two spin offs and the Christmas Day episode was a bona fide national event (and the second most watched piece of television in the UK last year).

The same will happen to Star Trek.

471. Sean4000 - January 18, 2008

I could have gone either way on the ship construction.

I’m sure they were built in both places but the Enterprise was built on Earth in San Francisco, and I assume “launched” from the orbiting San Francisco docks in a ceremonial event. I don’t see a big discrepency.

Much like the Enterprise D was built on mars and finalized in orbit of mars before being brough by the giant spider dock to Earth where Picard’s shuttle took him too it.

472. Matt - January 18, 2008

Sisko, by “Star Trek IX: Take 1″ and “Star Trek IX: Take 2″ are your referring to Insurection and Nemesis? Just wanted to make sure there weren’t other versions of these films out there.

473. BLFSisko - January 18, 2008

Is it build in space? Is it build on Earth? Let´s wait for the movie, then we can make the discusion. But for now I can only say WOW. Seeing the teaser, I just was choked up. It gives me back the “Trek-Feeling” I want more !!!

474. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

#260: from

re·boot (rē-bōōt’) tr.v. re·boot·ed, re·boot·ing, re·boots
To turn (a computer or operating system) off and then on again; restart.

BTW, after three tries, Netflix finally sent a “Transformers” disc I could play. I just gotta say, that was one FUN romp at the movies! Great job and thanks!

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

475. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

some old Humphrey Bogart movie…

The African Queen, maybe?

See also Moby Dick (screenplay by Ray Bradbury)
and Treasure of the Sierra Madres (also Bogie)

(yes, I know you’re being facetious)

476. lwr - January 18, 2008


I think Paramount needs a BIG,BIG,BIG marketing campiagn to show that this is not the STAR TREK that you got for free every Wed night on UPN. this is not the Star Trek that gets joked about on Family guy or Futurama.
this is not the Star Trek that has become as much cultural parody as it has become cultural phenomenon.

Parmount has to go out of the way to convince the masses that this is more than 2nd rate special effects and techno babble double speak TV show put on the big screen.

this is much like Warner s did with BATMAN in 1989, to show that this was not anyway like the ” gee wikers” golly gee” Adam West TV show.

it is crucial that as secret as some want this to be, there has to be a blitz showing the new Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et all.

in needs to be in print. on billboards. on the internet.

at Comic conventions, on the Tv, on the Radio.

the Buzz needs to everywhere.

hell spend some money and have the damn “first look” on that drudge they have now before the previews in the theaters….that way EVERY movie goer will get a look.

Paramount needs to promote this film like it has promoted no other film before, or else it truly stands a chance of arriving DOA…. no matter what we the fan will think. Canon.No canon. Reboot or revision.

there has to be be a big, no holds barred trailer on IRONMAN and INDIANA JONES to show the non-under 40 and basement trogladite crowd that this is potentially one kick butt movie.

we all know the “Kevin Smith” types from DIE HARD 4 , the “free Enterprise” bunch, and the “galaxy quest” warriors are comming. heck we are all here now!

But to succeed this film needs more, much more.
no matter how great a product Mr Orci has written and Mr Abrams has assembled, it will make no matter if ” joe 6 pack” thinks it no different than the reruns that come on Mon- Fri at 6.

477. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008

Don’t forget that Dixon Hil rip-off “The Maltese Falcon”

I guess I meant some old Humphrey Bogart movies…

478. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

Oops, Shoulda been #259.

My bad.

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

479. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

John Cho gets top billing?!?!

480. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008

Anyone in LA remember TOS at midnite back in the late 80’s on “Very Independent” Ch 13, oh those were the days, Twilight Zone on KTLA 5 at 11, 11:30, then switch it to 13 for my midnite fix. I don’t know how I made it to school the next morning.

481. Chapman - January 18, 2008


Funny also did the same here in Oklahoma when I was a kid. Star Trek would come on late Sunday 11:30pm.

482. bmar - January 18, 2008

^469 Finally, a discussion! Instead of the endless canon debate.

I would think, much like modern day cruise ships, it would be build in component modules which are pre constucted and then slid into place – then an outer skin would be put over it.

This type of construction is particularly useful when building something like a cruise ship (or for that matter a star ship) that has lots of the same “type” of room – i.e. state rooms. So they build them all alike someplace else, and them slip them into place, and then hook up electrical/plumbing connections.

While I would imagine that the Enterprise as many “one-of a kind” rooms (bridge, engine room, etc) it probably also has a fair number of repeat or similar rooms.

That being said, I don’t know if aircraft carriers are built the same way, my guess is not.

Still, whether modular built or individually built, it would seem to make sense to build the interior first and then cover it, rather than filling up a hollow shell.

One more thought – I think that the Apollo command capsule was built interior and exterior seperately at the same time. I think (and I’m sure someone will jump down my throat to correct me) that the interior was built, while at the same time a complete exterior “skin” was built and then dropped over it and fastened into place as more or less one piece.

It would be interesting if the E was built the same way…

Anyway, food for thought.

483. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

I just have to say that I love the transporter sound effect that fills the end of the trailer. Goosebumps every time I watch it, although I suppose that will wear off with a few more viewings, haha. I will being seeing it in the theater this evening, however, which should be a much bigger goosebumps-inducing experience!

484. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

#479 – It’s in alphabetical order, with the exception of Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy at the end.

485. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#456 Sean —

Booing is contagious. All it takes is two or three haters in an audience to get others (who don’t have an opinion) to join them.

I’ve read posts from ‘Abrams Star Trek haters’ on message boards who said they would go to see Cloverfield just to boo at the trailer, so I’m not surprised.

486. Stringfellow Hawke - January 18, 2008


“When building a huge starship such as this, would you build it’s frame and shell first, then build the insides afterwards? Or, would it be easier to build the decks of the ship, move all the innards into the various decks, then as the last step put the outer skin on to seal it up?”

Prefabricated modules and transporter tech makes construction a whole lot more efficient, I would think.

487. Spaceboy - January 18, 2008

Some things that qualify as canon we’d rather forget:
“Spock’s Brain”
The Voyager ep with the pro wrestlers

Reboot? I say: hell yes! About time they dump the schlock, keep what works…

488. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

Back in my day, movie trailers actually had some of the movie in it. arrr…

Just a teaser, like the name implies, much like a lass wriggling her bum to ya but then walks out the bar door after downing the drinks ya bought fur her… arrrr…..

Also, back in my day we built our vessels in dry dock then sent ’em out to sea… why would we build the bloddy ships at sea… we’d drown… arrrrr

489. Paul B. - January 18, 2008

#470 – “Everyone knows Star Trek. Everyone, at one point or another, has enjoyed Star Trek at some level.”

Sorry, but this isn’t even remotely true. In over 30 years of being a fan, I’ve met far more people who either don’t like Trek or don’t know much about it. Most non-Trekkies get “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” confused on a regular basis. I recently had an essay published about being a Trekkie (in a university magazine, nothing big), and one of my professors asked me, “So, what did you think of that new trilogy?” The average person doesn’t know or care about Star Trek.

In those 30 years as a fan, I’ve lived in California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arkansas. In every state, I’ve met more people who don’t know/like/care about Trek than I have fans.

I have met fans from all over the world, and most of them felt isolated because nobody around them knew/cared about Star Trek.

Don’t fool yourself: the vast majority of the population don’t know jack-squat about Star Trek, and most don’t care. Star Trek has never been mainstream, it has never been cool, and it has always had that “nerdy” aspect that you deny.

Any fan who has left their basement in the last 3 decades knows that you are dead wrong on this.

490. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

British Naval Dude either sounds like a pirate, or like he’s had more than his daily ration of rum.

491. bmar - January 18, 2008

^486 – Good point about the transporters – totally forgot about those. I was thinking in terms of 21st century technology. I guess you could just “beam” entire rooms into place.

Although don’t I recall something in one of the episodes about the dangers of “ship to ship” beaming? That you could materialize inside a bulkhead or something….or am i imagining that?

492. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008

Re: Building a starship inside/out vs. outside/in.

If they built The Enterprise inside/out, then it would make sense to do it on earth with normal gravity and air to breathe.

Seems to me that building the superstructure would be easier in space, the interior easier on the ground, and the outer hull plating in space.

I don’t have a problem with either scenario, and I don’t care about what is canon on this topic. I’m just wondering which method is more practical if starships really could be constructed.

493. Dennis Bailey - January 18, 2008

#11: “The Enterprise’s nacelles were *always* that big – we’re just not used to seeing them from such a *dead on* front view.”

No, they weren’t – and the schematic you link to does nothing to support the position that they were.

BTW, we get to see the underside of the saucer first in the trailer – then the camera cranes up to the topside. The bottom looks as much like the TMP saucer – with spotlight coves surrounding the lower sensor dome, etc – as the top does.

494. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

#490 Rum? Whar? Methinks I could use some readin’ all this bilge bile about buildin’ in space vs earth… arrrr….

Cannot they just transport the whole kit ‘n kaboodle up in space…

495. Blowback - January 18, 2008

#459 Said: How this 1701 “de-evolved” into the TOS Enterprise remains to be seen.

I know the answer to that one. Captain Pike slapped on a coat of primer and then painted the whole ship eggshell white.

496. Dennis Bailey - January 18, 2008

#325: “Daren, that was an extremely insensitive, disrespectful, neanderthal comment.”

Depends on how much irony you read into it.

He may have been suggesting that folks telling the critics of this trailer to shush up or those implying that there’s something wrong with the defenders of visual canon are being as abusive and unfair in their way as people who blame the victims of crimes for somehow provoking their assailants.

I don’t agree with such a suggestion, BTW, and it would certainly be overdramatizing – but it’s a fair way to read the remark.

497. lwr - January 18, 2008

i cannot agree more

i have said that time and time again, on many of thses strings, and that is why i think Paramount really needs a broad, aggressive marketing approach to this film.

I am 46 years old. 6′ 3″. garage band rocker. big football fan. have lived out of my parents house since 1982. married.4 kids. live in my own home. government job.

but i have been and always will be a trek fan.

but, in truth,not a single one of my friends know crap about star trek.

how many times have ever heard people refer to it as “star TRACK” or the NEW Generation”


498. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008


RE: Beaming pieces of the ship into place.

In theory, and by extension of that train of thought, they could actually beam the entire ship together. It would take a sophisticated computer program, but in essense they could literally beam each girder and component into place without much human physical involvement.

You’d probably need someone there to connect the pieces together, maybe. But thinking in 23rd Century terms, with the technology we’ve seen on the show, building a starship becomes more of a software project than a building project.

The pieces are created from a pool of matter, beamed to their location, etc. You wouldn’t need carpenters working on the inside of the ship laying carpet and putting up walls, painting, running conduits in the walls, etc. The designers would just program the computer to build the ship.

Why move material to the construction site the old fashioned way? Just beam it to the place a piece at a time.

499. Vinceman - January 18, 2008

“…and last time I checked, San Francisco is firmly attached to the planet”


By the way…It would be foolish for the trailer to get yanked from Youtube , if it does get yanked. This is some of the best free advertising Trek 2008 could get.

500. Blowback - January 18, 2008

Quoting 493: BTW, we get to see the underside of the saucer first in the trailer – then the camera cranes up to the topside. The bottom looks as much like the TMP saucer – with spotlight coves surrounding the lower sensor dome, etc – as the top does.

That actually makes more sense then the completely “lit up” version of the ship from TOS. I’m glad the CBS crew is at least letting shadows play across the hull with the new special effect.

501. kevin - January 18, 2008

502. Chris Dawson - January 18, 2008

Still COOL!!

503. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

Arrrrr…. if I even mention Star Trek on a date, it be over with her… even with tha cheap floozie I be paying and she needs her fix…it be over… so I just say I be a football fan and wish Beckham hadn’t set sail for you Yanks… arrrrr….

Point here? Trek fans are a small bunch and will not make ol’ Paramount a lot of quid fur this picture…

504. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008

#498 appendum

On second thought, what I am describing is more like replicator technology, from the 24th century. We didn’t really see that in Kirk’s time, other than when they asked for chicken soup from the food dispensers.

They still could take the pieces and beam them into place, though.

But by Picard’s time, they should be building ships entirely through replicator technology.

505. DJT - January 18, 2008

Damn. Spock sounds….’aged’.

Like fine wine, I’m sure! Still good to hear him though.

Rock it, Spock it.

506. lwr - January 18, 2008

AMEN, brother!

( get the LOST pun??)

I remember an old newspaper ad for ST-TMP that said something like

” 75 million people agree… star trek is number one”

i could never understand that. the math never added up.

75 mil x 3.50 a ticket= well over 150 million domestic gross.

did that entire bunch go se the matinee for a dollar or something, because the domestic gross for ST-TMP was like 79 mil or something.

I always chuckle at that.

we must be geeky AND cheap!

507. Harry Ballz - January 18, 2008

Anyone else notice how Nimoy’s diction has changed over the last twenty years? His enunciation during TOS was pitch perfect. In the last number of years he has lost that clarity. It’s not just because he’s getting older, but more likely that he’s been fixed up with a set of dentures that are ill-fitting, at best.

Gee, I hope this doesn’t prevent him from “sinking his teeth” into his role for the new movie! :)

508. munk - January 18, 2008

Can’t this be a Spacedock? It doesn’t make sense to build a structure that large on the ground to launch into orbit. What we are seeing could be a spacedock with atmosphere. Can’t the dock be called the “San Francisco Shipyard” because it’s in orbit OVER San Fran? It’s sci fi guys – anything is possible.

509. Smike van Dyke - January 18, 2008

#489: But isn’t that true for all freaky stuff. Harry P. is very popular these days but still lots of people don’t like it or simply don’t care…Still the movies make about 300 mio bugs each!

Adjusting to inflation, the first four Trek movies with its 18 to 25 million viewers would have made an equally impressive amount of money! Cinematic Trek got into mediocre box office numbers with the launch of TNG and the subsequent series…no series on in 2008…time has come for big numbers again…

And don’t forget the British Doctor Who…the new series has got more than 13 million viewers out of 75 million Brits! Sci Fi can be VERY popular…and so can TREK… Keep your hopes up…this one’s gonna be a big one!

510. Lt. Andrew Rogers - January 18, 2008

Did everyone see the official website is up (albeit a placeholder for now)?

511. J M Enterprise - January 18, 2008

Check out my first teaser wallpaper here for your enjoyment:

512. Max Choi - January 18, 2008

#57–“The construction of the Enterprise is a metaphor for the construction of the film. Do you think this is actual scene cut from the film that is almost a year away from completion?”

Exactly! Thank you, Moonwatcher!

513. CaptainRickover - January 18, 2008

The new Enterprise, second look.

Please correct me, if I’m wrong. But to mee it seems, that the bridge dome sits on another dome, that sits on the saucer topside. The nancelles seems very close to the saucer, nearly sitting ON it.

And the overall design seems to match Gabriel Koerner’s Enterprise.

But I’m still pleased with the design, as far as could bee seen.

514. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008

#508 Munk

Look at ISS

The modules and components were constructed on Earth then assembled in space.

The same concept applies to the Big E.

The Spacedocks were not in existence at that time, I think.

515. J M Enterprise - January 18, 2008

# 57 & #512- When Transformers Teaser Trailer came out it was also said this would not appear in the final cut, it was too far out, but they were wrong.
This is a film set at the beginning where we are going to see Kirks parents, Captain Pike and the crew first form.
I absolutely expect to see this in the final cut

516. Smike van Dyke - January 18, 2008

# 503: Oh am I glad I never had, don’t have or ever will have a girlfriend…wife or whatsoever…NEVER EVER! It would never work. I’m not just a geek…I may be the prototype…heck, I don’t care…Trek will be always first…but I’m also really into Wars, LOTR, HP, POTC, 007, SG, AvP, CoN, DC&marvel, BTVS, B5, X-Files, BSG, Simpsons, Shrek and hundreds of other franchises! I neither have the time, money, motivation, energy nor the capacity to date! Arrrr…my first word was “sequel” and my last one will be “cancelled”…Gosh, I really like to be a geek…and this teaser makes my day!

517. Scott Xavier - January 18, 2008

Sweet mother of muhamad! Whats all the fuss about? This trailer kicks butt! Come on, at least we’ll see trek on the screen again and in a big way! I am sure we wont hate all of it. Space battles transporters tribbles and orions. Rejoice!

518. diabolk - January 18, 2008

Certainly looks different for a Trek trailer, and that’s exactly what is needed to attract a larger audience than a small group if over 40 whiners.

519. -A- - January 18, 2008

i see,,, film is too dark also they can breath in space huh?

520. J M Enterprise - January 18, 2008

#503 & #516 – When I got engaged my girlfriend had to sit through every season of the Next Generation and DS9 up to that point. She learned to enjoy it! Weve been married now for 14 years. Case rests, Geeks can have relationships that work.

521. Spock - January 18, 2008

This is the first Star Trek trailer since the teaser for Star Trek The Undiscovered Country that gave me chills.

522. S. John Ross - January 18, 2008

#519: No, they can breathe in San Francisco, which admittedly is _sometimes_ a stretch, but it’s usually lovely.

523. Harry Ballz - January 18, 2008

The ship, she does look sleek
Good enough for any old geek
It was built on the ground
The nacelles are round
What more could any Trekker seek?

524. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

I feel sad now… arrrr….
If #516 not be pulling our legs, then I hope he maybe re-thinks things… life without women is no life for me…

But having a woman sit through Star Trek… torture I would say… ya best be off to the opera with her now and again…

525. Marian Ciobanu - January 18, 2008

– Looks like Bakula’s Enterprise…and the teaser trailer have something from.. the begining of.D.S.- 9 too…anyway ..i hate the involution in the design of the ..description of the main races of aliens and in the looks of the uniforms.. started in VOYAGER..the latest ENTERPRISE..and now continued with this movie….is a smoked prequel or a reeboot..?

526. JB - January 18, 2008

The Big E looks good (so far) and the teaser does its job, but it would pack even more of a wallop if the voice-over were that of the good Captain and not his second-in-command.

I also agree with comments suggesting that the scene is a metaphor and not to be taken literally.

527. Gigapixel - January 18, 2008

CRUD! Saw Cloverfield today, and NO ST XI TRAILER!! Not the same, seeing it on youtube…

uhh, btw, I wouldn’t be surprised if this a teaser only, and those shots never appear in the film.

528. KT - January 18, 2008

Compare this view from Koerner’s site with the trailer still:

529. J M Enterprise - January 18, 2008

We love opera too but isn’t Star Trek often reffered to as a space Opera

530. Jim - January 18, 2008

All I can say is I hope to Crom that there ain’t no holodeck on the new E. As a matter of fact, with all the trouble that damn holodeck caused in TNG and beyond, if I were captain of a starship, I’d have the sucker ripped out.

Seriously, I always like the idea that was suggested in TOS that the Enterprise had large open spaces for recreation and relaxation. I would welcome a “nature” setting a la “Silent Running”. But keep that damned holodeck out of it!

531. Dr. Image - January 18, 2008

528- Yes, Gabe was FIRST!!!
I really hope he was offiicially involved somehow- THEN I’d like it more.
(Poetic justice!!)
If he wasn’t… he should sue the bastards!

532. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

529 Space opera?
Yarrr… sure why not? Needs more singing and less o’ that techno-speak winging…

533. Paul B. - January 18, 2008

#523 – Harry, while I agree with your sentiment, I wish you’d stop trying to write limericks. Or pseudo-limericks. They’re awful, with bad meter and timing, no rhythm, and no real point.

Just a minor peeve, but I love a good limerick, so bad limericks just set me off. No more limericks, I beg you…it’s like hearing someone singing karaoke two beats behind the music…ugh…

518. diabolk – “over 40 whiners”??? Um…most of the whining I’ve heard comes from the UNDER-30 crowd who grew up on TNG and want to see more of the same. Most of us old folks have shown more openness to this film than those younger TNG-era fans. So please, keep your age comments to yourself.

534. Andy Patterson - January 18, 2008

507. Harry Ballz – January 18, 2008

Anyone else notice how Nimoy’s diction has changed over the last twenty years? His enunciation during TOS was pitch perfect. In the last number of years he has lost that clarity. It’s not just because he’s getting older, but more likely that he’s been fixed up with a set of dentures that are ill-fitting, at best.

That is true. He was narrating those bigfoot and lochness monster type specials for a while after Rod Serling died and vacated the “talking about creepy things” chair back in the early/mid 70’s He seemed to find a niche filling in there during that time in his career. I remember enjoying and appreciating his delivery then.

535. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Where I can SEE this thing.



536. Blowback - January 18, 2008

#528: The nacelles in the trailer look to heavily inspired by Gabe that’s for certain. But this is a bit of forced perspective and it’s also possible the final look may still undergo some tweaking…

537. Doug - January 18, 2008

I like the look of the new trailer, however, I suspect that what we see of the Big E in this trailer may not even make it to the final film.

1) When Kirk took command of the Enterprise after Pike had been re-assigned to his new command, she was already at least fourteen years old (and the fact that Pike was the second skipper [Robert April being the first], she was even older than that). So, unless the Enterprise is in a refit-stage, which is entirely possible, the ship is already constructed. Look at the changes (bridge, exterior hull, uniforms, equipment, etc.) of Captain Pike’s ship in “The Cage” to what we have seen during Captain Kirk’s tenure of command.

Of course, this is based on the premise that Abrams and crew is paying any attention to (uh oh) canon (frankly, I don’t care if they are little loosey-goosey with that).

2) And no matter what, no refit would take place planet-side. With a fully constructed vessel, I would think it very energy prohibitive and inefficent to move a nearly fully realized hull from a planet into orbit.

If, by chance, the footage from the teaser does appear in the film, can we really tell from what we see, that it is not in a suborbital contained environment?

3) The trailer, as well as the new Paramount-funded web site, clearly says, “Under Construction.”

Under construction, to me, means this movie is a piece of art still in the works, yet to be completed (obviously). I think the teaser is just a metaphor and one to get us all primed for the movie–considering over 530 posts so far on this topic, I’d say it is working!

Has anyone seen it on the big screen yet?

538. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008

Paul, Harry’s poems and limericks are great. They give this site it’s sense of community. If you don’t like it, skip it.

But lay off Harry. He’s my friend and a long time contributor here. Besides, maybe all your taste is in your mouth.

539. Kev-1 - January 18, 2008

My freebie to the producers: don’t forget the tricorders, they use them occasionally.

540. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

weren’t those all just sets thrown together cheaply, quickly and, at the behest of the network, colorfully? arrr… too much free time fur me this day…

wonder if I could see the lochen beastie that Nimoy used to babble on about… I be in search of something other than Spock though…

541. gord - January 18, 2008

Set teasers to stun!!

542. D. McCoy - January 18, 2008

I agree that separating the Star Trek look from Star Wars is a good idea. And tying Trek to “our future” is also a very good direction.

Extending that idea, I would hope that the art direction, uniforms and ship details look more like the future and less like 2008.

The feeling of the teaser is very much “2008 shipyard” but perhaps it’s only a stepping stone. Use the trailers to establish the connection to 2008, but the movie itself has more of a future feeling.

543. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008

I like this BND guy. But shouldn’t you be protecting the Empire or something?

544. Redjac - January 18, 2008

#537 — I agree Doug!

I think it’s just an elaborate teaser.


545. mctrekkie - January 18, 2008


Hard to really voice opinion given the quality of cam footage.

Not seeing Cloverfield- will reserve my opinion till I see the true /official Quicktime version on the Web

I’m ok with them building it on Earth- but the question is – does it take off under it’s own power, or at some state of assembly is it towed out by massive Atomspheric/Vaccuum Space Tug.

I know it can hang in Atmosphere but can the big E take off? (hopefully if it does- it’s more majestic than Voyager planetfalls)

546. HoosierJim500 - January 18, 2008

The logical mind set would be to wait for the film to premiere and then critique the design of the Enterprise, however, I will add this thought to the “building on Earth” scenario.
The main parts of the ship were taken into orbit by lifting bodies and then assembled together.
Are we happy now?

547. Son of Sarek - January 18, 2008

Why does everyone assume that a ship built on the surface is not capable of “launching” into space under it’s own propulsion? Haven’t we seen in numerous Star Trek films and television episodes that the ships are capable of flight in the atmosphere and lift offs from the ground? Voyager, STIV TVH, and Tomorrow is Yesterday come to mind.

548. The Arbiter - January 18, 2008

I am an Original Series original Fan. I am old enough to have watched it in first run TV back in the 60’s. I have been an avid reader and collector of memorabilia. (models, blueprints, tech manuals, etc) So I have a little knowledge of the subject. I would like to point out something. The Big E is being built here. By the time we saw her in the third season of TOS, she had already gone thru several refits. Watch The Cage, Then When No Man Has Gone Before, and then look at the series version. Many differences in each. Who is to say that this is not what she looked like when she left dock the first time? Maybe we need to calm down and actually wait and see the movie before we bitch and moan. It would be the only logical thing to do.

549. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008

BTW, if you count the “first look at the E” thread, aren’t we getting close to 1400 posts on this?

550. Classic trek - January 18, 2008

well that was different!! uummm interesting indeed. it seems very gritty and realistic. it wasnt what i had in mind from the description but im open about this and trek needs a fresh approach. lookingat that i dont think were going to get the cosy sets we were used to on the tv series. i was hoping it might be lit up a bit so we could see more. i love the JF keneddy and NASA voice overs and also the noise of the old transporter room at the end. excelllent.
we dont know if this scene or similar will appear in the film on completion
theres a BIG feel about this movie.
JJ says it ‘was tricky’ to shatner in this film – but not impossible!thats will be a real shame for this project. but hey ho ill be there to see it

551. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

Arrr… I like all who like me for they could potentially buy me a drink one day…
I thought the Empire was a Star Wars thingee… oh, wait, ya mean the Queen and Country! Yarrr…. safe as houses we’ll be…

552. Paul B. - January 18, 2008

538. I AM THX-1138
Hey, I expressed an opinion and say “I wish” he’d stop. I didn’t attack him (as you attacked me with your last comment). Limericks, like haiku, have a meter and pattern, so it’s okay to complain when they are poorly written. And I said it’s a PEEVE, not a huge issue…and considering the bile often spewed around here, my comment to Harry was pretty innocuous.

I stand by my comment–I wish he’d stop posting the bad limericks. But you are right on one thing: from now on, I’ll just skip ’em.

Did you even notice that I AGREED with Harry’s sentiment? I don’t need to “lay off” him because I didn’t attack him. So, lay off me. :)

553. Daniel Broadway - January 18, 2008

Sadly, alot of people in my audience booed and jeered as well. They guy next to me was especially being an ass. He said “Star Trek? Again? Aren’t they super old now? Is this going to be Star Trek: The Geriatric Generation? I wonder if they are going to use the old cast? What a joke.”

Argh. And the person behind me went “Star Wars?” Idiots.

Generally, the audience was not happy or thrilled with it. But then again, I was surrounded by smug, loud, and obnoxious teenagers just trying to look “cool” to their friends. I almost hate going to the movies because EVERYTIME there is a bunch of punk teenagers in the row behind me.

554. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008

Sorry to get your panties in a wad, Paul, but Harry has always had my back, so I will always have his. It seemed to be a big enough issue for you to comment on, so if back-pedaling works for you go ahead. Agreeing with someone in the fashion that you did is considered a back-handed compliment.

555. non-belligerency confirmed - January 18, 2008

preboot: a naked foot.

the boot: what happened to trek’s former producers.

reboot: a word used on fanatical basement dwellers who can’t grasp living in the present, just to hear them whine.

booty: attractive body parts

rebooty: sex with your ex.

bigbooty: a fascist lectroid from the 8th dimesion in buckaroo bonzai.

556. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

#549 THX

Including my post at 556, this comes to a grand total of 1,415 posts.

Wow. Bless our hearts! ;-)

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

557. Redjac - January 18, 2008

I *don’t* think tying Trek into our future is a good idea because (as has already happened with the Eugenics Wars — as an example) when the “future” comes and goes it makes the movie or series look ridiculous when certain “historical” events do not occur.

So, I prefer to think of Trek as taking place in some kind of alternate reality…meh…it’s just fiction! You can’t make fiction fit into a future “reality”!

558. Paul B. - January 18, 2008

554. I AM THX-1138
There’s no “back-handed compliment” because I didn’t compliment him. I AGREED with him, then expressed a dislike for his limericks. I didn’t backpedal, I expressed an opinion. That’s all.

Harry is more than capable of defending himself if he feels the need. He shouldn’t need to, because HE wasn’t attacked.

Get over it. Move on. This thread isn’t about me and Harry, so drop it.

Sorry, folks. Didn’t mean to trigger a side conversation here. We now return you to the REAL thread. (At least, I do…THX is free to keep this going, but he’s on his own. I’m dropping it.)

559. Kirky - January 18, 2008

560. Allan Cook - January 18, 2008

Focal length and compression info, for those who worry that the nacelles are too large:

For those who fear that the nacelles are going to look too much like the Gabe Kroener abomination? Sorry, no help here. I fear the exact same thing.

561. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008


Vulcanista, this just goes to prove that we can all talk endlessly about the same thing. And that some of us just don’t listen.

I wonder if anyone has brought up the fact that Enterprise is being built on the ground?

562. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

Quote Anthony..”It shows that Star Trek is not a fantasy, not from a galaxy far far away…it is real and it is us.”

Quote The Arbiter…”I am old enough to have watched it in first run TV back in the 60’s. I have been an avid reader and collector of memorabilia. (models, blueprints, tech manuals, etc) So I have a little knowledge of the subject. I would like to point out something. The Big E is being built here. By the time we saw her in the third season of TOS, she had already gone thru several refits. Watch The Cage, Then When No Man Has Gone Before, and then look at the series version. Many differences in each. Who is to say that this is not what she looked like when she left dock the first time? Maybe we need to calm down and actually wait and see the movie before we bitch and moan. It would be the only logical thing to do.”


Quote Anthony…”very human…kind of world of hard hats, sparks, grease and just guys getting the job done.”

Oh, I think I’m going to cry. As an Old School Trekker who’s been around the block….. I’m just beside myself. This is going to be real! This is really going to bring trek HOME! Why would those kids at Trek Core and Trek Pulse listen to me?

BTW, Robert…. J.J., I’m already building a model of her. I’ll send you copies!

563. Luis Duran - January 18, 2008



564. YARN - January 18, 2008

For those scandalized by the prefit:

1. Canon has to do with the story, not the nurnies.

2. Star Trek canon contradicts itself anyhow.

3. The refit of the Enterprise in TMP was a MUCH more radical redesign of the ship – we lived throught it.

4. 99% of the people who watch this film will not care if the Jefferies tubes are in exactly the same place.

5. It wouldn’t work to simply snatch the old model out of the Smithsonian and impossible to have the original cast reprise their roles. To rejuvenate the series, it is going to need to connect with modern audiences.

6. The success and quality of this film will have EVERYTHING to do with whether or not they tell a good sci-fi story and whether or not they create characters we enjoy and NOTHING to do with where the ship was built.
They could build the darn thing in Rock Candy Mountain for all I care, just so long as we don’t get a repeat of Nemesis.

7. You are right. This changes things. Trek is dead! Long live Trek!

565. Dr. Image - January 18, 2008

OK, building it on Earth:
Remember, the saucer section was DESIGNED to seperate and abort to planetfall in an emergency, so it would HAVE to be built under gravity-well stresses.
Don’t know if anyone had mentioned that fact.
(OOps… #203 did!)
Roberto, take notes.
Now what I want to see are the hand phasers/lasers, because I’m going to want one.
They better be cool. They SHOULD just use the original designs unchanged. They were brilliant!

566. YARN - January 18, 2008

#555 posts

“preboot: a naked foot.

the boot: what happened to trek’s former producers.

reboot: a word used on fanatical basement dwellers who can’t grasp living in the present, just to hear them whine.

booty: attractive body parts

rebooty: sex with your ex.

bigbooty: a fascist lectroid from the 8th dimesion in buckaroo bonzai.”

: ) This is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. LOL

567. trektacular - January 18, 2008

I get a nice mysterious creepy space vibe with this teaser, I like it!

568. Allan Cook - January 18, 2008

#565: ONE section was designed to make planetfall, separately from the rest of the spaceframe. The overall design is not capable of supporting itself in a gravity well.

Again, this all comes down to building ocean-liners on mountaintops.

It’s a dumb idea, and if this new Trek posits that Starfleet is stupid enough to do that, what other idiotic things are they going to have them doing.

569. Kirky - January 18, 2008

I think it’s interesting that Gabe Koerner took his Star Trek images off his main page.

But they still can be found here.


570. yo - January 18, 2008

is chistmas now????

571. Blowback - January 18, 2008

#569 – I think those images have been off the first link for a very long time, if they were there at all. The first link is a resume of actual paid work versus the second which is a personal site.

I could be wrong about that however…

572. trektacular - January 18, 2008

I’m also so, so, glad that this does not in any way shape or form look like a damn TV show transplanted onto the big screen.

573. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#560 Allan Cook —

Thank You…this answers a question/comment that I posted on It is exactly what I thought….

If we (the observer/camera) are “zooming in” on two objects far away from us but close to each other (the saucer and nacelles), then there will be very little distortion due to perspective. However, if the observer/camera is right in fron of the saucer, then perpective will play a much greater role.

Did I get it right?

Thank’s again for the info

574. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

#560 – Yesterday, Dennis Bailey was saying that the nacelles would be larger and not in the original proportion, due to the foreshortening of the shot or something like that, but I think the example in your link seems to disprove it. Thanks for that explanation.

575. nyxtreme - January 18, 2008

Are we there yet? (On our way to post 1-0-0-0!!!)

576. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Found it! Found it!!!!!! Woohoo!

Decided to check for the trailer once more and it was there (don’t know why it said “not availabe” when I first checked unless a million others were viewing it at the same time”).

And……… nobody really cares. Got it.



577. crazybeach - January 18, 2008

I kind of like the images of welders and cranes and honest laborers working up a sweat doing something worthwhile. It shows that we can accomplish great things together.
But all in all, the trailer is a great metaphor for Star Trek in general and the movie in particular as being under construction. The anticipation in the air is almost palpable.
And how people can condemn and threaten to boycott a film that isn’t even finished yet or been seen by them or anyone else just boggles the mind.
If you’re gonna threaten to boycott, then sh_t or get off the pot. Boycott and stay the hell away from the theater next Xmas, or shut the Eff up and come see it like the rest of us. If then you still don’t like it, then by all means, b_tch and moan all you want. At least then you’ll have a REASON.
And BTW, I have been a diehard, card-carrying Trekker for close to thirty-five years. I’m forty, and I DO NOT live in my mother’s basement. I have been happily married for 17 years, to a wife who is as much a fan as I am. I have two children, the elderof which likes to watch ST with Dad. From what I’ve seen from the (all too brief) trailer, I will be proud if his generations grows up using JJ’s Trek as their frome of reference for the whole saga.
Nuf said. My half-dozen quatloos…

578. David (now over the wings & flames thing. Sorta.) - January 18, 2008

Just a thought…

Did we see a ‘fully realized’ Enterprise (ie all parts fully attached), or did we see pieces at a construction yard yet to be fully assembled?

‘Dry fitting’ components happens a lot in the aircraft industry, before it’s formal assembly.

And it would be easier to take up the pieces to be finally assembled in orbit.

Last thought. The movie isn’t about the construction of the Enterprise.

Very Last Thought. Maybe this was the plan all along. Get us all worked up about nothing.

579. David (now over the wings & flames thing. Sorta.) - January 18, 2008

577 – just read your post.

** T H A N K Y O U **

580. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

Thank you J.J., Thank you Robert! Thank you, thank you, thank you. I think you are making something greater, more powerful and more awesome than my wildest trekfantasy. Will there be Orion Slave girls? If not, can we at least see Kirk REALLY kick some ass! Please? From an old school Navy Veteran, can we please see our old (young) Kirk?!?! Not some watered down PC Kirk, but a real hardcore young KIRK!? PLEASE?

BTW, Zoe Saldana(sp?) Great Choice!

Trek on Robert and J.J., Trek ON!

581. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

‘Tis hard to tinker with something so established and not expect backlash from the small group of Trek fans that collectively will be contributing maybe 5% of the films net gross

Besides, ain’t this all supposed to be fur fun? Yarrr, I say…

blood pressure skyrockets when ya debate
be it built on earth or be it built in space
bloddy previews to the faithful do agitate…

God no… poetry… shoot me…
time for a drink- suds me up thar, Sulu…

582. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

I would think that the ship is structurally designed to withstand the strain put on it by the impulse engines moving that mass through space (mass and inertia still matter, even in space), which is probably greater than the strain that gravity will deliver.

583. Shaun - January 18, 2008

“16. AJ – January 18, 2008
Star Trek canon was destroyed when Klingons got ridges, Romulans got headbumps, Khan recognized Chekhov, Kirstie Allie became Robin Curtis, etc. We are all still alive!”

Well said. Romulans with their “headbumps” has always irked me more than just about anything when it comes to respecting Star Trek history.

Regarding the tone of the teaser, I like the idea of grounding this movie in reality – treating the subject matter as a possible future. I would rather have more hard SF with my Star Trek and less fantasy.

584. Mr. Atoz - January 18, 2008


Oh, you mean STAR TRACK with that Darth Vader guy?

Agree, have met very few people that are fans of Star Trek in my life.
Most people resemble the above statement.

If everyone was a Star Trek Fan, why would Abrams keep saying he’s making this film for both the fans and the people who don’t know a thing about it?

585. crazybeach - January 18, 2008

John Huston-great actor/director from the fities through the eighties. Father of Angelica. Voice of Galdalf in the Ralph Bakshi cartoon verson of LOTR (Gawd, how obscure was that!). Good filmmaker, excellent actor.
Yes, I think now you mention it that Nimoy did vocally resemble him a bit.
Just the age thing, I guess…

586. Jim - January 18, 2008

i don’t know about you folks who don’t know folks who are like-minded Star Trek fans. ST been the reason I’ve met a lot of the friends I have.

587. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008

Yeah, I like this BND guy more and more. And we don’t shoot poets around these parts.

I’ll hoist a frosty one in honors of youse’ this evening, BND.

Make that “honours”.

588. miguel - January 18, 2008

I have an honest question:

For those saying Enterprise was built in space: Where is that reference??

I really want to know. Did Gene say it? I don’t have an argument either way because I don’t know if it’s something Gene L. Coon, DC Fontana or Gene Rodenberry said.

Let me know!!!

589. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

Harrrrr Matey. Land Ho! It looks like we got us a winner…Harrrrr!


590. Q - January 18, 2008

“Here’s to ya’ lad.”

I don’t know if this’ll be the final-farewell to Trek, but it’ll definately be worth seeing, one way or another. Who knows, maybe it could fire off a whole new round of movies. I wouldn’t mind that. It might even reinvigorate a new series that is for EVERYONE rather than the average trekkie.

It’ll happen the way it’s supposed to happen.

591. CPichach - January 18, 2008

Future space elevator capable of lifting the whole complex would do the trick to bring her up – I think that would be a nice link to some hard sci-fi (despite the fact that the nanotubes required to do so are virtually impossible to come up with)

592. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008


No, no, it’s not Gabe’s ship! Really, it’s not, it just happens to look EXACTLY like it. Considering how many fanboys have ponied up with their CG experiments and were shot down…. I’m not surprised that Gabe’s ship…er…not gabe’s ship was chosen.


593. Devon - January 18, 2008

592 – Not, it doesnt’ look “Exactly” like Gabe’s ship.

594. Dierna - January 18, 2008

Is it just me or did that sound a bit like Patrick Stewart saying “Space, the final frontier…”

595. Kirky - January 18, 2008

592 It looks looks damn close. ;)

596. MGSP163-47B-7515691254-1554778555 - January 18, 2008

That ship looks idiotic, like a fanboy designed it. Oh well, this is apparently a reboot. Who cares right? it’s only star trek…

One thing is clear. From the above description the owner of this site is obviously in the pocket of the producers. I hope you like your McTrek it should be empty enough and belittle your intellegence just enough to make you buy thier shit…

Oh, and for those of you who don’t like opposing opinions…TOO BAD!
I, like everyone else here have every right to voice MY opinion.

597. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008


re: John Huston

got some educated movie buffs out there, glad to hear/read it.

re:Ship design

Nacelles look Gabe-esque, other than that it seems more remeniscent of TMP,

Besides you cant copy/redesign something and then somehow become the author of the original design, it’s all building on Jefferies anyway

maybe Cage/Where No Man/Orig Series is an applied skin refit, they removed the paneling and it went back to TMP looking…..implausible you say?

Well you’d be right, but hardly inconsistent with otherr production decisions over the years

I am excited can’t wait for more !

598. thomoz - January 18, 2008

it looks a lot like the “Gabe Koerner model” on YouTube!

599. NCC-73515 - January 18, 2008

The question is: How do you get a person who was never interested in Trek before to give this film a chance? Most of my friends are simply not interested. They love Gate and Wars, however. I fear that the “new audience” will be very small.

600. Dennis Bailey - January 18, 2008

The only resemblance between this design and Gabe’s which is visible in the trailer is a rounded cowling of some kind that’s apparently on the front of the engine nacelles behind the rotating vanes.

That’s it.

The saucer is very close to that of the TMP ship, and that’s the only other thing visible.

BTW, really loved the use of TOS sound effects at the end of the teaser – the “transporter whine” sort of blending into that “alien planet chime” that was first used in “The Cage” (on the surface of Talos IV).

Oh, and if “Cloverfield” doesn’t get at least a nomination for Best Sound Design or Sound Editing or something then they got robbed.

601. Dierna - January 18, 2008

Oh wait… listening to it again…that’s Leonard Nimoy saying that! Silly me…. had the tv on… :P

602. ZebraFlowers - January 18, 2008

in response to #590

I don’t think it’s a goodbye, more of a revival, like Enterprise was meant to be with all the swearing, close-to-reality stuff that it was. I think this movie is, like the guy who wrote the article said, supposed to make it seem more like our future. In the original Star Trek, they said superhumans would rule the world in the 90s and men wore bright primary colors, which in current times sort of equals gay or cosplaying nerd. Sometimes we get so caught up at laughing at it to remember why it survived to fight another day: it was the one show that showed a future where the humans are generally good and happy and not on the verge of killing each other.


603. SB - January 18, 2008


Somebody clearly needs a hug…

604. I AM THX-1138 - January 18, 2008


You’re an idiot. Just my opinion.

605. Classic trek - January 18, 2008

that sounds like a new recording of nimoy saying those words to me,

im not sure why shatner wasnt asked to say them though? after all he did speak the immortal words originally. its difficult to make a judgement on so little visually in this trailer.
yes the transporter sounds at the end-loved it.

606. Frank Munz - January 18, 2008

I don’t think this is a scene from the movie.

607. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008


No one is trying to deny someone their opinions however inane or misguided they may or may not be. This is a discussion as guests of Anthony, gracious enough to welcome us into his virtual coctail party so to speak. People will disagree and try to persuade others to their point of view. I am suprised how uncivil people are on the internet in the name of free speech/expressing their opinions. Think of it as being at a party among aquaitaneces, how often would you shout down a fellow partygoer and tell them they are in the “pocket of the producers”. Good manners shouldn’t end at the keyboard.

In my opinion.

608. Harry Ballz - January 18, 2008

#587 I AM THX-1138 “we don’t shoot poets around these parts”

THX, I read your other posts and appreciate the support!

Paul B. is certainly entitled to his opinion….I personally get a kick out of firing off corny limericks and can’t promise that I will refrain in the future!

You’re right about this BND fella…..he’s a hoot and a welcome addition to the fold!

Great quantities of Romulan ale will be consumed tonight!! Brain cells will die! :)

609. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

#600. Come on DB, just because it’s not your submission, doesn’t mean it isn’t very close to someone’s submission who’s actually worked in the field. I mean other than writing one really lame script for TNG.


If that’s not Koerner’s ship, it’s pretty darned close, much closer than say the Phoenix! Harrr!

Don’t be a hater Tin Man, just get with the program. :)

Maybe they’ll let you make a shuttle or something. Hehe. How are things going with NV, or are you off of that too? Oh yeah, DD’s on that now.

Or was it Exeter you were on? Can’t remember.

610. ensign joe - January 18, 2008

#575 already hit it i’d say…

check the last post…

611. Anan - January 18, 2008


I’m laughing at how pathetic you are right now.

612. Bond James Bond - January 18, 2008

I personally thought Gabe Koerner’s design was one of the most practical re-designs out there. For a couple of reasons…

1. The vertical dorsal connecting the primary and secondary hull was always too thin.

2. The engine struts were WAY too thin… one good shot and the engine is gone!

Gabe’s design made the Enterprise look more practical…

613. WOW! - January 18, 2008

OMFG!!!!! :-D

614. Alex - January 18, 2008

I just say it in one German word:


615. Xplodin' Nacelle - January 18, 2008

Awesome trailer!

I just wish that they would’ve used Nimoy’s voiceover from TWOK instead of the weak old man vice that he has now.

616. Gd846c3 - January 18, 2008

This is awesome. I look forward to a real video for better picture though, because the picture quality of this video is not that great. I can’t wait for the movie.

As far as people saying that this movie will do away with Gene’s vision for trek, I disagree. The only thing that has changed is the 60’s retro look which no longer fits in with today’s society just as today’s style will not fit 40 years from now. The 60’s is a thing of the past. It no longer exists just as today will not exist tomorrow. This is today’s version of Star Trek. It is respectful of our previous trek, but it is still new. 60’s style today is laughable to many, and so a movie with 60’s design elements would be laughable also. The approach that JJ. Abrams and co. are taking is the right one and I support it 100%.

617. A. - January 18, 2008

Just saw Cloverfield and the Trailer.
Cloverfield was very good. Not perfect (which to some is a form of complaint) but good viewing.
Saw the Trailer too. On the big screen it gives a terrific impression. Much more majestic than previous Trek films. Not nuts about Nimoy’s voice over for “Space, the final frontier”. (to some that is a complaint, but in reality it isn’t) Id rather have had an unknown voice.
But given the impression so far, I doubt the average viewer would be disappointed.

618. Captain Scokirk - January 18, 2008

a common criticism of the original Enterprise are it’s seemingly anemic dorsal and nacelle struts, but now that we know the ship was built on a planet surface and it is obviously holding itself up then those dorsals and struts must be really strong.

Plus theres shields and dampening fields and hull plating, etc.

Besides from an aesthetic point of view ships with no dorsals (Voyager/Soverign/Defiant) photograph strangely in the traditional 3/4 view, the prefered mode of photographing the original enterprise, those later ships were always banking at the camera so that something other than their thin profile might be seen. They always looked smashed down.

Having all of these elemnts spread out at the ends of booms/ dorsals/ struts makes a ship look powerful because of it’s larger apparent size.

619. Jess Stuart - January 18, 2008

Actually, this doesn’t destroy canon at all. It just doesn’t look like The Menagerie Enterprise. Spock and Kirk are still in the Academy, which is years before The Menagerie. Ships can change a lot, as in TMP. There hasn’t been any depiction of the Enterprise as originally built.

I’m looking forward to seeing the movie, and any further tid bits along the way.

620. 24thCenturykryptonian - January 18, 2008

i may spark contraversy here but long live the enterprise e

621. Greg2600 - January 18, 2008

liked the ST:TMP look of the ship in terms of detail, and the movie theme song. Nimoy’s voice sounded aweful. Where is Shatner?! ha ha.

622. pcg - January 18, 2008

absolutely amazing. This will bodly go where no star trek has gone before.

623. David (now over the wings & flames thing. Sorta.) - January 18, 2008

#596. MGSP163-47B-7515691254-1554778555

Your opinion is not appreciated when it’s laced unverifiable comments. If you have a valid point to make, we’re always open to hear it.

When you slag Anthony – who if I am assuming isn’t doing this for the money – you demean fans everywhere. If you don’t like the upcoming new Trek, so be it. If we like it, so be it. No need to be rude.

Just my 5 quatloos worth.

624. Johnnie F - January 18, 2008

#15 –

I totally disagree! How can you say this movie destroys canon when you don’t know anything about it?

625. joe1306 - January 18, 2008

nimoys voice sounds perfectly for this! =)

626. Kirky - January 18, 2008

This is funny.

627. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008


You do have the right to your opinion…

….you even have the right to be a nasty jerk — there’s no law against being obnoxious. However, having that right doesn’t make it “right”.

628. Bucky Sinclair - January 18, 2008

May I respectfully submit that the action seen in this teaser may have little or nothing to do with the actual movie itself? My sense is that it’s meant to be more metaphorical than literal. The movie is under construction, so I feel that it’s like the sets being built, rather than the ship’s construction as depicted in the film. A very mild, subtle allusion meant for the general viewing public, as opposed to trek fans. Just my two cents. First time poster, by the way.

629. S Smyth - January 18, 2008

Having read more posts, I think some of us are reading more into this than there is. We are talking about a movie that has barely started post production. I’m sure the final version of the Enterprise is taking shape, but who knows. IMHO, this isn’t it.

Do we even know if there are construction scenes? No. This trailer is a metaphor, as others have so adroitly pointed out, for a movie that is under construction.

I am on wait and see duty til then. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to the new and improved “To Serve All My Days” from New Voyages.

630. Steve - January 18, 2008

Just saw it today.

Two words for it:



Christmas cannot come fast enough!

631. Mr. Penguin - January 18, 2008

I really like the design of the Enterprise, it looks like the perfect blend in between the NX-01, Classic TV one, and the TMP refit. The voice overs of space history seemed fitting too. (Although I would have liked it if Zefram Cochrane and Jonathan Archer had little parts in it also.)

I’m also a bit uneasy about the Enterprise being built on the ground. Yes, San Fransisco is on the ground and it would make sense for some parts of the E to be built in 1G, but I think that it would be more cinematic to have it built in space.

Other than that, I enjoyed hearing the music cue as soon as the word “Enterprise” appeared on-screen, and the new modernized Enterprise insignia with the transporter sound. I have utmost faith in J.J. Abrams and his team and I have a feeling that this is going to be a great film.

632. commenterry - January 18, 2008

Oh my goodness, 600+ posts in one day mostly having to do with canon-fodder? I thought I was over the top with my Trek-life. Let’s all get a real life and enjoy the story we have with a lot less arrogance, and, what the heck, maybe even a bit of humble gratitude that something we love seems to have nine lives.

633. Classic trek - January 18, 2008

we could have a new generation of star trek fans who could grow up like i did watching capt kirk, mr spock, dr mcCoy and the rest. now theres a thought!!

ok it wont be shatner, nimoy etc (who are true legends and always will be-they will always be kirk and spock) but time moves on. at least they can enjoy an up to date -technically advanced and worth while Star trek which will be what hopefully gene rodenberry envisaged.

i undertand that many of these guys have already signed up to further ST movies. great – thats why i didnt want huge names in these roles.

star trek has finally come home.

i wish i could jump through the guardian of forever and go straight to 25.12.08!!
bring it on mr abrams

634. number3 - January 18, 2008

teaser was great, wish there was more of it, my FAV ship in the universe is looking good….thanks JJ

635. Stan - January 18, 2008

Consider me teased!

636. fatman bruno - January 18, 2008

Looks like Gabe has come round to the complaint that his radar dish just didn’t look right…

now if he would just make the engines a little slimmer instead of the fat cigars that he has at the moment

637. T Negative - January 18, 2008

#634 agree

I feel a little let down. I was hoping for more, but that’s why they call it a “teaser”

What was there looked great.

638. Jeyl - January 18, 2008

I just saw Cloverfield at the theaters and I was totally in awe of the teaser. Sure, say what you want about how Star Trek is no more or how everything is contradicting in this teaser, but just remember one thing.

This is a “TEASER”.

Teasers to a certain point aren’t meant to be taken seriously. If anything, it’s to inform audiences around the world that a movie is coming. They don’t show you much because the creators don’t want to show you much. And a lot of teasers, especially the ones for Star Trek can be very misleading and prone to misinterpretations. And for a film like this that keeps the movie safe. Plus this teaser has a very important message that Anthony just talked about but a lot of people here aren’t interested in.

We’re building a dream. Not just a dream that Gene Roddenberry had, but a dream that everyone has had whenever they looked up at the stars and wondered what it’s like up there. And what better way to reinforce that by hearing those words of JFK and all the space technicians who made that dream come alive.

Star Trek is coming back and I couldn’t be happier.

639. Minnesota Bruin - January 18, 2008

Argh. I still can’t believe there are people arguing about the Earth based construction. I wrote a lengthier explanation a few days ago that apparently no one read. Much like no one will read this…

I am a scientist working on the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Although I have a good understanding of engineering involved with building spacecraft, I asked a few spacecraft engineers at JPL to confirm. The bottom line: NASA always builds as much on the ground as they are capable of lifting into space.

In a world, where impulse engines can power the Enterprise to nearly the speed of light without relativistic effect, they surely have the propulsion technology required to build the E wherever they want. That includes launching her whole or assembling in space. Keep in mind, the structural integrity fields required for the acceleration they routinely experience have be capable for hundreds of Gs. The maximum launch force the space shuttle experiences is 3 Gs and that occurs after it has cleared much of the atmosphere.

640. Shaggy - January 18, 2008

@#639 – Great explanation. Too bad that some just don’t want to get it through their heads that ground construction makes perfect sense, even in the future. It looks like the issue will never rest though, which is sad.

The whole situation reminds me of a line in Mystery Science Theater 3000 theme song: “If you’re wondering how he eats or breaths or other science facts, just repeat to yourself it’s just a show, I should really just relax!”

641. Pizza - January 18, 2008

Just came back from Cloverfield. Lower budget movie, somewhat dizzy, a few exciting parts with 9/11 overtones on a few scenes. Most of the production cost must have been from all that gun powder they used. I’ll give it a score of 6 gold pressed latinum bars out of 10.

Oh, by the way, there was a teaser trailer for the new Star Trek movie tonight. :)

Dam right it was a teaser, blantant Trekoitus Interuptus!!

342 dtST

642. nscates - January 18, 2008

@ 639
Very concise and logical. Makes sense to me.

643. GARY - January 18, 2008

Hmmm well is there any better looking trailer which sone great nab/wonab has recorded for us???

644. Andy Patterson - January 18, 2008

608. Harry Ballz – January 18, 2008

Hey Harry. I admit your limericks aren’t always rhythmically even or in the exact right meter but I think they’re fun. Hendrix’s guitar wasn’t often in tune but man it sure was fun. Doesn’t life need a little fun?

I think a little limerick spices up the works. You rock on, brother.

As my favorite food channel personality says (besides that smokin’ Giadda De’Laurentis) Wolfgang Puck…who says “Live, Love and Eat.” And he’d say keep writing limericks if he knew you.

645. trekologist - January 18, 2008

If anyone has ever read the trek novel “Flag full of stars” (Pre-TMP timeframe) there is a sequence in the book where Admiral Kirk and Kevin Reilly are standing on Starfleet HQ roof watching the “liftoff” of the refitted saucer section moving up to orbit to a re-fitted secondary hull. Not that the novels are canon of course, but it could lend credence to this concept of the E being at least partially assembled on earth.

646. tbk1701 - January 18, 2008

it gave me chills……
boldly go and give us true fans, you know the ones ,who don’t hate on anything, A story about what star trek is supposed to do…make us believe that it is not out of reach.

647. Allan Cook - January 18, 2008

#639: In your scenario, they’d have to build the Structural Integrity Field before the did a single other thing!

Building ocean liners on mountain tops is stupid, no matter how much Trek-nology you want to throw at it.

648. NCC-73515 - January 18, 2008

When I woke up this morning
A brand new day was forming
Another year I’ve gotten older
Yet I don’t need someone’s shoulder
A present was there for my eyes
I saw it here – the Enterprise!
Brand new as well, I have to tell
All of my friends about these trends
Star Trek will be most pleasant
Could there be a better present?

649. Steve - January 18, 2008

And you guys call yourselfs Trekkies. The scene takes place at the Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. The component parts were built there and then assembled in orbit.

650. Jizzle - January 18, 2008

According to Memory Alpha: 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 in San Francisco and launched in 2245, was christened the Enterprise. Larry Marvick was one of the designers of the Enterprise.

So it WAS built in space.

651. k7 - January 18, 2008

Once I heard Space the Final…. I got tears in my eyes
relax about canon. the real Star Trek is coming back.No bloody A, B.C,D,or E
It is not about ship design or where NCC-1701 was constructed.
It is about faith in the future and the characters we all grew to love.
All I need now is to see the picture of the crew in uniform. (please no red /blonde hair Scotty)
P.S. I saw Shaun of the Dead last weekend on TV. I think Mr. Pegg has the talent to mkae me believe he is my favorite Star Trek character.

652. Daniel Broadway - January 18, 2008

Does anyone know what the music is called in the trailer? Not the Star Trek music of course, but the “build up” music when it shows the text “The Future Begins” I’d love to know what it is. It’s great.

653. trekologist - January 18, 2008

Thoughts about canon and new E design…..

The Defiant was seen in an episode of Enterprise looking just as the orignal E looked.

The original E appeared in an episode of DS9, again looking just like it did only computer rendered.

The remasterd TOS shows us an E looking just like the previous two examples.

Are they going to re-re-master the TOS with the new design?

I’ve actually come to grips with new actors, but….. why so many changes to what we’ve come to know visually?

Just thougts…..

654. trekologist - January 18, 2008


Where do you pull Hunters Point from established trek (book or otherwise). I recall a scene in TOS where someone said components assembled on earth and assembled in orbit. The making of trek book supports this but does not reference anything beyond San Fran.

655. spock34 - January 18, 2008

is the ship in the picture??

656. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

#650 Jizzle —

I’m confused…the reference you quoted says it was built “IN San Francisco”.

Your statement is non-sequitur.

657. Dennis Bailey - January 18, 2008

#643: “Hmmm well is there any better looking trailer which sone great nab/wonab has recorded for us???”

Ah, the thing should be on line “officially” in a couple of days. :)

658. Dennis Bailey - January 18, 2008

#597: “Nacelles look Gabe-esque, other than that it seems more remeniscent of TMP,”

Exactly so.

659. Johnny Walker - January 18, 2008

“647. Allan Cook – January 18, 2008
#639: In your scenario, they’d have to build the Structural Integrity Field before the did a single other thing!”

No, they could build the ship or component in what ever order made sense. They just couldn’t launch the thing until structural integrity was on-line.

“Building ocean liners on mountain tops is stupid, no matter how much Trek-nology you want to throw at it.”

So is building one in the middle of the ocean, which is why you don’t see anyone doing it.

660. steve623 - January 18, 2008

“All I need now is to see the picture of the crew in uniform. (please no red /blonde hair Scotty)”

So not about ship design or construction sites, all about faith and humanity and characters, but Scotty can’t be a blonde or a redhead. That’s funny. Everybody is uptight, old, whiny, whatever about the details they love and should let go of them for the benefit of the widest possible audience – except for the detail that *you* love – that one’s gotta stay!

and that wasn’t directed at you specifically, k-7. Just a springboard for a more general comment, so please don’t take it personally. I’m just amused that even the proponents of the film taking the widest liberties with Trek’s nerdlore are precious and protective of something.

661. Jabob Slatter - January 18, 2008

Enterprise was built on the ground. It was established in the Trek novel “Twist of Hate”, published by Pocket books in June of 1987. It was written by L.Q. Peterson. Here is the excerpt from a conversation between Kirk and Spock:

Kirk walked slowly along the railing, his fingers tracing the path of the metal composite grain. He looked up at Spock and the First Officer could see emotion behind his Captain’s eyes.

“I won’t lose her Spock,” said Kirk. His gaze went through the Vulcan. It seemed to Spock that Kirk was literally looking through the walls of Enterprise, into the soul of the machine itself.

“I gave up a lot for this ship,” continued Kirk, his eyes retreating from the bowels of the ship and once again focusing on Spock. “A wife. A son. I could have had a very different life. It might even have been a better life, but I made my choice. I’m where I belong.”

Spock clasped his hands behind his back and arched his eyebrow slightly in acknowledgement. “Agreed.”

Kirk was in motion again, looking around the vast room, smiling as if looking upon a child. “I remember when they lauched this ship into space for it’s maiden voyage. I think I fell in love for the first time. I said to myself, ‘I’m going to command a ship like that one day.’”

The Captain stopped and turned toward Spock, his eyes glazed with distant memory. “Little did I know it would be that very same ship. How can you not say that was fate, Spock?”

“I would not presume to debate the logic of fate with you.”

Kirk smiled. “This ship was built on Earth, but wasn’t worth anything until it was in space. Just like me. We’re the same.”

The Captain’s composure suddenly betrayed his weariness. Slumping his shoulders, he looked at the deck and shook his head. “I’m tired, Spock.”

Spock moved toward the Captain. “Would you like a shoulder massage?” he asked, hands outstretched.

Kirked perked up at the thought, then looked around the recreation room. “Here?”

662. Wick - January 18, 2008

I think that we can say that there has been so much time travel in the Star Trek Universe that variations in the time line are inevitable.

663. trekologist - January 18, 2008


Thought of that idea last night….. Who’s to say that this Trek is not a “variant” universe????

“Our Enterprise but it isn’t…. something….. parallel….. parallel universes, both existing in the same place…..” you get the idea….. see episode Mirror Mirror if you don’t

664. The Quickening - January 18, 2008


Though TOS is my favorite, in my opinion, both TNG and DS9 were better series.

Everyone assumes because TOS was more pure “fun”, it will save the franchise and people will once again flock to see a TREK movie, as if TNG and DS9 weren’t fun as well.

Don’t see it.

A lot of society is just sick of STAR TREK (see the reaction of the audiences to the trailer–post numbers 446, 447, 455, 456).

Over-saturation, contempt for constantly being inundated with TREK, constant familiarity, or just being tired of hearing about it, includes TOS, too–that’s what I think you are missing… Abrams and Paramount are missing this too.

Not enough time has pasted to really miss STAR TREK and so much was produced, any desire for more, the world and society is not hungry for.

It was totally unforgivable for Paramount to continue to produce movies and TV concurrently for so long. No franchise that I can think of was that naive. Even Lucas waited for STAR WARS to finish it’s movie run before parading more STAR WARS before us on TV. Believe it or not, something can just become tiring in and of itself and have nothing to do with quality. Think of every great TV series. Sooner or later, interest and ratings will decline and it will lose it’s luster–quality may decline or not, but it just doesn’t do it for you anymore.

Looked at an ER episode last year and I couldn’t say the writing was any worst during it’s peak period. It just wasn’t fresh or interesting anymore. It just seemed worn out. That’s what has happened to STAR TREK.

DS9 was, in my opinion, far and away the best TREK since TOS. As the quality went up, the rating went down. DS9 had a new look and feel too, like this new movie is suppose to have. Didn’t matter to former TREK fans or the mass TV audience. They still stayed away. Interest is just not there anymore for TREK. The masses have moved on to the next flavor of the month.

Could have lasted longer if Paramount hadn’t been so greedy, but that ship has pasted. Interest in TREK is over and I don’t see the name Abrams making any difference.

And those who think the key to success is marketing and advertising, I ask: How can knowing a new TREK movie is coming, help, if the reason they are staying away is because they are tired and contemptuous of hearing about it?

That doesn’t makes sense to me.

We’ll know for sure if there is any interest left December, 2008.

665. jim - January 18, 2008

I can imagine a really cool scene of the ship lifting off from the ground. Have like a set of towers towering over the ship and surrounding it. Then have like 6 tractor beams activate in unison, pull the ship up, and send it into orbit.

666. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 18, 2008

OK, 3000 posts without me, and I finally get the chance to post. (Busy guy!) I’m still relegated to seeing the trailer on YouTube, can’t get out to see Cloverfield. My couple of cents: Thrilled as a fan to see a Star Trek trailer. Love the use of the original sound effects. They were never used enough in the previous movies. Nimoy is a great link to the emotions. I am not getting into a BBK thing, but I agree that, in a perfect world, it would be Shatner intoning those words. The whispery voice of Nimoy is OK here, but if we are going to boldly go, we could use the bolder tones of the Shat. I know why he can’t be used, I’m just sayin’. I can’t see enough of this ship to say if it looks like Gabe Koerner’s. I hope it doesn’t. Gabe is a talented guy, and his work is impressive, but it ain’t the Enterprise. I will be hugely disappointed if it looks like his ship. Way too “50’s diner” for my liking. For anyone to honestly say they can tell what the ship looks like based on this trailer is nuts. Active imaginations. I also felt they missed a chance for more drama in the trailer in the way Nimoy’s voiceover was used. The camera was in mid pan, actively rising above the saucer as he started to speak. That blunted the impact. Should have had the saucer appearing out of a black fade, but I nitpick.

667. trekologist - January 18, 2008

Wow Ouickie….. Hang on for one sec….. I’m one of the previously refenced 40+ “whinners” but check it out…..

I loved DS9 too…. a very different take on trek. It (DS9) lasted 7 seasons.
Enterprise just had cable / satelite TV catch up to the trek franchise…. too many other options aside from tv…..

My point is…….. while this is not MY star trek, it may very well be someone else’s in that if they (the producers) keep the original “Roddenberry Message” alive they may flock to it and the franchise may find new life with a next generation…. no pun intended…..

668. diabolk - January 18, 2008

661…. slash?

669. Fansince9 - January 18, 2008

I’d rather see the trailer in an original (not copied) form before I can make a judement on the trailer. So far so good, though. I agree with what the web page said. It’s time to go ahead and roll the original out (before too many conclusions are unfairly brought out of conceptions from the viewing of a badly copied trailer). I can’t see anything useful in waiting at this point.

670. Jabob Slatter - January 18, 2008


What is this “slash” you speak of?

671. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

I’m surprised Paramount has taken the trailer down. They must like the buzz it’s generating.

672. Noleuser - January 18, 2008


673. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 18, 2008

Holy cats, I’m 666! Darn the luck. Excuse me while I go say three Our Fathers and Three Hail Marys.

674. Ampris - January 18, 2008

You sure that was a ‘novel’, 661? LOL. :P

Right, I still can’t believe it, but I actually read this entire thread PLUS the first Enterprise picture one. No matter how this movie turns out, it’ll have a time of things being more entertaining than a year’s worth of comments by this crew. (:

My thoughts on the trailer? Freaking cool! The tone of it (what I could see, anyway; the 21st can’t come soon enough…) wasn’t exactly what I think of when I think “TOS”, but it was more or less what I’m anticipating from the movie. But the emotional impact of it was brilliant, the quotes and glimpses of the ship and people working on her were just too awesome. To lapse into unabashed fangirl mode for a moment… SQUEEE!

Though, I want to comment on a couple of the discussions here. Now, being relatively new to the fandom there are some things I’m not aware of. Gabe Koerner? No idea who he is or whether his designs were ripped off. I have no clue where the Enterprise was built (assembled, designed, whatever) or why, for that matter, it has any bearing on a movie’s quality. Reading this whole Spacedock VS. Earth-Built drama unfold, however, I’m beginning to think that ignorance may be bliss. I’m thinking that there are plenty of canon-bits that are definitely necessary to keep the same shown some respect even if they’re changed a bit, but this particular debate doesn’t seem to be one of these. The ship was built, it was called Enterprise, the story continues from there.

Unless it’s a plotpoint given more than five minutes of screentime in the movie, where and how she was built has to do with what happened after, what’s actually *important* to a movie and to Star trek- the story, the people involved, all the obvious and underlying themes that Trek has been known for all these years. It just seems like a strange thing to spend so much energy bickering over.

Anyhoo, I’m not gonna let canon fights or premature conclusions spoil the mood. I’m so frigging excited for this movie! I had the misfortune of not being alive and, thus, able to see any of the other movies in theaters so this one’ll be a first-time experience for me. Maybe it’ll suck like nothing else and trample over every aspect of Star Trek that I hold dear, and maybe not. I won’t know for another eleven months, and those won’t pass fast enough. Can’t wait! (:

675. sean - January 18, 2008


Hate to break it to you, but your own post undermines your point. Specifically “which was constructed in San Francisco”.

That aside, Memory Alpha isn’t sacred holder of the flame. Canon (as it is) is what’s seen onscreen, period. Not books Gene Rodeberry thought were neat, or speculation by Robert Justman or throwaway references by D.C. Fontana. Not ‘The Making of Star Trek’ or ‘The Star Trek Encyclopedia’ or Willam Shatner’s books. Just what they stick up on the silver screen or the boob tube.

676. trektacular - January 18, 2008

445. I totally agree there has definitely been too much Trek for people to get excited by this teaser the way they should. All this criticism is definitely a giant indicator of that.

677. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

676 trektacular, I think plenty of people are getting excited about this trailer.

I just started my friend in trek (He’s seen all of Enterprise and 2 seasons of TOS so far) and he can’t wait to see the teaser and the movie.

678. Prologic9 - January 18, 2008

Dennis Bailey;

“Oh, and if “Cloverfield” doesn’t get at least a nomination for Best Sound Design or Sound Editing or something then they got robbed.”

lol, yeah, that camcorder had the best microphone I’ve ever heard.

679. harris - January 18, 2008

It looks like they are building a Dreadnought battle ship from WWI not a space ship that will travel at the speed of light. When did space travel go from clean room to dry dock?

680. Commander Data - January 18, 2008

I believe that the teaser trailer shown is of adequate design. The trailer is merely there to generate early interest in the movie. I do not believe that canon should be questioned this early.
Further more I do not believe that judging a movie based on a “teaser” trailer is logical, especially when the movie itself is not due for release until December..

681. QcJoe - January 18, 2008

I wanted more,but I understand that theres not alot of stuff to put in the trailer yet. All I know is Im gripping hard for new Star Trek.

682. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

#675 Sean: “That aside, Memory Alpha isn’t sacred holder of the flame.”

Don’t tell *them* that!

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

683. Mike - January 18, 2008

If your life is so void of true meaning and/or importance, that all you can complain about is this movie voiding the “cannon” of Star Trek, then do me and the rest of use a huge favor. Don’t see the movie, buy the remastered TOS on DVD, and enjoy them in your parent’s basement. As for the rest of us, a little re-imagining is healthy. What we’ve been getting for the past few years is a rehash of the some old. The “gene pool” of recent Star Trek cannon has been growing, well, shallow. It’s about the spirit, the human spirit of adventure and exploring the unknown. That man can rise above his initial condition and reach for the stars, literally. So kick back, relax, and let’s enjoy the ride.

684. Millions - January 18, 2008

This IS NOT a bold move.

I’m a star trek fan, but come on people, this whole idea is riding off BSGs popularity. Revamp an outdated sci-fi bringing it back down to nitty-gritty realism – from the tailor its evident this is the plan for star trek. When BSG did it, it was a bold move, star trek doing it, is called copying.

If star trek really were being bold, they’d drop the safe guard of kirk and spok. Start a-new with an entirely separate star trek. Not just a new crew like we see every few years, but a new cannon, from the beginning.

Star trek is rich with history and with a new line of cannon they could sort everything out, no more notes on how X was contradicted in episode Y.

To me it seems ludicrous that its ‘A whole new star trek! with lenord nemoy as spok in the tailor :D SEE? NEW!’

l’ll just stick to re-runs of star trek, not every show can go on forever, ‘all good things..’ but,they want your money :P so they’ll die trying

685. USS Enterprise NCC-1701 - January 18, 2008

I’m sure I should be flattered. But somehow I’m not.

That was my character that died. I’m still here and only 42.

686. Joe - January 18, 2008


Totally agree. So long as the vision of Roddenberry stays true, than I believe this movie is going to be great and hopefully, breath fresh new life into Start Trek. Look at the success of “Casino Royale” and “Batman Begins”, both comes from franchises with decades of “cannon” that just grew old. A new take, built on the same foundation, is fine by me. I think this movie is going to rock.

687. roberto orci - January 18, 2008

291. Steven JB – January 18, 2008
“I was pretty disappointed. The whole trailer was basically the picture we already had with a little music ad special effects.”

You mean that knowing about your surprise party ruined the surprise? I’m shocked!

688. Balock - January 18, 2008

#626, this is how it should really be…

689. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

684. Millions – January 18, 2008

This IS NOT a bold move.

I’m a star trek fan, but come on people, this whole idea is riding off BSGs popularity. Revamp an outdated sci-fi bringing it back down to nitty-gritty realism – from the tailor its evident this is the plan for star trek. When BSG did it, it was a bold move, star trek doing it, is called copying.

How many people did Roddenberry copy from?


This comes from an old school fan.

Whom didn’t Gene steal from? Hell, he stole from his own staff, just ask Herb Sollow and Fred Freibeger, or maybe D.C. Fontana, or Bob Justman. Sheesh!?!?!

Have you seen Forbidden Planet? How much did Gene steal from that?

Think about it. HA! Gene’s vision….. What a joke!

I’d rather see Orci and crew in charge than that freak Berman, Braga.


690. BaronByng - January 18, 2008

1 – I think I agree with the posters who say this trailer is allegorical, not literal. I seriously doubt we’ll see this scene in the movie.
2 – The nacelles REALLY look like Gabe Koerner’s design; spinning fan-like things behind clear domes and the “cowling” just behind them.
3 – I do think the font on the saucer in the trailer is a bit odd, not for canon reasons but just because it seems impractical — ship and aircraft registry numbers are written in a highly readable-at-a-distance block typeface. It also seems to be positioned oddly, too far forward, and such that the curve of the “NCC-1701″ doesn’t really match the arc of the saucer that it’s sitting on. (Sorry, type nerdery.)

4) Have you seen the high resolution still from Moviefone? Firstshowing has it up here:

691. roberto orci - January 18, 2008

You don’t need warp engines to leave earth’s atmosphere. If Klingon Bird of Prey can land and take off again from San Francisco (STIV), you can bet your butt the U.S.S. Enterprise can do it!

692. roberto orci - January 18, 2008

I’ll bet half the folks who believe the Enterprise couldn’t be even partially constructed on the earth have also argued to simply bring Shatner back with a snap of our fingers.

693. elmachocombo - January 18, 2008

Hey, Harris,
You ever seen a room big enough for a space ship?
The parts are made here.
The parts are assembled there.
Welding is here.
Engines installed there.
The ship is flown up there.
The paint is applied yonder.
The carpet’s on back order.

A. Does any of this really amount to a hill of beans?

B. We don’t even know if these images are in the film.

C. Who’s to say that a giant force field isn’t creating a “clean” envelope in which the workers…oh, wait. There’s no such thing as giant forcefields.

D. Just go with it y’all. It’s much more fun that way.

Yo, Carl! Whaaaaasuuuuuup!

694. USS Enterprise NCC-1701 - January 18, 2008

670: Just in case you *really* don’t know, Slash fic: a genre of fan fiction dealing with homosexual relationships or sexual encounters.

Comes from the slash (/) when referring to Kirk/Spock, Kirk/McCoy, Kirk/Mugatu …

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

695. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

That trailer was the shit! My heart rate seriously quickened during the Enterprise reveal, even after having seen the YouTube version of the trailer. And I loved Cloverfield, so I guess I’ll get to see the trailer in the theater a second time. Also, someone noted earlier how you could see the turbine-like apparatus spinning ever so slightly. Nice detail.

696. Daniel Broadway - January 18, 2008

Roberto Orci…

You probably don’t know this, but I’ll ask anyway. Any idea what the music is called in the first half of the trailer before the Star Trek music?

697. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

LOL! I’m SO busted!

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

698. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

And who’s the Orci with the lowercase “o”? Are they one in the same, or is one a doppelgänger?

If ’tis the true Orci, that trailer was right on. Thank you!

699. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

691, 692. Robert. Please don’t worry about these guys. Listen to the NASA Engineers.

BTW, THANK YOU again for working on this. God! I can’t wait.

Rock on Rob and crew, Rock on……… Trek on! WHOOT!

700. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

I think the brass part at the beginning of the Star Trek theme is simply referred to as “Fanfare” when it’s not attached to the rest of the TOS theme. At least that’s what I gathered.

701. sean - January 18, 2008


The trailer is awesome, regardless of what *some* people are choosing to get bent out of shape about. You’ve made us excited about Trek again!

702. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

Slash? Why does the conversation always have to go to slash? What happened to Star Trek?


703. roberto orci - January 18, 2008

696 I’ll find out.

704. roberto orci - January 18, 2008

699 – Thanks for the support, but we really do want all opinions — good or bad.

705. This is canon - January 18, 2008

The way you talk about canon makes it look like a religion. Scary.

706. RaGhul - January 18, 2008

#16 AJ

Couldn’t agree more.

“Oh my god, it’s not canon! The nacelles are too big! The Enterprise was built in SPACE, not on EARTH! Oh… my…” (fanboy falls to the floor dead, STILL a virgin…)

Sure, CGI Hulk DID look fake, but oddly enough, the special effects were the best part of the movie.

I couldn’t care less how the ship looks. They could put a huge “Domino’s Pizza” sign on top and it wouldn’t matter, as long as the story’s good, and the actors can act. That’s it. That’s all I’m asking for.

707. Kempec - January 18, 2008

The Music in the teaser. I wonder if any of it was done by Michael Giachino? if it was…Very Well Done. Gave me a cold chill!!! The visuals were striking as well.

708. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

This was one BADASS teaser, I’ll be PISSED if it doesn’t show up on the DVD like some movies.

I get chills every time I watch it.

I hope the teaser will be downloadable.

709. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

#702: Not *always.* :-)

Ya gotta admit, though, the last two paragraphs of Jabob’s story could be construed as kinda slashy.

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

710. VOODOO - January 18, 2008

Great teaser

711. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

Roberto, Can we please have a higher res copy? Who deserves it more than the fans?……. Never mind, sorry for asking.


712. New Horizon - January 18, 2008

– 653. trekologist – January 18, 2008
The original E appeared in an episode of DS9, again looking just like it did only computer rendered.

No, the enterprise in DS9 was not computer rendered, it was a physical model.

713. JRB Trekfan - January 18, 2008

Everybody take a breath. It is just a teaser trailer. There may not be a construction scene at all in the movie. The movie does not open for almost a year and alot can and will happen until then.

So, I hate to say, but, GET A LIFE!!!!

714. Trek is my Religion - January 18, 2008

For those of you who don’t think cannon is important, you’re wrong. How dare we defy Gene’s one, true vision. I swear that if everything is not exactly a repeat from TOS, well, my little, virgin head is going to explode. Without cannon, my universe would cease to be. As for those theories that the parts of the Enterprise are assembled on Earth, then beamed into space…PLEASE…there is no way they could build a transporter large enough to accomodate the entire sauce section. That’s just crazy talk!

715. RaGhul - January 18, 2008


Oh, btw guys…
As far as “canon” goes, you all DO realize that Chekov didn’t appear in Star Trek ’til season two, right? And the movie supposedly shows the very BEGINNING of Star Trek, right?

And you guys are all blowin’ your wad on the SHIP!! Hahahaha…..

716. SPB - January 18, 2008

#689 –

It is funny how, in FORBIDDEN PLANET, their vessel was captained by one J.J. Adams.

Now, over 50 years later, we get a re-boot of STAR TREK (heavily influenced by PLANET), directed by one J.J. Abrams. Co-inky-dink? I THINK NOT. :)

717. GARY - January 18, 2008

Roberto: Hi! greetings fron Venezuela!
I’m guessing two things fron the trailer and pics.
First, the bridge looks quite large, maybe two storys high! That can be great if well done.

Now from the design of the ship, it looks quite interesting, love the hull plating but those nacelles. Oh my! The stick out as the nose of Barbara Streisand and i can’t stop watching!!!! So does the Registry they seem to stick out a lot too…hehe, it’s like most of the new cars out there, I’ve never expected the Mazda symbol to grow so big!!!
Still, I would love to see the rest of the ship anyway to compare it.

I support the impossibility of the shatner in the new movie, his presense in the movie would be only possible with sone deus ex machina and that is a cop out.

Regarding the solders, it’s fine, it’s not as if the whole ship was hand made. Now if it’s possible and i know it’s expensive, you guys can always put the ship on an Engineering programm such as Solidworks or similar and see if the ship cab hold up on it’s own in the atmosphere or the ground. (I guess it can, it’s the Enterprise)

Keep up the good work, I hope i wasn’t too cruel!

Gary A. Neumann

718. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008

I recently got home from the movie ‘Cloverfield’. The teaser was a freakin’ awesome and it brought a few eyes on my cheeks! I told my dear friend who was a bit of trekkie to watch that teaser without telling her what it was. When the camera panned on the saucer section, she dropped her jaw and said, “New Star Trek movie?” I said to her, “Yes it is. It will be released on Dec. 25th.” Then she said, “Wow! It is awesome and the ship is real beautiful!” and she wanted to go to watch the movie. I explained to her that the original characters had returned and just the new and young actors were portraying them. Her reaction to the teaser brought a huge smile to my face.

Cloverfield was a good movie. My friend had to sleep thru the movie because she was prone to get motion sickness due to almost constant wild camera moves. :( I came out with a few signs of dizziness.

719. Rick - January 18, 2008

“That don’t impress me much”


720. Cenobyte - January 18, 2008


Just because Chekov is in this movie doesn’t mean cannon is blown… in season 1 Chekov was alive and well somewhere in the Star Trek universe right?

Possibly even assigned to the USS Enterprise…

All ya gota do is think about it a bit man ;)

721. EdDR - January 18, 2008

Hey #2 If you quiver really fast will you transport out of here?

722. I'm not an effect! - January 18, 2008

Are my eyes just really crappy or is the quality of those copies such that you can’t tell what you’re looking at anyway?

It’s like a rorschack test, then.

I think they’re welding a bunny.

In spaaaaaaace….

723. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008

You know, when I see some fans espouse their feelings, I feel ashamed to be a fan. Then again, when I espouse my feelings I’m sure there are a few that are ashamed of me. Oh well, Ces’t La Vie.

I’m sooooooooo happy that the killer B’s aren’t doing this movie…. I’m almost ready for a Trekgasm….oh….here it comes!

Boo Ya! :)

724. I'm not an effect! - January 18, 2008

well, not really in spaaaaace.

But you get the drift.

725. KirkTrekModeler - January 18, 2008


Really, can we get a little more? Doh! I just realized, I sound like a junky! Well, guess I am. I’m a junky for JJR Trek!

Really, can we have some more? Please? Just a taste man, just a taste. I’ll be back next week for more, really. I’m good for it. :)

About boobs, er uh babes. Are we gonna see some babes? Will Kirk get to… you know,….kiss some babes? Several per movie at least.

Can Jeri Ryan play a small part? Like maybe Annika Hansen’s Great Grand Mother?

What about Tricia Helfer, can she play 6 of 9 with 7 of 9?

726. jonboc - January 18, 2008

Just watched it…again. The sound effect in the end is great. It just reminds me of how “spooky”, for lack of a better word, some of those alien worlds were. The sound at the end, or those haunting space “winds” that blew on the world of the Guardian. They really made space a creepy place at times and I loved it. I hope this movie can re-create some of the other-worldly atmosphere that is unique to TOS.

727. Dennis Bailey - January 18, 2008

#723: “I’m sure there are a few that are ashamed of me. ”

Hey, you finally got one right. :)

728. crazybeach - January 18, 2008

You are most welcome.
Like I said, just my few quatloos’ worth..

729. Jovan - January 18, 2008

Something about the Enterprise being built in space was in the original series… but really who gives a shit. There’s been about 4093409869834098643 things that contradict each other in Star Trek. GET OVER IT! It’s a fictional world that isn’t perfect. As much a Trekkie as I am, as much as I’d love to visit this fictional world, I realise it’s just that, fiction.

Besides the fact that all of you will see it anyway. ;)

730. Christopher - January 18, 2008

I was so excited in the theater when I heard Leonard Nimoy say “Space the final frontier…”

731. jim - January 18, 2008

Is it just me, or is the nacelle on the right larger than the one one the left.

(It’s probably just me. . . )

732. Jovan - January 18, 2008

Captain Hackett: I have to ask, why haven’t you asked this girl on a date yet? She sounds like a keeper. :)

733. Anthony Pascale - January 18, 2008

I have done a ‘post game analysis’ with Orci on the trailer….that interview will be posted in a few hours…so stay tuned. first up will be something from opening night of the tour last night though…that will be in an our or so

734. SteveinSF - January 18, 2008

The intro should be done by William Shatner.

735. crazybeach - January 18, 2008

Yes, some of us are aware of entertainment sources OTHER than Trek. Thanks for noticing, as I noticed you yourself were…

Seems this whole canon/noncanon argument is like what they did to Norman in “I, Mudd”. You know, “Norman, listen carefully. I am lying…”
I mean, seriously. Some of these people say, “I’m gonna boycott this movie/this movie’s gonna suck if (insert flaw/sequence/event”. Well, how can you say it sucks if you don’t go see it? You cannot say it sucks if you don’t see it but you cannot decide that something is noncanon if you don’t go see it but you won’t go see it if this thing or the other thing happens in the movie which you won’t know if you don’t see it (slumps limply, smoke issuing from collar).
See? It’s a self-defeating argument!
Jeez, people!

736. section9 - January 18, 2008

Please, can there be a small part for Senator Vreenak!


737. ShawnP - January 18, 2008

#731 – Well, as is the case with most paired objects, one’s usually bigger than the other. Uh, I mean…

738. Taran Wanderer - January 18, 2008

Almost worth seeing Cloverfield just to see the NEW STAR TREK trailer!!!

739. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

A couple of hours Anthony?!?!? I’m on eastern time here COME ON!!!

740. GARY - January 18, 2008

Plese Roberto my venezuelan comments count!!!!

741. Harry Ballz - January 18, 2008

#644 Andy Patterson “keep writing limericks”

Thanks, Andy….much appreciated!

See, here’s the thing about my limericks….as I read other posts and have a thought in reply, I simply bang out a limerick in two minutes to make my point. Sure, I could labour on them for longer and probably make them better, but I prefer it to be from “the gut” with no rethinking it….like making a comment while chatting with good friends. That’s why THX said it has a flavour of community to it…..EXACTLY! Whether it’s limerick or serious reply, I never deliberate for long on it…..a few seconds, then bang!

Fresh and spontaneous is always the way to go!

I appreciate those who allow me this little pleasure in my life! :)

742. British Naval Dude - January 18, 2008

It be late… and I be back… nice words from a few here… O- the rum has me knackered…

Sacktime for me… the sea is gentle this night… rock me ta sleep and
have me a preview of gentle Rita in me dreams… now thar be nacelles galore!

… trailering off…

743. petitspock - January 18, 2008

That TOS sound effect at the end gave me chills.

744. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008

#732 Jovan

She is taken. :( Her boyfriend is one of my closest friends and fraternity brothers, He is not fond of going out to watch the movie. That is why she and I tend to go to watch movies together sometimes.

745. Captain Hackett - January 18, 2008

#733 Anthony

That is great!

I would love to see you have an interview with JJ Abrams!

746. Anthony Pascale - January 18, 2008

I have spoken to Senator Vreenak. He is honored by your comments but his commitments as a resident expert would preclude him from being part of any new film

747. Dr. Image - January 18, 2008

Honestly, why did you guys decide to change the look of such a long-time visually well-established cultural icon?

748. D. McCoy - January 18, 2008

I am reminded that there are so many changes we have had to go through, as Trek fans through the years. Remember how TMP had a different transporter effect than TOS? I missed it (along with the communicators). Maybe we’re getting the transporter back.

749. Pumpkin - January 18, 2008

I would have LOVED it if they had patched in pieces of one of Shatner’s old voiceovers – he just doesn’t have the same youthful sound in his voice anymore (wonder why? =p).

I’m really not too keen on the idea that the movie is to build bridges between today and key points in Trek history up to Kirk joining in the Enterprise. The best part for me about this movie is it’ll most likely be the last chance Nimoy will have to play Spock. That alone is what has me still wanting to go see the movie.

I think TOS and TNG did so well because they were essentially the same thing – going out into space, discovering new things and that “people really are alike all over”. DS9 you had to worry about the continuing storyline – not so much in TOS and TNG. Mostly just tidbits for people to fight over. =p I’m really hoping they’ll launch a new show tng-era or beyond that is just a crew on a ship venturing out into space and having adventures and becoming friends as a result of their experiences. That is Trek at its best.

750. TrekNerd - January 18, 2008

“55. Crusty McCoy – January 18, 2008
Continuing suggestions for Roberto Orci’s tell-all after-the-fact book:

Star Trek Too: The Wrath of Fan
Star Trek: The Search for Intelligent Fandom and Finding None at AICN
Star Trek: The Voyage As Far Away from You People As Possible
Star Trek: The FANal Lobotomy
Star Trek: The Undiscovered FANwankery”

You forgot Star Trek: The Preconceived Notion Picture.

751. Stephmtl - January 18, 2008

No one has mentioned that if you zoom in on the open bridge, you can see a hexagonal red bridge door, and multicolored panels flanking it, looking very much like TOS control panels.

752. Robert Meyer Burnett - January 18, 2008


Hey, I really liked the teaser.

Majestic, grand, beautiful. Perfectly alludes to my feelings about STAR TREK as a concept. Very well done.

Now…about that FONT…


Although I’ve already gone on the record about the positive aspects the BAD ROBOT team brings to the franchise…I remain…


I’ll still never believe a Starship can be entirely constructed planetside by arcwelders however…

And yeah, I’ve got a first edition hardcover of FLAG FULL OF STARS.

Survive and succeed.

753. reptileboy - January 18, 2008

Hey Anthony, just in case no one has said this already. You Rock! has become the first site I check in the morning and the last I click out at night. Keep up the great work. It is much appreciated.

754. Robert Meyer Burnett - January 18, 2008


Oh, wait…WAS there a hardcover of FFOS?

You tell me.

755. Nutrinos R Drifting - January 18, 2008

The family and I went to see Cloverfield (EXCELLENT, I TELL YA!) at the Cinemopolis in Anaheim Hills, CA, and guess what? No Trek trailer! We inquired with the management, who informed us the ST trailer had not yet arrived. I was a bit bummed!

756. Doug - January 18, 2008

#705: canon as religion??? (evil laugh) Curses! Discovered! Didn’t you all know Gene Roddenberry is the new Ron L. Hubbard? (evil laugh)

757. JustBob - January 18, 2008

Re: 149. Captainfirst – January 18, 2008

“Just my two cents….”

That two cent post is worth about $100.00. You hit the nail on the head for sure.

758. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

About the teaser trailer… Wow. Leonard’s voice sounded rough. It was exciting, weird and sad all at the same time.

Exciting – It’s really happening!
Weird – It’s been so long it doesn’t seem real.
Sad – My favourite character and beloved actor is aging.

More teasing, please. Give us some hints.


759. Edward - January 18, 2008


The teaser was O.K. But too much like the Transformers one. You guys need to get more creative….maybe next time.

On that note…

I quote you saying “If Klingon Bird of Prey can land and take off again from San Francisco (STIV), you can bet your butt the U.S.S. Enterprise can do it!”

The BOP’s ship design clearly gave it room for landing gear without looking out of place. The design of the Enterprise is not made for that unless you put some goofy looking things in the under belly or completely reimagine the whole thing like you guys did with …again …Transformers.

I quote you again:

“I’ll bet half the folks who believe the Enterprise couldn’t be even partially constructed on the earth have also argued to simply bring Shatner back with a snap of our fingers.”

Brother, its called creative writting. Its SCI-FI. Your telling me that Nimoy’s B.S. resurrection in ST3 is something you could never come up with because????

You are a writer…use your imagination…clearly you have something called that if not you wouldn’t have lasted this long in the business (which BTW I am in as well ;) )

Give me a break dude. You guys are not fooling anyone with this act. Just say the truth: Shatner wants too much $$$ and you guys want it for yourselves (which hey, its your movie so thats totally fair).

What you guys want is to make cash off of the old schoolers and make a bunch of new fans to make cash off of….ala again…

wait for it….


The problem is you are comparing a TV cartoon with little to no real canon to something that has lasted far longer and means a lot more to people than that cartoon.

Break a leg my friend…I hope it works out with you as the other project did but I got to tell you that you are definitely running uphill with the Shatner thing as the excuses your crew is giving out aren’t working…maybe a little truth should really be leaked….because c’mon…being totally stumped on how to bring back any one character on a SCI-FI deal? I KNOW your a better writer than that.

760. MrRegular - January 18, 2008

If “THE MAKING OF STAR TREK” isn’t authoritative then Gene Roddenberry, who co-wrote the book, had no credibility. Are you telling me the man who created Trek wasn’t an authority on the construction of the Big E?
That said I’m looking forward to December of 2008!

761. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Re: #692. roberto orci – January 18, 2008

“I’ll bet half the folks who believe the Enterprise couldn’t be even partially constructed on the earth have also argued to simply bring Shatner back with a snap of our fingers.”

Oh, man, he’s on to you guys. Go Roberto, go.

Actually, I think it would be easier in space because of the gravity issue (although they probably had anti-grav cranes doing the lifting or something like that). Frankly I don’t care where they build it as long as it flies!!!!

Love it all, sir. Keep it up.

762. JT Willis - January 18, 2008

As for earth versus orbit.

I think its pretentious to think that only the “current” point of view of constructions methods would hold true 50 or 100 years from now.

Most probably, once the methods exist, construction of ships will proceed in the most natural environment (aka gravity well) for which they are intended to be used over their service life.

Since the decks will operate upright in a one “G” environment it would make sense to lay them out and “proof” them in that environment, better to find structural flaws and to re-enforce their designs. In fact “straining” them or “pre-stress” testing them would make sense.

Welding in a one “G” environment would make sense for the same reason.. the ship will not simply “ooze” out of a tube in orbit whole sail cloth.

The warp engines however might be better brought online in a zero “G” environment (1) so antimatter containment isn’t accidentally breached on the ground and risk the entire planet (2) perhaps its easier or safer to bring the ship to its power source, closer to where its manufactured.. say near Mercury in a proton-antiproton collections and processing facility.

As for lifting out of that deep gravity well.

I’d imagine something like a sky crane with a gigantic electomagnetic compensator that lifts the scafolding into the air vertically out to geosynchronous orbit. Not like a rocket.. but at a more gentle pace.. very un-Saturn-V like but rather like a fast ballon rising to the edge of space through the thinning dark blue nether regions to the edge of space.

San Francisco has a lot more than just land… it has the air above.. and the space above..

In orbit a space tug with very un-aerodynamic properties could dock with the “yard” and offload the ships super structure and take it further out in true space.. where her impulse engines could light up and fire for the first time.

Too.. once ship have her warp core lit for the first time.. her warp field would need to be calibrated and tuned for best effect so several trials about the solar system would make sense.

Then she could be rated for performance and sent on her first near-deep space voyage.

Finally she would be commisioned and crewed.

I tend to think a movie length sage about the birth of the Federations flagship would not interest most people.. so her constuction will not be a featured event in the movie.. unless say the elder Spock is reviewing history in a databank.. or viewing time through the Guardian of Forever

Although the GoF would make a nice way for the elder Spock to come face to face with the younger Spock.. and might initiate the events in the movie.. perhaps the elder Spock by design plans to tamper with the past by influencing the younger Spock and events unfold in a different manner from the way we remember them.

763. Vinceman - January 18, 2008

Already watched the trailer a bunch of times, and will watch it lots until the movie comes out.

No comments about the big C word or nitpicking the details to death here.. The fact is that movie needs to be both popular and a money maker, so trek can continue. Success like “Batman Begins” that is what this movie needs to have.’

764. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

Edward 759 Coming up with an idea to bring Kirk back is difficult enough, but to do it justice while continuing with a new storyline and rebooting a franchise is DAMN hard.

You can’t just wave some magic wand.

765. trektacular - January 18, 2008

691. Actually the Enterprise cant land or take off on planets, wasn’t that the point of the transporter? Uh oh now I’m all into continuity.

766. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Re: #759. Edward

Yikes, dude. I don’t think that this posting of Orci’s was an invitation to an all-out bash fest.

“#704. roberto orci: Thanks for the support, but we really do want all opinions — good or bad.”

The man is where he is because he earned it. He’s been tested and tried. We should be that good. Sorry but it sounds like your posting is dangerously close to flaming, if not plain disrespectful and uncalled for. I know he doesn’t need me to fight for him but MAN that wasn’t necessary.

Being entitled to your opinion doesn’t grant a license for flat out rudeness. Sorry but I think you owe him an apology — even something ending with “let’s agree to disagree”.

We have a huge range of opinion and it’s an education reading all the input. Let’s keep it friendly.


767. Noleuser - January 18, 2008

The Star Trek VI teaser lies. It says “You’re invited to join them, for one last adventure”

Trailer voice guy you’re on NOTICE!

768. OR Coast Trekkie - January 18, 2008

Great trailer… beautiful ship…

Ok, so why WOULDN’t the ship be built on land? Hello! This could be inside a hanger. Anyone ever hear of Boeing, Airbus, or McDonnel-Douglas?
As for the proportions, it is true that we don’t get too many face forward shots in that close of an angle. Plus, the rounded tips could make the nacelles look smaller too.
And the font? Come on, this is all minutia folks! I can’t beleive there are people in there that feel as though someone is polluting their childhood (I’m not going to say “raped” because a good friend of mine has been sexually assulted, so I am grossly offended by anyone who uses that term in this manner).

Really, in the words of William Shatner himself: GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it’s just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you’re dressed! You’ve turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!
I mean, how old are you people? What have you done with yourselves? You, you must be almost 30… have you ever kissed a girl? I didn’t think so! There’s a whole world out there! When I was your age, I didn’t watch television! I LIVED! So… move out of your parent’s basements! And get your own apartments and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it’s just a TV show dammit, IT’S JUST A TV SHOW!
(Are you saying then that we should pay more attention to the movies?)
NO!!! THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING AT ALL!!! HEY, YOU GUYS ARE… THE LAMEST BUNCH… I’VE NEVER SEEN… I can’t believe these people… I mean, I really can’t understand what’s….

(Apparently, I also need a life)

769. SilverExpress57 - January 18, 2008

Does anyone remember James Cawley’s comment a while back. He said he knew someone working on the new Star Trek movie and this person showed him what the new Enterprise was going to be like. He said that it borrowed heavily from the TNG era(if i’m not mistaken). Now that we’ve seen that this isn’t true… I wonder what he has to say.

770. Michael - January 18, 2008

I may be completely wrong here, but at the :43 second mark on that YouTube version, right after the Armstrong quote, it sounds like the Shatner version of the “Space, the final frontier” soundbyte is played at a low volume, then the Nimoy one kicks in.

I thought I was crazy when I heard it last night at Cloverfield, but I hear it in this version, too. Does anyone else hear it?

771. Michael - January 18, 2008

Sorry, different version of the trailer is posted above. It’s :44 seconds on this one that I hear it.

772. Laserlover2254 - January 18, 2008


The Trailer’s pretty good, the Saucer looks pretty good, and the nacelles look okay, I can probably treat it as a previously unknown variant of the Constitution Class.

I’ll comment more when I get to see the rest of the ship, and the Uniforms…

773. Ed - January 18, 2008

Borrowing something Anthony wrote in the article: moviegoers seeing the ever-so-hyped Cloverfield were treated to the teaser trailer for Star Trek. I was treated to 10,000 BC instead, but did see the trailer online. Is it December yet? It’s friggin cold out so it might as well be. Can’t wait.

774. -A- - January 18, 2008

i saw star trek xi in movie theater just before start clovefield. i suspect that whole ship and crew workers are inside SPACE STATION come with air. i dont think it on earth.

775. TJ Trek - January 19, 2008

Who’s to say where it was built. So what if it was built on earth. Who the
f— cares. I don’t . I mean, I care more about what the Enterprise looks like, then where it was built. To that end, I am impressed by the saucer section, it looks like they didn’t mess with tht at all. The nacells? I will have to see the whole thing. From the looks of them, they could be supper cheese. However, If they keep the starfleet ship ideas going then I am okey with it all. Meaning, that The Enterprises and the excelsiors and etc. All had similar design elements. As long as none of the ideas are two far away from those general elements (not straying to far from the shape of the nacells) then the details are inconsicuential (why, oh why do I use big words that I can’t spell.

Does anyone know where I can download a copy of the trailer to view myself, Can’t view the version on this site.

Oh, Oh. The guy who said “Trek Is not a morality play” (I’m saying that with a stuck up British Accent) is wrong. Roddenberry intended the original show to be about Racism, and War, and Sexual revolution, and other issues of the day, that could not be out and out talked about on Television. What came out wasn’t always that way… But that was Genes vision. He just had to package it in such a way tht studios would except it. Of course what Trek is now, has evolved out of that. It is “that” from time to time, there are five or six morality stories in every season (at least). Then there are a dose of character stories, and just plan action sci-fi stories. But To say that Star Trek never was at least meant as a “morality play” or a social commentary is wrong, and to say that means you have only a limited knoweldge of the series’s (that’s plural) and should stick to what you know, and stay away from such comments.

776. Allister Gourlay - January 19, 2008

re: message 751
“hexagonal red bridge door”

Thats a pixel…dammit!

777. Danya Romulus - January 19, 2008


I think what you are hearing is a countdown starting with “six” that sounds like “space.”

778. JC - January 19, 2008

Some constructive criticism of the teaser trailer:

I saw it tonight in front of ‘Cloverfield’ and was roundly impressed – dramatic, majestic, but very ‘real’ and of this Earth.

The only problem I can tell is that I’m a Trekkie already, and I knew that I was going to be excited to see it. For the audience of non-Trekkies and for all those who don’t know the difference between ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Star Trek,’ they won’t remember the teaser tomorrow. To them, it’s something with a spaceship – whether it’s old or new or made by the guy who made ‘Lost’ or not.

If the mission of this film is to find a new audience while maintaining the existing one, there’s got to be a different approach to marketing the movie in the coming months.

For now, I’m really thrilled, though. If the point of this trailer was to wow us existing fans with a quick visual and help drive home that ‘Star Trek’ IS our future history, then job-well-done.

779. Michael - January 19, 2008


You’re probably right.

780. Picard1 - January 19, 2008


I hear what you’re saying about how to judge the thing while already being a Trekkie. I’ve watched the thing maybe 7 or 8 times today. The first few times I was rivitted. Then I went out with some friends, came back home and watched it again. It didn’t catch me until I figured out the essential connection with it I was making…space.

I am a space junkie. A NASA junkie, and I really believe that what we’re doing on the ISS and the next generation ORION vehicles that’ll take us to the moon are worth more than it costs to build them. These things and the people who fly them inspire me, and this trailer brought their world and the world of Star Trek closer together.

Let the hype flow…

781. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 19, 2008

#692 “I’ll bet half the folks who believe the Enterprise couldn’t be even partially constructed on the earth have also argued to simply bring Shatner back with a snap of our fingers.”

Well, since you brought it up … I don’t think it could’ve been done with a snap. But it also shouldn’t have been beyond your ken. Screw the Bermanverse! If I were in your position, I’d CORRECT it, not be restrained and bow down before it!!

782. trektacular - January 19, 2008

No one has any issue with Orci’s statements that the Enterprise can take off and land?

783. Navarro - January 19, 2008


784. Commodore Redshirt - January 19, 2008


…their talk, the cast, ship, logo, etc.

Everything I’ve seen so far…

I’m more than willing to go anywhere they take me!

785. Life Like - January 19, 2008


Me too, Aaaaahhh.

Way cool hearing the original transporter at the end. Gives me hope that they’ll throw us old farts a bone.

786. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 19, 2008

#785 “Gives me hope that they’ll throw us old farts a bone”.

A mere bone might be ALL us longtime fans get…

787. Yehuda - January 19, 2008

I was 6 when I saw my first ST episode “Arena” in 1967. I’ve followed Star Trek ever since and have enjoyed every series that has come out, warts and all. I felt tears swell in my eyes when I saw this trailer. It seems that Abrams “gets it” concerning the heart of Star Trek. That is enough for me.

788. TrekkerPulp - January 19, 2008

Sweet Damn! That’s the best Enterprise design I’ve ever seen….can’t wait to see more.

LOVE the huge rounded nacelles too…and yeah…throwing in the Franz Joseph font on the hull is a nice wink to star trek fans. I love it!

789. ME - January 19, 2008

Who are the buttholes saying it was built in space. Everyone knows the Enterprise was built in Sanfransisco Shipyards, Earth. Only the retarded TNG enterprise was built at Utopia Planitia….SO STFU and go watch your TNG.

790. roberto orci - January 19, 2008

717 GARY

No not cruel at all. All very fair. Es sierto que El Enterprise parece mas grande. Esperamos que sea una buena idea. Estamos de acuerdo que la participacion de Shatner tiene que ser algo natural que no parece locura.

Quiero su opinion.

791. trektacular - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci the Enterprise can not land and take off from Earth, everyone knows this.

792. roberto orci - January 19, 2008

759 759. Edward – January 18, 2008

The teaser was O.K. But too much like the Transformers one. You guys need to get more creative….maybe next time.

On that note…

I quote you saying “If Klingon Bird of Prey can land and take off again from San Francisco (STIV), you can bet your butt the U.S.S. Enterprise can do it!”

The BOP’s ship design clearly gave it room for landing gear without looking out of place. The design of the Enterprise is not made for that unless you put some goofy looking things in the under belly or completely reimagine the whole thing like you guys did with …again …Transformers.

I quote you again:

“I’ll bet half the folks who believe the Enterprise couldn’t be even partially constructed on the earth have also argued to simply bring Shatner back with a snap of our fingers.”

Brother, its called creative writting. Its SCI-FI. Your telling me that Nimoy’s B.S. resurrection in ST3 is something you could never come up with because????

You are a writer…use your imagination…clearly you have something called that if not you wouldn’t have lasted this long in the business (which BTW I am in as well )

Give me a break dude. You guys are not fooling anyone with this act. Just say the truth: Shatner wants too much $$$ and you guys want it for yourselves (which hey, its your movie so thats totally fair).

What you guys want is to make cash off of the old schoolers and make a bunch of new fans to make cash off of….ala again…

wait for it….


The problem is you are comparing a TV cartoon with little to no real canon to something that has lasted far longer and means a lot more to people than that cartoon.

Break a leg my friend…I hope it works out with you as the other project did but I got to tell you that you are definitely running uphill with the Shatner thing as the excuses your crew is giving out aren’t working…maybe a little truth should really be leaked….because c’mon…being totally stumped on how to bring back any one character on a SCI-FI deal? I KNOW your a better writer than that.”


I respect all your arguments, truly. I can tell your anger comes from a genuine desire to protect what you correctly believe to be a beloved franchise from a bunch of money grubbing hacks who wish to trick audiences into showing up like a bunch of zombies by with clever tricks and PR. I hope we can convince you that we truly believe every franchise has different rules. We have been blaster by sensible intelligent people for our participation in Transformers. We always knew that even in success, it would come at a price to our reputation in some circles. It literally started as a friggin’ toy. It’s a no win scenario. How do you overcome the cynicism of a giant toy commercial? You saw our solution.
Sorry you hated it.

But you are right that Transformers and Star Trek cannot be approached the same, and that is not our intention. All I mean when you quote me is is that the Enterprise is an amazing thing — A STARSHIP — capable of interstellar travel without suffering Einstein’s general relativity time dilation — warping only space itself — to travel without moving. A ship like this can certainly hover over your bedroom whenever it feels it like it (which is neither a confirmation nor a denial that any starship hovers over anyone’s bedroom).

793. roberto orci - January 19, 2008


And I’m not saying it lands anywhere. Waxing poetic on the impressionism of the teaser.

794. roberto orci - January 19, 2008

778. JC – January 19, 2008
Some constructive criticism of the teaser trailer:

I saw it tonight in front of ‘Cloverfield’ and was roundly impressed – dramatic, majestic, but very ‘real’ and of this Earth.

The only problem I can tell is that I’m a Trekkie already, and I knew that I was going to be excited to see it. For the audience of non-Trekkies and for all those who don’t know the difference between ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Star Trek,’ they won’t remember the teaser tomorrow. To them, it’s something with a spaceship – whether it’s old or new or made by the guy who made ‘Lost’ or not.

If the mission of this film is to find a new audience while maintaining the existing one, there’s got to be a different approach to marketing the movie in the coming months.

For now, I’m really thrilled, though. If the point of this trailer was to wow us existing fans with a quick visual and help drive home that ‘Star Trek’ IS our future history, then job-well-done.


795. AJ - January 19, 2008

There was some speculation a while back that the “non-Trek” masses may give this film a miss.

Rest assured that Paramount is not plonking down the big bucks based on the hope that new viewers will want to see the film. They have purchased reems of research to support this decision. The research plainly shows that Joe Sixpack and his wife and kids want to see a great space adventure, and that Star Trek, as a brand, still has great relevance.

General Motors has been bleeding for the past few years, many say, because they have been producing cars which are no longer relevant to an evolving consumer base. Same with Trek. Now, instead of a Sedan de Ville, we’ll get an Escalade.

Regardless of the research, which will include screenings of near-finished product to target audiences, the film has to be damn good to get that extra “bump” of wildfire word of mouth.

JRR Tolkien’s works, as a brand, also may have seemed antiquated to some a few years ago. But the 3 films were spectacular. Trek XI has to be on that scale to re-energize the franchise.

796. Yehuda - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci if you all keep in mind that the faliure of B&B was that they lost the core feeling that is Trek. Keep that feeling then the rest is cosmetic. Loose it and even if you exactly recreate the TOS sets, costumes, and design it will still not be Trek. So far you all have pegged the feeling. Keep it up.

797. Daniel Broadway - January 19, 2008

“which is neither a confirmation nor a denial…..”

Mr. Orci, I laugh everytime I see you type that , or say in an interview. It must be the 150th time in the last two weeks. Heh.

Despite the fanboy objections to some breaks in “canon”. Just know there are fans out there like me, who have every confidence in you.

I saw Transformers last year, which became my second favorite movie after Star Trek: First Contact. I’m sure we won’t be disappointed.

798. Ed - January 19, 2008

Hm, odd. A lot of people complaining about the ship being built on the ground — dunno, seems like it makes for a much more spectacular *teaser trailer*.

I loved it, I like the suggested style, and think it’ll be a fun movie.

799. roberto orci - January 19, 2008

In my Favorite Trek Novel, PRIME DIRECTIVE (one of the NYTIMES best sellers) THE U.S.S. ENTERPRISE IS SHOWN TO BE CAPABLE OF DESCENDING INTO THE ATMOSPHERE OF A CLASS M PLANET MUCH LIKE OUR OWN. Granted, it only does this in an emergency. Obviously, alien planets are not prudent and stable places for a Starship to linger, but on home planet? Even the space shuttle can go up and back — We figure the Enterprise would be slightly more advanced than the space shuttle.
And again, none of my comments should be taken to suggest that the issue ever even comes up. Just theoretical discussion from crazed fan… what time is?

800. Yehuda - January 19, 2008

By the tech. sudjested by that time, building a ship on that scale on the ground is perfectly feasable. The rest is nitpicky. Staying on cannon is best served by being aware of the story line and respecting it. In that regard your decition not to include Shatner was reasonable. He wanted to be killed off. Now he is crying to get back in. Much as I love Bill,he made that bed, now he’s got to lie in it.

801. trektacular - January 19, 2008

Your a cool guy roberto, thanks for the comments.

802. bugs a la nixon - January 19, 2008

how do you know it isnt in space?

dont they have force fields?

803. bugs a la nixon - January 19, 2008

and maybe theyre in orbit above san fransisco… i think i read that somewhere back when i cared about that sort of thing.

804. fakesteve - January 19, 2008

well, Mr. Orcis explanation sounds good to me, I love the teasers look and feel, and I am convinced that uebergeeks JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof know what they are doing. Its fine with me if the good ship was welded together next to the Golden Gate, if they get the feeling right.

I bet this is the best that could happen to Trek, after it was almost destroyed by Berman and Braga. May they rot in Klingon Hell.

805. StarTrekRockerGirl - January 19, 2008


I remember when we went through this before. In fact, at least a couple times, if not more.

The first time was when ST:TMP was being produced. We had the same thing happen back then. People saying “oh, I’m not going to go see it if everyrthing isn’t exactly the same as the original” Well, guess what? The movie was popular enough to give us several more movies, and then a new series!

But then, when ST:TNG was announced, we heard the same thing all over again! “We want everything the same as before!” But that series went on to give us several more new series! So obviously they couldn’t have all been that bad!

But then the naysayers finally had their way, and killed off the entire franchise, just as ENT was finally finding it’s own niche under the helm of Manny Coto. There was some good stuff going on there, only to be cut short too soon.

I’m just glad that the Star Trek Drought didn’t last as long as it did between TOS and TMP!

So far, I like what I am seeing! It makes me want more! How cool is it that we get to actually see someone that actually helped build the Enterprise? Who is that guy? What’s his story? Is he a member of the Starfleet Corp of Engineers, or what? I want to know more!

As far as things like people crying foul about the font size on the saucer section goes… haven’t any of you ever heard of a paint job? Isn’t it possible that they could have touched it up between the time the E launched and the time that Kirk took over? That’s even if it is a micron or so off, which at this point is really hard to say. But let’s give these guys some creative latitude, and give ourselves a chance to use our own imagination a bit, can’t we?

So Roberto, I hope that you, JJ, and the rest of your team take this ball that we call Star Trek and run with it! Take it, run with it, ride it as long as you can, and have some fun and enjoy the party! I’m glad to see that you’ve learned to develope a “thick skin” with some of the people that post here. As I said before, we’ve been through this before with them, but it’s just that now this time they have more ways (i.e. the internet) to express their opinions. And we all know what opinions are like!

I have a lot of faith and very high hopes that this new movie will re-ignite the franchise, and unite us faithful Trekkers with a new generation of new Trekkers as never before!

LLAP \\//_

806. joe1306 - January 19, 2008

@ 805: Amen to that!

807. joe1306 - January 19, 2008

I´ve been a trek fan since I was 10 years old, now I´m 21. So you´ve got at least 1 fan from a young generation. =) Mr.Orci, Mr.Abrams: I think you´re doing a really great job with this new movie. From what I´ve seen so far it´s gonna be amazing. I´ve got a good feeling about this and a lot of confidence in the people working on it.
“I´m so excited… and I just can´t hide it…!” *singz* ;-)

Greetings from Germany =)

808. Mitja Iskric - January 19, 2008

I have a problem that all the voice-overs are from USA. As if the Federation is the future of the USA only. That is wrong. It’s the future of all of us on the Earth. And the space was conquered by soviets too. And France (Europe) has it’s own rockets too. And let’s not forget the China!

809. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 19, 2008

I have a serious question. I never really warmed up to any of the new series, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. I saw an episode here and there, but not enough to really know what was going on. Not out of malice, it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I was the right age when I caught TOS, and that’s where my interest stayed. But my question is this: I always see comments about how evil Braga and Berman are/were. I saw Generations, and I was disappointed in Kirk’s death, but how did they “almost kill ST”? Is it true that Berman is on record saying he doesn’t like TOS? Since I really haven’t followed their work after TUC, I need help understanding. Fire away.

810. fakesteve - January 19, 2008

well, Gene, they took the franchise the brink. But you have to watch Voyager and Enterprise to see what I mean. Enterprise started to get on the right track after Manny Coto took over as a showrunner in season 4, but that was too late to save the series. Brannon Bragas creative potential was exhausted by bringing in the Borg into every age of Trek, the past or the future, to keep the ratings up. That is a stunt you can only do that often. But they dropped all the stuff that was at the heart of Trek since the sixties. Abrams and his team proved on their work with Lost that they listen to fans. This one will be an success with old time TOS trekkers as with kids alike who watch Trek for the first time. Because it will have a heart.

811. AJ - January 19, 2008


That’s a good point! And it could be a key to broadening Trek’s appeal beyond the Anglophone world. But apart from Krushchev moaning on about socialism and space exploration, is there anything you can recommend?

812. Simon Marino - January 19, 2008

Yup yup yup! Lovin the look of this! I’ve got a great feeling about this movie, really can’t wait for it now. Roll on next Christmas! Yaay!

813. Judi Dench - January 19, 2008

“Any fan who has left their basement in the last 3 decades knows that you are dead wrong on this.”

Why no, my lusty friend, it is you who is wrong.

Star Trek is parodied left right and centre. Reference humour only works if you get the reference. And often what’s being mocked is … the fans. It’s the Star Trek *fans* who are mocked, not Star Trek itself.

Most people (as I say, I’m defining ‘people’ here as ‘people who go to the movies’) know the basic set up – that Captain Kirk flies through space in the USS Enterprise with Mr Spock and fights Klingons and kisses green women. Most people, over the last forty years, even if it was just as a kid, sat down and seen a few minutes of Star Trek that they kind of liked.

I’m not saying they all dressed up as Neelix and queued for hours to get the autograph of the third Romulan on the left, or that they’d love the Animated Series on DVD for their birthday. The ‘was it built in space?’ debate here wouldn’t just leave them cold, it would actively put them off in case it was infectious.

I’m saying that Star Trek is well known and vaguely appealing. That’s all I’m claiming and it’s beyond any doubt.

Star Trek did have broad, mass appeal, from 1982 to 1992. The films tended to do well – really well when Nick Meyer was involved – and TNG was a bona fide successful show that normal people also watched. If you don’t believe me, just look up the ratings.

Because this is the thing: Star Trek evangelicals don’t understand Star Trek. They just don’t. They see it as a lifestyle choice and deeply profound. They think that to like Star Trek you have to live like a reverse-Amish, in a bright jumpsuit having endless theological discussions about warp engines and tricorders. Like the Amish, they are repelled by the idea that the outside world actually quite likes and agrees with a lot of what they do. Like the Amish they are suspicious of jokes.

Star Trek is a fun action-adventure set in space that touches very lightly on social issues, and portrays an optimistic, bright future.

That is absolutely not to dismiss it. It’s great. It’s ten million times more grown up and realistic than Battlestar Galactica. I love Star Trek, but Star Trek evangelists have done nothing but distort and damage Star Trek for fifteen years now.

The Voyager ‘event movies’ and the Enterprise pilot got good ratings … but people didn’t come back the next week. That suggests to me that there’s an appetite for Star Trek Done Right, but that it’s not been met recently. Again, I think that’s down to the fans, and the absolutely, diagnosable, clinically insane obsessions they have seeping into the show itself – and the ‘they built the ship in space, it says so in my fanfic’ “argument” that’s going on here is a symptom of that.

814. kaahhhhn! - January 19, 2008

I went to Cloverfield last night and watch all the trailers, but the STAR TREK trailer was not there. Any one know why? I was there from start to finish, but walked away so ticked off after the movie because the ST trailer was a primary reason that I was there!

815. Calvination! - January 19, 2008

I went to CLOVERFIELD last night (very intense) BUT, the Star Trek Trailer was NOT there! I sat through all the trailers (about six of them, including the Wil Smith movie and “Jumper”), but the ST trailer was not among them. I was so ticked off by this. Has anyone else experienced this? Could the theatre be ‘editing” the trailer mix?

816. CaptainRickover - January 19, 2008

# 809/ 810

I don’t think, Braga and Berman ruined Star Trek because of a lack of imagination or lost creative potential. I think, the downfall of Star Trek started right after First Contact, when Moore and Braga stated, they can’t write a better movie than this one. They stopped believing in the franchise (as you could hear in al there audio commentaries on DVD on Generations and First Contact) and when you stop believing in something, you’re make it bad. Exactly that happend. Moore and Braga told the same stories over and over again (with a few variations) and so they lost the audience in VOY and ENT. It was a great mistake of Berman, to promote Braga in a position of executive producer in VOY and later in ENT. Braga himself stated many times, that he don’t cares for canon, because it stands in his “creative way”. So he losts the fans (most of them), but he was not able to recognize that. Moore left Star Trek after VOY, so he don’t earned any blame, but he should in the same way as Braga or Berman (In Germany we have a saying: The dogs allway bites the last one). Now he’s on the new BSG, a show I really don’t like it because of all that dark themes and the pessimism in it.

The poor old Berman earned more critics than he really deserved. He hold TNG up after Roddenberry’s death and he created DS9, both very good shows (but have nothing in common with TOS). But he was not able to recognize that his entire creative staff was exhausted after TNG and DS9 and he failed to bring back some of the DS9 staff for VOY or ENT (perhaps he was a bit jelaous about their success?). And he also failed to bring up new writers with fresh ideas. That’s what a producer should do and he didn’t. When he gave the torch to Manny Coto, it was allready to late. Star Trek was killed by Paramount itself.

When you want to “hang” Berman and Braga for their failure, than you should also recognize, that they hold the Star Trek torch up after 1990. They get exhausted and so they failed. Pitty them, but not any more.

The real Star Trek killers sit in the chairs of Paramount and CBS. They don’t exchange the production staff and gave Manny Coto the rudder, they stoped it entirely. No more tv shows, no more movies.

Until J.J. Abrams showed up. It’s a bit the same situation, when Harve Bennet was taking over back in 1982 (after Roddenberry’s TMP failed in critics, not in the money).

I hope for the very best for the new Star Trek and wish Mr. Orci and the entire staff good luck with it. I hope it will be a success (even if I don’t agree to the earth-based construction!) and it will lead to a series of movies (five would be nice. The five year mission of Captain Pike perhaps?) and eventually started a new tv show (like the success of Star Trek IV started TNG) placed in the end of the 24th or the beginning of the 25th century with a new crew and the Enterprise-F (or another ship).

Good luck, gentlemen!

817. Rob - January 19, 2008

All I’ve seen so far is the low-quality YouTube version of the teaser, but I imagine I’ll see it in it’s full glory when I see Cloverfield in a few days or when they post the teaser in HD on Monday (I hope). I’m not a Trekkie by any means, and was more a fan of TNG than TOS, but I did grow up watching all the different Star Trek series. I think this movie has a lot of promise. Whether or not it adheres entirely to the canon that is so beloved by all fans, this looks like a good opportunity to re-imagine the vision of the franchise and make it look a bit more “now-ish”…a bit more down-to-earth.

People seem to be going off about the fact that the ship is being constructed on Earth, but is that really known for sure? Were there any cityscapes or Earthly environments in the background of the teaser, because I couldn’t discern any in the YouTube version. Again, I may have to wait for the high-def one, but has anyone considered the possibility that the ship is being constructed in just a different kind of “spacedock”? Something perhaps sealed off from the vacuum so that construction workers wouldn’t have to work in bulky spacesuits?

I remember this sort of panic when they first started talking about the new Battlestar Galactica. “OMG, Starbuck’s a chick? Bullets instead of lasers? Blasphemy!” And now most of them are singing the new show’s praises as if the old one never existed (I never liked the original, and I think the new one is the best piece of sci-fi I’ve ever watched…but that’s me). Re-imaginings open up a well of new ideas, so don’t always knock things you see at a glance.

Will some things be changed? Maybe, but don’t think they won’t be thought-out. I’ve never gotten into Lost, but I like Abrams’ cinematic stuff. He’ll stick to the source material. No director in his right mind would take phasers out for bullets in Star Trek. Personally, I think if the cast does a good job and the story works, this will be a great film that will breathe new life into a franchise that is, unfortunately, dying.

818. CaptainRickover - January 19, 2008

# 816

and eventually started a new tv show (like the success of Star Trek IV started TNG)

Of course I mean STARTING an new one. These days I seem allways to look in the past (I even write in it!), hope to look in the future soon (in December 2008 to be precise)

819. Alex Rosenzweig - January 19, 2008

#799 – Roberto, I do have to note that _Prime Directive_ is one of my favorite Trek novels, too. Ironically, one of the only criticisms I could come up with for it was that it was *so* epic and so profound that it was hard to believe that its events never get mentioned again by the characters. ;) With all that the book included, I think it rather striking that one of the most impactful parts of the book is the “dream of stars” sequence near the end. I’m keeping fingers crossed that you guys can bring that sort of thing to the new film, because I think that will touch the mainstream audience as much as any big VFX space battle or action derring-do.

And apropos of nothing in particular, have you folks gotten the opportunity to talk Trek with the Reeves-Stevenses?

820. The Quickening - January 19, 2008

667 wrote-

Wow Ouickie….. Hang on for one sec….. I’m one of the previously refenced 40+ “whinners” but check it out…..
I loved DS9 too…. a very different take on trek. It (DS9) lasted 7 seasons.
Enterprise just had cable / satelite TV catch up to the trek franchise…. too many other options aside from tv…..
My point is…….. while this is not MY star trek, it may very well be someone else’s in that if they (the producers) keep the original “Roddenberry Message” alive they may flock to it and the franchise may find new life with a next generation…. no pun intended…..

How “different” can this movie really be if it is still about adventures on a star ship? At least DS9 was REALLY new and different.
The name STAR TREK is so fresh in the public’s mind and conscience, the term, “not My STAR TREK…”, doesn’t work. Not enough time has passed to make it something that the new generation can call it’s own.

821. Go Spock! - January 19, 2008


822. Jackson Roykirk - January 19, 2008

#799 —

And Mr. Orci, don’t foget that in TOS ‘Tomorrow is Yesterday’, the Enterprise was low enough in Earth’s atmosphere to be shown flying past clouds, and also low enough to be seen clearly by Captain Christopher in his fighter jet — a jet that can reach only 75,000 feet tops.

I’d say that even if the Enterprise was a mile or two above Captain Christopher’s jet (even two miles is a stretch for Christopher to get a good look at it), the ship was still operating well into Earth’s atmosphere.

Thank’s for taking the time to come here.

823. Heroes Spain -Todo sobre la serie Heroes en español - January 19, 2008

[…] Vía nos llega el vídeo (click en ‘Seguir leyend’), aunque ya os adelantamos que al ser un teaser no salen imágenes de los actores (nos quedamos con las ganas de ver a Zach) y además es grabado de cine, así que la calidad no es muy buena. La película se estrenará el próximo Diciembre en USA y aún no hay fecha para España. En cuanto tengamos más trailers o más información, los publicaremos en nuestra web. […]

824. Shaggy - January 19, 2008

822 – I just thought of that when reading Roberto’s post above but I see you beat me too it. :)

And Return to Tomorrow (Remastered) was on TV just a few weeks ago. I guess a lot of the “Canonites” aren’t bothering to re-watch their Trek.

825. fakesteve - January 19, 2008

Absolutely, Jackson Roykirk. I’ll never forget Tomorrow is Yesterday, it was the first episode ever to air on german TV, so basically my introduction to the good ship and its ability to handle atmospheric flight.

826. Redjac - January 19, 2008


You CAN’T compare a Bird of Prey or the Space Shuttle to the Enterprise! BOTH of those vehicles are AERODYNAMIC the Enterprise is about the least aerodynamic form you could hope to find next to a ROCK.

Please…don’t tell me you have the Enterprise landing or flying through an atmosphere. Yes, it did it in Tomorrow is Yesterday, but you you’ll recall Sulu had a hell of a time maneuvering the ship through that and he was trying to get the ship back into space.

I am not trying to be a stickler for details but having the Enterprise land and takeoff would be FANTASY — not science fiction.

827. So Far, So Good « F.B.A. - January 19, 2008

[…] Head here for a better recap than mine along with a slightly extra-legal Youtube vid of the trailer: […]

828. GARY - January 19, 2008

Well thanks for the answer Roberto!

My main complaint with the design of the new enterprise is basically the way those nacelles look. I really LOVE the blades on them and everything but from that image, the nacelles just look way too “Fat” and too close together and make the ship look a little toyish. If the Big nacelles must stay, then at least separate them a little more from one another, like on the tos enterprise.
When they are that close they look less similar to an airplane turbine and closer to a “star wars” racer.


829. JimmyMac - January 19, 2008

Two words: Goose Bumps

830. MaddTribble - January 19, 2008

What about the idea that it could be lifted into space by tug-like shuttlecraft, either in pieces or whole?

831. Commander Keltner (Starfleet International Fan Club), Retired - January 19, 2008

I am eagerly awaiting the movie and as a life long TREKKER the only problem I have (and it’s a small one) is Mr. Nimoy delivering the motto.

The actor that has given half of his life to the role of Kirk deserves at least enough respect to hire him to deliver it or at least pay him to use an already recorded version! That would be a nice concession to William Shatner.

That said I am not narrow minded enough to let anything spoil the return of any Trek to big or small screen. Gene Roddenberry gave the world a vision that has never been duplicated. A future where a person is not judged by the color of their skin, their race or religion or even what planet they are from, but by the content of their heart. It’s MLK’s “I have a dream speech” retooled for the Science Fiction world.

I for one cannot wait to begin the adventure again.

832. Dr. Image - January 19, 2008

#769- Cawley said that the new E borrows from contemporary Trek, NOT TNG Trek, so he WASN’T wrong!

833. Sci-Fi Bri - January 19, 2008


834. Woulfe - January 19, 2008

MY GOD nearly 900 posts ?

– W –
* Shakes head, then realizes he just added one more, D’OH *

835. The Other - January 19, 2008

I really don’t know, or much care, why the insistence on things being “canon”. Hell, some of you uber-geeks follow this FICTION more than you follow real life. As William Shatner said once on Saturday Night Live…”Get a life!”.

I want to be entertained. I want a good story. In the final years, between Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise, I was beginning to wonder if there were any writers left in the Trek offices worth anything. The shows contradicted each other from episode to episode.

Enterprise failed because of one simple thing: There were better shows out there. Babylon 5 and the new Battlestar Galactica, for certain. We were shown with those two shows that there can be intelligent, coherent science fiction that does not lapse into technobabble to explain how the heroes got out of a sticky situation. It was just good old human stubborness, ingenuity, and a refusal to lose.

If Abrams brings his arc-driven skills from Lost to the Trek universe, we should, soon, see Trek on the small screen again, with better shows, a tight plot, and a REASON to tune in from week to week, rather than just catching the shows haphazard on reruns.

Trek was always enjoyable to watch. It was fun. But it was not the best out there. Other scifi built on what Trek had brought, and showed the next “generation” of what SciFi could be. If Trek builds on that, instead of just resting on it’s legacy, we should really be in for a treat. If it just tries to recapture old glory, this will be a huge disappointment.

836. StarTrekkie - January 19, 2008

if anyone here has read all 831 comments. I think you need to get a life.

WE need threaded comments or something

837. - January 19, 2008

Was with a bunch of friends at Cloverfield last night…..when the trek trailer played they all thought it was really good…..and this came from people who don’t really like trek all that much…..

This movie will rock!!!

838. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

808. Mitja Iskric – January 19, 2008
“I have a problem that all the voice-overs are from USA. As if the Federation is the future of the USA only. That is wrong. It’s the future of all of us on the Earth. And the space was conquered by soviets too. And France (Europe) has it’s own rockets too. And let’s not forget the China!”

Really good point. Will keep that in mind going forward.

839. Jackson Roykirk - January 19, 2008

#836 —

Yeah — the thread would be called “Star Trek Teaser Trailer Review & Video”, and there will be 839 comments in that thread ;)

840. The Vulcanista - January 19, 2008

#741 Harry: Some of us *do* appreciate one of your little pleasures in life. The limericks, I mean. };-)

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

841. Jackson Roykirk - January 19, 2008

#826 Redjac

The Bird of Prey may be ‘sleek looking’ but it certainly isn’t designed as a “lifting body” — those things that look like wings are NOT airfoils.

Thus the Bird of Prey is not able to fly like an airplane. Therefore it must use some other mode of flight — such as antigravity, which would also work fine for the Enterprise.

842. The Vulcanista - January 19, 2008

#826: *I am not trying to be a stickler for details but having the Enterprise land and takeoff would be FANTASY — not science fiction.”

But it would be *really* cool to see!

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

843. John - January 19, 2008

Neat trailer. Is it an accident that the only face seen clearly is a dead ringer for Jeffrey Hunter’s Christopher Pike?

844. Phil - January 19, 2008

My heart is racing an anticipation. I love the trailer and like a starving child needing another helping “FEED ME MORE”. I can not wait and it’s about time. I kind of hope this may rekindle another tv series.

845. Rick James - January 19, 2008

Wow this thread really blew up since 18-01-2008. There have been some really insightful replies and quite a bit of not so insightful replies.

Look to those of you who think the new look of the Enterprise just doesn’t cut it because it violates canon or whatever the reason is … get over it. I’ve been following Star Trek since I started watching syndicated TOS reruns as a young child back in the ’70s. My parents thought it was amusing I would be interested in such a show but they humored me. I remember when there was no new Star Trek except a new Pocket Books novel being published once a month. Back then there was no internet and long distance charges made visiting out of state bulletin boards impractical. When the Enterprise met its fiery end in Star Trek III, I was pissed but I got over it.

Over the years I’ve come to realize Star Trek isn’t about the ship itself, it’s about the characters and their relationships with each other and the interesting life forms they encounter during their voyages. Compared to other sci-fi out there, Star Trek to me exemplifies the best of humanity. If you want to see the worst of humanity, go to wikipedia and look up Warhammer 40,000.

I don’t discount the Enterprise is a character but in the end the Enterprise is just a machine. I find it amusing that some are still upset the original Enterprise look was not carried over to the motion picture era. Well if you know your Star Trek history at all the reason why the TOS look didn’t get carried over was because the show’s original creators didn’t think that look was worthy of being carried over in the first place.

Star Trek Phase II was supposed to be a tv series sequel to the original Star Trek tv series. Matt Jeffries was commissioned to create a new look for the Enterprise for Phase II. If the TOS look was that good it would have been cheaper to simply carry over the old Enterprise look and be done with it. From what I’ve seen of the Phase II Enterprise, Jeffries laid down most of the ground work for what became the motion picture Enterprise. When Star Trek was green lit to become TMP, Probert were called in to add detail to the Enterprise because the ship was going to appear on a theatre screen. The smaller tv screen hides alot of flaws and missing detail that the theatre sceen is not so forgiving about. The TOS Enterprise was never designed for the big screen, it was only designed to look good on a tv screen.

Personally I’m glad the new creative team is changing the look of the TOS era Enterprise and giving it the face lift it has long needed. I really like how the new ship heavily borrows elements from the motion picture era Enterprise and also the Archer era NX-01. As much as I hated Enterprise, the NX-01 is part of the official continuity of Star Trek.

Anyhoo I would have been happy if the new team just brought back the motion picture era Enterprise and said the ship always looked like that to be honest. The TMP Enterprise is my favorite look and it is the only scale model of the Enterprise that gets any shelf space in my humble abode. I’ve had many opportunities over the years to acquire other scale models of the Enterprise, but I’ve passed them up because they were not the TMP era Enterprise. The only scale models of the Enterprise I own are all TMP era replicas of the ship. Oh yeah to those who have already mentioned it, the Polar Lights 1/350 TMP Enterprise rocks. Nearly three feet long when fully assembled with a 16″ diameter saucer. This thing is overwhealming for a store bought kit. I can only imagine what the larger garage built kits are like.

846. Case - January 19, 2008

I’m Excited. I don’t care if you call it a reboot, revamp, remake, add-on, whatever. I too would have liked to have seen the next movie made somehow to tie in the other series (DS9, Voyage) but it is what it is. I do not have control of Star Trek so I must decide either I wine and complain about menusha or accept and enjoy it. I think I will enjoy it!!!

It cracks me up all the banter about the nacelles… I cannot remember a view from this close to the front of the saucer section except for maybe in TMP and then the nacelles were revamped. I say, you go guys! It looks awesome. Maybe they will explain in a little more detail how the nacelles work and the Bussard Ram Scoops. That would be cool.

I hope that they will try to stay close to TOS with the interior shots, hand held equipment, and uniforms. But if they change it… Oh Well. From what I have read so far, I’m not sure how much of the ship will even be in the movie.

BTW I like the review. Live Long and Prosper Star Trek!

847. Furm - January 19, 2008

Ok…Ok, my fellow trekies…..we only have 11 months to go. In the mean time J.J. is doing a great thing and for the those who miss TNG “Hey” who said they can’t make another movie, last we seen Capt. Picard was still in command and how do we know if the cast from Deep Space 9 or Voyage won’t be in the movie as well……And I have a feelin William Shatner will get his cameo. My fellow Trekers this is not the end, but as the movie states its the beginning and you don’t know what gonna happen or who gonna show up..Just ask Wesley Crusher!

848. Furm - January 19, 2008

By the way….I see the ending like this: Once Spock saves the day the ol ‘Kirk (william shatner) and Picard are standing out-side of Adm. Janeways’ office at Star Fleet command – Seven of Nine has star fleet uniform wearing a wedding-band and is Sci-officer assisgned to the Enterprise E

It could happen…….LOL

849. The Realist - January 19, 2008

838. roberto Orci – January 19, 2008 – And lets not forget us Aussies also out iur own satelites in orbit as well, I believe we were one of the first nations to do it, then our stupid govt. gutted our fledgling program. So can we lay off the well worn American bravado stuff a little? There is more than one nation on Earth.

Loved the Trailer otherwise and Cloverfield was excellent.

I have to agree with some of the posts here, I would love to see a DS9 movie, there are endless possibilities there. I also have to agree with some people and defend Bernman and Co. again, they followed the instructions of their bosses and created more Trek, their fault is that they acted to late to bring in new talent and blood and don’t forget, Gene never let canon stand in the way of a good story (or a bad one).

850. Katie G. - January 19, 2008

#792. roberto orci

I see that my involvement was not necessary. You are a very patient, gracious (not to mention imaginative) man. Guess I’ll butt out. You seem to know what you’re doing…

Excellent work. Rest assured, we are thrilled.


851. saltyz - January 19, 2008

Why not bring back a not-quite-dead-yet enemy and unite the characters from form a few of the “flavors”(TNG,DS9,VOY) and have a on-the-edge-of-your-seat battle……., maybe even kill off not so popular characters that would probably never see the light of day again anyway….. and it wouldn’t be star trek movie without someone doing the time warp again…. that way we can include ENT & TOS……there we go star trek mega movie.

852. jefv88 - January 19, 2008

And i quote “Launched in 2245, the original and illustrious starship U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth. The Constitution-class starship was previously captained by Robert April and Christopher Pike, before coming under the command of Captain James T. Kirk. ” notice the word orbiting built in space
but in all reality GET OVER IT its not a matter of life and death here so who really cares what the new movie shows jus let it be

853. jefv88 - January 19, 2008

BTW beautiful ship lets see more of it

854. Michael P. Delaney - January 19, 2008

Gene Rodenberry described how and where the Enterprise was built in the Star Trek Bible which guided the writers of the original series. It is copied in the book “The Making of Star Trek” by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Rodenberry, published in 1968, where Rodenberry clearly says that sections of it were built at the San Fransisco Navy Yards and assembled in orbit. It states in the very next sentence that the Enterprise is not designed to operate in a planet’s atmosphere, and never lands on a planet’s surface. Since this has been recognized as fact in the Star Trek universe for 40 years, it should not be abandoned now. Having said all that, I saw the trailer today in the theater and am fairly convinced it is merely symbolic of the movie being “under construction.” At least, that’s what it has better be. Surely no filmmaker would be so idiotic as show the Enterprise being welded together by guys in goggles and wife-beater T-shirts. Hell, that’s not even how jetliners are built today!!

855. The Vulcanista - January 19, 2008


Get out! I thought that was just me!

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

856. CDog - January 19, 2008

OK so the ship is partially built on the ground.

Heres the thing though. Is Kirk the captain in this movie. By canon Kirk was the third captain of the Enterprise. The first was Robert April (cartoon?) and the second was Christopher Pike (menagerie). So if this is the original build and not a major refit Kirk wont be the captain until years later.

BTW – The nacelles look fine. Just like the TOS model I built as a kid.

857. Q - January 19, 2008

I saw this when I went to go see Cloverfield today. It wasn’t so much that the trailer is spectacular, though, I do like it, but the emotional buzz was overpowering.

“Star Trek is no longer just for nerds.” one guy said. I nearly cried when I heard that.

JJ, this movie is going to do EXACTLY what you want it to. Trek will always live on.

858. Redjac - January 19, 2008

#841 My point was those shapes are more aerodynamic than the Enterprise is…and that’s indisputable. At least the BOP has “wings”…

859. Arthur - January 19, 2008


Saw CLOVERFIELD today (but really went for Trek teaser trailer). The trailer was exactly what it was, a teaser.

Personally it didn’t tell me what the film is aiming to be, it’s intended style or look, but considering it’s still many many months away, seeing the ENTERPRISE was Xmas come early.

A couple of things:
– Wondering where the registry number of the ship was – NCC-1701.
– Immediate reaction was where is the title of the film.
– Where the ship is being built: I frankly didn’t give a crap….
– Eventhough Leonard Nimoy has previously narrated the famous trek opening monologue (in STAR TREK 2) it’s still something that William Shatner will be associated with first.
– My main point with the new movie is that it should be seen as a new group of people’s interpretation of what STAR TREK is. It should not be seen as this is now what Star Trek is so throw out everything that came before this movie. BUT there is still a set of core values that make Trek what it is, and if that’s not there, then it ain’t TREK.

Lastly, as interesting as the filmmaking style of CLOVERFIELD was I wouldn’t recommend it for people who suffer from motion sickness, I was just glad I hadn’t eaten prior to watching it.

860. Monkey of God - January 19, 2008

TNG should be doing more movies,, trouble is they dont know how to pick ideas for the films.. Generations ( great ) 1st contact ( Great ) Insurrection
( crappy ) Nemesis ( Mostly crappy) They should have followed a clunker like Insurrection with a winner..When in doubt follow a loser with one filled with action,,get your audience back and keep the money guys wanting to bankroll a new one.. Nemesis had action,,but no one ever thought the bad guys would make it to earth so it had no real bite..

861. Laserlover2254 - January 19, 2008


Enterprise is Canon, but we never have to accept it as continuity.

I don’t.

862. Laserlover2254 - January 19, 2008

Sorry, that’s 845.

863. Hon. David Kulessa - January 20, 2008

I hope a new series comes out of this. Something set after Voyager. Let’s use the slipstream thing to get to that other galaxy.


864. Sarah James - January 20, 2008

God I loved that teaser. To see them work on the ship like that and then to hear Nimoy’s voice saying that text and then the music… This little teaser touched down on the magic of the old Star Trek. I’m looking forward to this movie and I hope it’s going to cause a shockwave on this planet and everybody wakes up.

And then we can lay down the weapens, stop making war and NASA and ESA can make a Union, go BACK TO WORK and make this all happen finally. That would by my dream. *sigh*


865. Black Fire - January 20, 2008

# 843… Is it an accident that the only face seen clearly is a dead ringer for Jeffrey Hunter’s Christopher Pike?

Thank you for saying so. I’ve been racking my brain who the guy reminded me of.

866. Black Fire - January 20, 2008

808. Mitja Iskric – January 19, 2008
“I have a problem that all the voice-overs are from USA. As if the Federation is the future of the USA only. That is wrong. It’s the future of all of us on the Earth. And the space was conquered by soviets too. And France (Europe) has it’s own rockets too. And let’s not forget the China!”

838. roberto Orci – January 19, 2008
Really good point. Will keep that in mind going forward.

Thank you, Mitja, for pointing this out. This is a comment that was long overdue.

Also, the novelty of having a Russian, an Asian and a black woman on the bridge has worn of. It was right for it’s time and a big step. But this concept needs updating too. Broadening your views to what is going on outside the US would not be a bad step to take, generally, and might help other nations identify with the movie. Think bigger, so to speak. And why I realize Star Trek has to sell tickets in the U.S. first and foremost, the novelty would be a Hollywood movie not engaging in navel-gazing.

867. Joao Almeida - January 20, 2008

Great shot

It’s time to let go post-TNG/Roddenberry Star Trek. Let’s thank Braga et al, but JJ is the new boss is the block. They are gettin the future “dirty”, real and humane. And, at the end of the day, I’m sure they’ll deliver a good Star Trek movie, respecting the funadental canon: hope.

868. IcebreakerX - January 20, 2008

808/838/866 series…

The only problem is that you could stick in Yuri Gagarin saying Облетев Землю в корабле-спутнике, я увидел, как прекрасна наша планета. Люди, будем хранить и приумножать эту красоту, а не разрушать ее! or something, but no one is going to understand it, especially without video accompanying it. For audiences that can understand what is being said, it’d totally make sense to stick in Soviet space race quotes and the like. But with the video being murky as it is, not many people would get the space aspect and Star Trek’s roots that are back in the space race.

It’d work if it were accompanied with the montage from the intro to Enterprise, but with this video, I think they did well with just JFK and Neil Armstrong.

Personally, I think they should have used Kirk’s voice over from TOS instead of a newer Nimoy rendition. It’d give the trailer more of a hook to the past, especially since the visuals are the “get used to the change” sort.

869. Captain Alex - January 20, 2008

The ship & trailer look great! The shape of the engines look…. very odd, & sure the font is wrong but look closely, are those Phaser banks on the front of the saucer? And look at the bridge dome, it looks exactly like the TMP Bridge dome. Otherwise very well done! Can’t wait to see her built!

870. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - January 20, 2008

859 – The registry number is there. Scroll up to the top of the page here and take a gander at the “money shot.” Can’t miss it.

871. me - January 20, 2008


That was one of the things they partly made well at “Enterprise”
The solar system was in German from Johannes Keppler,
The HMS Enterprise British

But though Star Trek really could be a bit more international.

872. Michelle - January 20, 2008

Ive never understood that either. Capt April was the FIRST captain, followed by Capt Pike. Not having that kept straight is REALLY gonna piss me off. If they are going to do this it should be kept inline with the true history.

Signed…..pissed off trek geek


873. Irish Trekki - January 20, 2008

To Quote Spock, ahem……. “Freakin AWSOME”….. or somethin like that. Cannot wait for this to come out! I ve only seen the trailer on the website cause Cloverfield isn’t out over here yet, but guess where I’ll be Febuary 1st.

Oh and agree with #15, there needs to be a DS9 movie! best series after the original in my opinion!

874. AJ - January 20, 2008

Облетев Землю в корабле-спутнике, я увидел, как прекрасна наша планета. Люди, будем хранить и приумножать эту красоту, а не разрушать ее!:

“Having flown above the Earth in this ship/satellite, I have seen how beautiful our planet is. People, we are going to preserve this beauty, and allow it to prosper. We will not destroy it.”

This is a message worthy for Trek.

875. Kirk, James T. - January 20, 2008

to 102:

1 – The Enterprise WAS built on Earth so take that off your list of things you think are wrong with it.

2 – The Enterprise is a SHIP – today’s SHIP building methods have not changed much, HUMANS still weld and build these Ocean going ships

3 – Abrams it seems has a far superior knowledge of what Star Trek “is” than you do my friend.

Sorry Storma, your whole argument is the only thing at loss here.

876. New StarTrek Teaser Trailer « Hot Lard - January 20, 2008

[…] […]

877. me - January 20, 2008

# 874

The meaning really would fit to Star Trek. I think it even would have worked non-translated into English. Sometimes you needn’t to understand everything, I even think it would sound quite cool just on Russian – although i couldn’t know what it meant, but it would represent the idea of Star Trek very well. I mean the Sovjets had the first man in space and the first space station.

But of course that’s a bit too much for a wish for a simple teaser, I am already very happy with the familiar American quotes, they really worked for me, though a nice idea to think about hypothetically.

878. mada101 - January 20, 2008

Just saw the full teaser. Well, it was…wobbly. But that’s probably because it was on before ‘Cloverfield’ ;-)

– Why is the Enterprise being welded together by hand?
– Why does it look like the ship from TMP only with round nacelles?
– Why is it silver and not pearly white?

Other than that, it didn’t get me particularly excited or non-excited. I also showed it to a couple of non-Trek friends, who asked me why the ship didn’t look like the TOS one :-P The lighting was nice, giving the new Trek look a feel more like other contemporary science fictions instead of the ‘Amazing Stories!’-esque universe depicted in TOS. The music was nice. Not much else to say.

879. Doug - January 20, 2008

Does anyone else question the reasoning though of putting the entire ship together on earth. I can see the different parts, but not the entire thing. This may be the architect in me talking, but structurally the composition of the neck and nacelle stems of the Enterprise could not support the weight of the saucer or nacelles in a gravity environment.

That and it would require an unbelievable about of force/energy to lift it through the atmosphere from other vessels. It could not use its own impulse because it would never build up the proper balance of momentum to maintain the entire vessel. The only way the ships could enter into an atmosphere before was once they were already within impulse. I have been working on the logistics of the whole procedure for all of this, like I said I am an architect, and it just doesn’t add up.

880. subatoi - January 20, 2008

I agree with Anthony, I also think that Paramount should put this thing up today, or at the 18th. They should have expected that it will get to the web very soon.
So now about 700,000 (!) people saw the dark low quality trailer, and counting. How many of them will watch (again) the good quality version? Much less, in my opinion… Shame.

881. KD6DXA - January 20, 2008

The nacelles look like the pod racers from Star Wars Episode I.

882. Crusade2267 - January 20, 2008

I’m glad to see the ship is still the same :-) I’m excited

883. Tincho - January 20, 2008

Hi to all. This is Tincho from Argentina (Córdoba).

I saw the trailer and I must to say that I´m very dissapointed with the fact that I will be able to see that movie…in 2.009!! Less than a year for the next World Cup!!. Damn…

I don´t know if you remember that in the “Star Trek Enterprise”´s episode called “In the Mirror Darkly” the mirror Hoshi Sato describes the life of the “original” captain Archer. Well…according to “Ex Astris Scientia” site, the screen that shows Archer´s life ends with the statement that he was able to see the launch of Kirk´s Enterprise…one day before Archer dies. I really wish to see Scott Bakula playing Archer at least one more time at the ceremony with Kirk and co.

Don´t forget T´Pol. I think that this character deserves to be in this new movie. I think that this is an important detail to make (at least…) link with “Star Trek Enterprise” and “Star Trek The Old Series”.



884. NCC - 635 - January 20, 2008

860 – how could you say Generations was great?!

Both Generations and Nemesis were bad because the plots were driven by the action (rather than character) through contrived scenes to get to specific confrontational points. Nemesis more so…

They started with the end and worked back basically,
in nemesis – they needed two data’s to face each other and two picards – do they drafted a pethetically weak script to get to that point – each with randomly contrived scenes –
they happned to come across datas twin –
they happened to have developed a clone of picard who somehow becomes head of the romulan senate –
they happen to fly into a huge nebula so the bad guys can rape them –

– all these plot points were just dumped in there to get to the next point in the story.

Generations was bad for the same reason – everything was dumped in there just to get kirk and picard to meet in an anti-climax of a fight.
They didn’t even bother to sort out how the nexus worked properly – so many plot holes it made me laugh.

its just rubbish stroytelling

……anyway – hope this film is better……

885. Tom - January 20, 2008

Any one good with HTML and Java code?

this was emebbed in the moview website:

Paramount Pictures and Level 1 Entertainment Present
A Bad Robot Production
A J.J. Abrams Film

Executive Producers Bryan Burk Jeffrey Chernov Roberto Orci Alex Kurtzman
Edward Milstein Bill Todman, Jr. Paul Schwake
Produced by J.J. Abrams Damon Lindelof
Based upon “Star Trek” Created by Gene Roddenberry
Written by Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman
Directed by J.J. Abrams

Cast: John Cho, Ben Cross, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Winona Ryder, Zoë Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, with Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy

Synopsis: From director J.J. Abrams (“Mission: Impossible III,” “Lost” and “Alias”) and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman (“TRANSFORMERS,” “MI: III”) comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, “Star Trek,” featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before.

886. Hon. David Kulessa - January 20, 2008

And apparently, in Nemesis, the phasors have lost the ability to overload on a timer, so Data had to stand there and needlessly get himself killed.

Terrible film, along with the fact that every TNG film was basically about Data and Picard (except in First Contact it was an advantage; not so well in the others). Hopefully this new film isn’t subject to plot holes and rampant disregard of secondary characters.


887. JT Willis - January 20, 2008

It occurred to me later that the trailer has “themes” that remind me of the original “Forbidden Planet”.

A new ship, a new crew, one of the first of the Constellation Class.

Seems the story might follow along similar lines and head out on a routine check up voyage only to become intangled in something much more.

I’d also suggest or postulate the story takes place “before” the comissioning of the “Five year” voyage.

I also hope it has more to do with “ideas” than raw fire power.. one of the themes of “FB” was that the “world” or “human race” as they knew it was not ready for what they had discovered.. similar to the “Menagerie”.. a recurring theme throughout many episodes.

Once idea I’d like to see would be them coming across a “stellar” sized machine and have no idea what its purpose was.. but to find it served some purpose that must be protected.. and perhaps find someone or something equally ignorant of it but doing something incomprehensible.. in the end.. maybe.. they have to learn to leave well enough alone.. and form an alliance. Sort of like the great galactic barrier.

We’re learning all sorts about the structure of dark matter, that it nexuses in the center of galaxies and forms the scaffolding of the universe.. wouldn’t it be awesome to find this machine were an umbrella that were protecting our corner of the universe from a higher background radiation.. and or it had telescopic, astronomical properties..

888. Rick - January 20, 2008

I thought it was great and clever for what it meant to say to me the viewer. For all I know the imagery we saw could just be a metaphor for the birth of a new STAR TREK film series. Remember they are building interest with this marketing. Now maybe I am wrong and there will be an exact scene like the film. But I have seen plenty of teasers and trailers with scenes never shown in the final cut of the film. I think it did it’s job for me and got me interested. Not that I haven’t been already seeing I come to this site all the time.

889. pcg - January 20, 2008

bitch, bitch, bitch, why don’t you winers shut up about canon and continuity. JJ is taking Star Trek further then you or anyone else had the imagination to do so. So get over your petty grevances and start enjoying what we got to look forward to.

890. diabolk - January 20, 2008

Right on!

And while they’re at it, go back and watch Nemesis.

891. Aaron - January 20, 2008

I liked Nemesis. Now Insurrection…heh…left much to be desired

892. nyxtreme - January 20, 2008

Onward to post 1-0-0-0 !!!

893. amber - January 20, 2008


totally agree!!! i love ALL Star Trek, we have not had this incredible show for so long we need to just be grateful we will again and enjoy it! i wanted to get up in the cinema and do a dance when we saw the trailer! and we have how looooonnnnggg to wait! aaarrrgghhhh!

894. Rick James - January 21, 2008

The Original Series of Star Trek ended in 1969. There hasn’t been any new “official” material from that storyline except the animated series. The first six Star Trek movies take place after the events of TOS. Thus the TMP era is itself a separate continuity. The fact the TOS era is being revisited at all, 40 years after the fact, is amazing in my eyes. Most hard core trekkers I know would rather see a new TNG or post TNG type movie. Myself I’ve always dreamed about redoing all the old TOS era material wrapped in newer modern production values.

Like it or not Star Trek is now a modern mythology. I can’t take credit for this comparison but I find it appropriate for this discussion. The tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table have been retold countless numbers of times since the story was originally created. There have been many incarnations of King Arthur’s tale in several media formats. Yet the look of Camelot, the castle, the round table, the horse rides, the armor suits, the sword Excalibur all change somewhat in each new retelling of the story. Yet in the end they all tell roughly the same story. For better or worse Star Trek appears to have achieved a somewhat similar mythological status.

895. Woulfe - January 21, 2008

Post #894 of ?

Teasers are designed to do one thing “Tease” that’s why they’re called “Teasers” in the first place, this isn’t a “Preview” we won’t get that at least untill “Indy 4″ May 22 IIRC ?

Looking forward myself to the actual “Preview” after this “Tease”

– W –
* Isn’t that Right Bob ? *

896. Cezion - January 21, 2008

I went to see Cloverfield… but they did not show the trailer!!!!! I talked to management and they said they just forgot to add it.

897. JD Moores - January 21, 2008

I like the scale of it. ‘Seems like they’re taking the same approach as Christopher Nolan did with “Batman” in trying to treat it more “realistically.” My only hope is that the characters don’t get lost in the massive scenery. Sure, a cozy little living-room-like bridge like on the series and movies may not be what would actually exist or be feasible, but it put the characters in close proximity all the time and forced some great interaction, which is how we got to know the characters. I just fear this new bridge being so big that the crew can barely hear each other across the floor with everyone spread out doing their own things.

898. Jonathan Slavin - January 21, 2008

According to Star Trek tech manuals all the ships have been built in low Earth orbit.

Once the hull has been fleshed out and can support its self with power and gravity they move it into orbit.

Right now NASA is proposing to do the same thing for the return to the Moon and going to Mars.

Think of it like a ship yard, the kiel and hull are laid and built and then they float it and finish fitting it out.

Just like the Enterprise it is first pieced together on Earth in San Francisco and it launched into orbit and moved to a space dock.

According to TNG history the Enterprise -D was build built on Mars before it had entered service.

899. feeesh - January 21, 2008

If you live in Los Angeles, don’t bother going to the Arclight to see it because they aren’t showing it before Cloverfield. I was excited to see it and was disappointed when there was no Star Wars teaser………

900. feeesh - January 21, 2008

er…….Star TREK i mean, ooops

901. JT - January 21, 2008

On Ship Proportions:

If you actually read through the technical manuals / series bible / production notes, etc — all the good stuff, in other words — you realize that:, even the tiny (by, say TNG standards) Constitution class starship is really damn big. (How’s that for eloquence :))

At a MINIMUM (meaning pre-refit canon specs) a constitution class starship is nearly 1,000 feet long. 1000 feet. That’s the length of a modern day aircraft carrier. Nearly 450 feet at maximum bredth. And nearly 250 feet high. (948 / 433 / 240 are the exact)

That’s huge! I think this wasn’t conveyed as well as it could because of the very practical matter of budget limitations in TOS. Probably combined with the general issues of relative scale throughout all of Star Trek – if you create television and movies which involve lots of 1-3 thousand foot long starships, it’s easy as a viewer to lose track of the actual size of things, particularly since there aren’t a lot of reference shots involving humans.

I first really ‘got’ the size of the original Enterprise when I read one of the Trek novels – either Federation or Ship of the Line. It described the perspective of seeing the Enterprise pull alongside a much smaller starship like coming across a giant white whale or a wall of glimmering white. So true.

So, after all that, my point is: ironically, I think this trailer may actually be BETTER capturing the original intentions of Roddenberry (in this one sense at least). It certainly was a moving series of shots.

Good for JJ. He has a LOT of other expectations to fulfill, but the portrayl of the ship passes muster for this longtime trek fan.

902. MOSHE TEL AVIV - January 21, 2008



903. Jamus - January 21, 2008

I’d just like to say on the subject that I agree entirely with everything the next person has to say.

904. The Reverend Vulcanista - January 21, 2008

Here’s hoping I’m 904, heehee:

Star Trek is a Godless Communist plot to indoctrinate the next generation (there! I said it!) into teaching evolutions in the schools! Next thing you know, they’ll be teaching tolerance amongst the species, as if God, in his infinite wisdom,actually had to look beyond the perfection that is humanity and create the other species. I tell you, brothers and sisters, Star Trek is of SATAN!

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

905. Harry Ballz - January 21, 2008

Yeah, well, how about looking to Christmas for satanic overtones…….

SANTA is simply the name of SATAN rearranged……m’yeah!! :)

Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it!!

906. The Vulcanista - January 21, 2008



That invitation in #903 was just *too* good to pass up.

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

907. Mike - January 21, 2008

Ok…it’s like this…if you can build a starship that can travel several thousand times the speed of light…you can build it planetside and lift it into orbit and finish it there.

Besides…anyone knows you can’t warp out of a planets gravity well…you have to use the impulse engines because you can’t create a warp feild while stuck in a planets gravity well…dummy!

Also…The Making of Trek (written by Gene Roddenbury) says that the Enterprise was built on Earth and lifted into space.

Lastly…economics and resources in the 23rd century are almost limitless…so it wouldn’t be a problem of “wasting” resources to lift a 170,000 metric ton ship into space (see the making of Star Trek by Gene Roddenbury)…if you can create a plant and a star from a nebula with a small “Genesis” torpedo…the Enterprise can be built on Earth.

Lastly, on cannon…ridges on Klingons…Romulans with brow lifts…and all of the other inconsistancies to come out of all of the productions…blow it out of your photon torpedo tubes and lets reboot and restart. I want to go back to something that looks like TOS…period.

908. Sam Clemens - January 21, 2008

wasn’t Rodenberry’s original desire for the nacelles that they would retract when needed?

909. Sam Clemens - January 21, 2008

The Utopia Planetia shipyards are on the surface of MARS and in orbit around MARS?

That’s a terraformed MARS in the teaser and not Earth. The one visible shot of background imagery of the planet in the teaser clearly doesn’t resemble futuristic San Francisco.

Starfleet Academy is in San Francisco and where the ship was christened…thus the enscription on the plaque.

Seriously folks…

910. Kevas and Trillium - January 22, 2008

The original Enterprise (Constiution Class) star ship designs were always the best. They emphasized the engines, not the living quarters. Enterprises B and D, as well as Voyager, look like they were designed by interior decorators or fashion designers. Long live Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott!

911. Dr. Whom - January 22, 2008


I would LOVE to invent a time machine, take some of you about .. oh.. 260 years into the future, let you step out and behold the changes….

It would be worth it just to hear you say, “Oh fuh… they violated canon!”


912. WTF - January 22, 2008

My god, NERDS!

The trailer looks GOOD. It will attract audiences and dollars. Most hardcore “trekkies” are broke failures who don’t spend much anyway, or they’re old, or dead already!

Be grateful that they’re making one last attempt to save a franchise that was all but DEAD!

913. Antonin - January 22, 2008

To 912: I’m not sure why you feel a need to hurl insults. Show some respect.

914. BorgDrone - January 22, 2008

Well, to add my 2 cents. . .

I think everyone is spending too much time regarding what is and isn’t canon. I mean when it comes right down to it, canon is William Shatner as Kirk, Leonard Nimoy as Spock, DeForest Kelley as McCoy, etc. You get my drift. If we really wanted to get technical about canon, i.e., what’s seen on the screen, then those are the actors who should be in the movie. Of course, that’s not possible, nor is it reality.

I do think there are some things that are non-negotiable, such as the look of the Enterprise, NCC-1701, “no bloody A, B, C or D!”, props and really even the uniforms.

And I admit, it’s definitely hard to think of the characters as being re-cast. Not sure I can imagine anyone else as James T. Kirk.

But while I’m apprehensive about it, I want to give this movie a chance. Also, I think it’s worth pointing out, this movie will no doubt begin in the 24th century. I’ve read quotes by JJ on why it’s been so difficult to work Shatner into the film as Kirk, simply because Kirk is dead. Well, when did Kirk die? The 24th century! So it stands to reason we’ll probably be starting there. So if Shatner doesn’t end up in the film, we have Paramount & Berman & Co. to thank for it.

Give the film a chance. What have we got to lose right?

915. siribear - January 22, 2008

I was 11 when TOS first aired. It permanently wired part of my brain to feel joy at the thought of the possibilities ahead of us as a species. In contrast, this last 7 years of Neoliberal Dystopia have been a desert, void of any sign of the values that TOS spoke to. Just viewing the trailer, for a moment, washed jaded cynicism and the weariness of broken hopes away. It made me remember what it felt like to feel hope for what might be accomplished, again. If this new movie does nothing more than that, it will have been worth the $170 million.

916. zach009 - January 22, 2008

After reading most of these posts. I am in awe of the way people are reacting to a teaser trailer of Star Trek. If you look at most movies now. They try to go the “realistic” route. They try to recreate favorites and get the franchise going again. You should be happy now you trekkies have something to do again. lol
I’ve watched all the series here and there. I’ve seen all the movies. If you read the plot synopsis, then you know it’s the original crew. Young again, fresh. I think it will be interesting to see these actors and actresses bringing these original characters back to life. It’s not about what acotr played this part it’s about the characters. The fact that Leonard Nemoy is going to play an older spock is a great way to link new and old. It’s about time. It might not look so campy which will bring a whole new fan base and create some good nostalgic feelings for others.
With special effects what they are today you shouldn’t be worried about the look of the ship. It’s just a ship and with any luck we will see it destroyed in an awesome way.
The Star Trek franchise is what “you” as an individual viewer gets out it. Whatever you want to be fact in your mind is fact for “you”.
Here’s the real question- Is the new sulu gonna come out of the closet too? lol

917. Robert Thompson - January 22, 2008

OK. I am not going to read all 915 comments. But I would like to weigh in here. I have been watching Star Trek for a long time. My first impression of the image was very positive. But when I looked at the larger image more carefully, I hesitated at the “cooling wings” on the nacelles. The ship is in outer space, so there is no air to “fan” into the nacelles right? It seems like they are trying to add realism by making it look like jet plane nacelles. I think that is bogus. I guess, to be honest, as much as I love The Trek, I always have been a little unsure in general about the ship design. What is the basic idea behind a warp field? It is the idea that through total annihilation of “trilithium” or whatever, by bombarding it with anti-matter, you can generate some kind of enormous power field that warps, or contracts, space. The ship is then pulled through space at a fantastic velocity that can’t be achieved with ordinary “propulsion”, or in the Trek lingo, “impulse.” Like one comment said, why the skinny body? Again, it seems like they are just basing it on an “airplane” design. What about UFO’s? I know that most people who are into The Trek must be at least somewhat interested in UFO’s. The ship doesn’t look like a UFO. That bothers me sometimes. As far as the building in space issue, it is my understanding that Voyager was special precisely because it can travel in an atmosphere and land on a planet. So this early on, the ship would had to have been built in space right? What would be the point of lugging an enormous ship like this into orbit? I’m perfectly fine with the idea of building something in space. That is what they did with the International Space Station, right? I always assumed, what with the “scaffolding” around all the incarnations of The Enterprise in the movies that this is what was happening. What can I say? I will see the film, and I am sure I will love it. I’m like siribear. I just love the idea of exploring the galaxy, interacting with other species. Still, I hope someday someone is brave enough to bridge the gap between UFOlogy and Sci Fi. Yeah, there’s the X-Files. But I actually really like Star Trek better, again, for the exploration and drama in a galactic culture context. I read a book called COSMIC VOYAGE which is about Remote Viewing, and the author said he had conversation with actual aliens through Remote Viewing and they told him that the creation of Sci Fi, especially Star Trek was “watched over” by actual aliens to prepare people for the idea of alien contact, “First Contact”. That totally made me re-examine Star Trek. I wonder how many of the details and ideas in Star Trek will turn out to be true. So — within the framework of the Star Trek world the ship design works for me. It looks cool.

918. Arjan - January 23, 2008

I am big soundtrack fan and Goldsmith’s Enterprise theme works wonders in the trailer. Sadly the old master passed away, so Mr. Giachinno has something to prove! Hopefully he can do the same as James Horner did, coming up with a new great, but different theme! It must have a nautical feel to it!

Besides, if there is any space battle, don’t go for the overkill with hunderds of lasers ala Star Wars. With fast cuts and such… But more like in Wrath of Khan! A few torpedos… a few well aimed laser beams… tension… music… = magic.

919. Capt. Chip C. - January 23, 2008

I don’t usually post on any forums but I just had to give my opinion here:

First off, I will start by saying that I AM one of those teenage “new viewers” you all have been talking about: I never got to see TOS in their original time period. Hell, I never even watched TNG/VOY/DS9 in their original time periods.

And yet even as a “new fan”, when I saw this trailer I nearly pissed on myself I got so excited.

I agree with the majority of you: ST is not about petty technically details or even about filming styles; it is about showing what we as the human race are able to accomplish for ourselves when we put our minds to it.

It doesn’t matter how big the Enterprise’s damn nacelles are – it doesn’t change the fact that she has and always will symbolize the very heart and soul of humanity and our urge to explore and better ourselves.

But for those of you who are so stuck up on details listen up: speaking as an engineering student, it is technically feasible with ST technology to build the E on the ground without too much of a detriment to efficiency. Speaking as someone who dabbles in photography/filming, the nacelles appear fine, she’s almost never shot so closely we’re just not used to seeing her at this angle. And speaking as a “young” trekkie – this trailer is the single closest thing I have EVER seen to showing the world that star trek is not just for nerds and it does have relevance to the general populace.

Final word to the canonites: You are the people for giving trekkies/geeks a bad name. You are a disappointment to The Enterprise, The Original Series, Gene Roddenberry, and all of Star Trek. Get a grip.

920. wilhard - January 23, 2008

Reply to 919

Um, what is possible and what is practical is two different things. It is like building a ocean-going ship in Utah. Yeah, it could be done but why would you? The ship building industry would have long since moved itself to space to build earlier ships when building on earth would not have been practical. The Enterprise would be built using the existing ship building infrastructure in space. As an engineering student, you should have thought of not only the possible but the practical. Engineers need to design projects being mindful of their resources, materials and costs.

The other thing that bugged me, and admittedly it is ticky-tack, was a welder using arc welding equipment without proper protection. Not just the eyes but the whole face needs to be covered. Arc welding emits just a whole-bunch of ultra-violet that would have toasted that actor’s face in the real world. For that matter, why not actually use a real welder? Okay, okay, ticky-tack. :-)

921. wilhard - January 23, 2008

to 875.

>1 – The Enterprise WAS built on Earth so take that off your list of things you think are wrong with it.

Hmm, how do you KNOW it was built on Earth? This is fiction relating a tale that is set quite a bit in the future.

>2 – The Enterprise is a SHIP – today’s SHIP building methods have not changed much, HUMANS still weld and build these Ocean going ships

Now that is just silly. Ocean going ships are built near the ocean. There are no ocean liners being built in Utah. A SPACE ship would naturally be built in its intended element. That would mean SPACE ships are built in space. A nascent space ship building industry is already on the drawing boards. If mankind continues its exploration of space, we can well expect an entire industry developed to support that exploration and in earth orbit.

>3 – Abrams it seems has a far superior knowledge of what Star Trek “is” than you do my friend.

Now that is just mean.

922. Capt. Chip C. - January 23, 2008

Wilhard –
Thank you for completely ignoring the entire point of my post: that the details do not matter. I am fully aware (probably more so than you) that it is impractical to build a starship on the planet’s surface. What you do not seem to understand is that Star Trek is a fictional work, and even though much of the science is the same as in the real world, it does not mean all the laws of efficiency and practicality apply. What you also do not seem to understand is that the plot of this movie is not intended to serve as a manual for starship construction.

Side note: read the interviews and articles on this website – they did use real welding tools, and the actor was a real welder. I’m sure he understands the safety rules regarding welders. For that matter, I’ve been welding for years with nothing but eye protection and I have suffered no health damage.

The details do not matter. that is the whole point. my whole post was about how people such as yourself are missing the entire point. it’s a movie. it doesn’t have to be realistic. it doesn’t have to be practical. it doesn’t have to look exactly like the past movies. it just has to get its point across. Unless the point of the movie is to be an instructional video on starship construction who the hell cares if they choose an impractical building location?

oh and about your response to number 875: he wasn’t talking about the ship’s building location. he was talking about the people who complained about the fact that there were human welders. And he was right: modern ships are still largely built by hand today, because ship building required both strength and precision and with our current technology we can’t build a robot that does both – only one or the other.

923. nyxtreme - January 23, 2008

Are we there yet??? (onward to post 1-0-0-0!!!)

924. COMAPSSIONATE GOD - January 25, 2008

Over 900 posts….whew. Some sites dedicated to the race for the White House cannot match this post count!

I guess the site will explode when the long form trailer is released!

925. Cervantes - January 26, 2008

#652 Daniel Broadway

If Roberto forgets your request, just keep an eye on this fine resource which will eventually show all the music elements to the teaser trailer.

926. Ray - January 26, 2008

Well I have been collecting ST info since I was a kid with the rest of my fact it says the Enterprise was built in The SanFrancisco Space Yards.. The Novel where an ensign kirk goes on a mission in an Uncompleted enterprise has it it space dock, where they mentioned it was fully constructed. Its a movie and all directors, etc have this need to “Make it mine” so not surprising he is fiddling with things..but its just a movie. Don’t like the changes don’t pay to see it and don’t buy it when it hits dvd. Personally I’ll pass, when I found out William Shatner was cut from the project I found that disappointing. Proberbly afraid he would steal the movie.

927. Dp1701 - January 26, 2008

I have always understood that the NCC of NCC 1701 stood for Naval Construction Contract and that the ship was built in the old naval yard in San Francisco near Star Fleet. It also makes sence that it was finshed in orbit. In the novels Kirk’s father under took the first shake down cruise, the ship was awaiting its name, which was under the command of Robert April who was relived by Pike some 5 years later. When Kirk took over from pike the ship was almost twenty years old. Construction date was about 2245?

928. Radioflyer1a - January 26, 2008

In the TV guide Mag it said the Enterprise is being built at area 51, so I guess that explains how they are getting it into orbit.

929. beam me up - January 26, 2008

To explain the bigger warp engines, look at a book entittled “ships if the line” It contains all the pic’s of star ships and moments in trek time from the calenders. It also has a pic of the an enterprise that looks like a cross between the tos and the movie enterprise, but if look closely at the warp engines you will see both in the book and the trailer, that the warp engines are bigger at the front, then taper down. also the front of the engines are clear. also from the teaser trailer the bridge looks different, a bit thicker, and the 1701 is closer to the lip of the saucer. So maybe there will be some changes to this movie enterpise or it’s something they did for the teaser and has notheing to do with the movie. Also it has been explained in trek novels that space docks can be lowered down to earth containing parts or whole star ships, and dureing the enterprise refit the saucer was brought down to earth for refit while the secondary hull was worked on in space.

930. FanFiltration - January 27, 2008

Having a Chinese actor play the Japanese Hikaru Sulu is a bit strange!!!
Don’t know how that will go over with the Asian fans.

The fact that they’re using a number of comedian actors for the parts is a bit of a concern for me as well. I don’t want this to turn out to be a hokey spoof of the original. I mean come on, Shaun from “Shaun of the Dead” is gonna be Scotty?

I would like a hard hitting re-telling of the original concept in fact. Kind of how they re-booted the Bond films with Casino Royal.

931. Captain Robert April - January 27, 2008

A few points.

“NCC” didn’t have any particular meaning when Matt Jefferies cooked it up. He just borrowed from present day aircraft tail numbers, fiddled a bit, and came up with something that could be easily read from a distance, i.e., on a typical mid 60’s television screen (which was quite a bit smaller and had less resolution than today’s sets). “Naval Construction Contract” was a creation of Franz Joseph Schnabelt when doing his Constitution Class deck plans in the mid 70’s, and they have since then been “decanonized”, for lack of a better term.

Lieutenant Sulu was not intended to be of any particular Asian extraction, as “Sulu” doesn’t come from any particular Asian culture. Rather, it came from the Sulu Sea, just off the Phillipines. So having a Chinese guy play a part previously portrayed by a Japanese guy isn’t any weirder than having a Korean girl play a Japanese linguistics expert (aka Linda Park playing Hoshi Sato on Enterprise).

932. StarWarsfan - January 28, 2008

Come on, everyone know that on shot from a death star and ther would be no enterprise or san francisco.

933. Robbie Redshirt - January 28, 2008

RE: Enterprise and the proportion of her nacelles.


934. trekker1962 - February 5, 2008

I’ve been reading the zillion posts arguing whether building Enterprise on the ground is so technically obtuse that it cannot be Star Trek. There is something to be said for insisting that Trek be as believable as humanly possible – Roddenberry was concerned that other 60’s Sci-fi was so carelessly goofy that to make an impression with believability was Trek’s only hope, and it seems to have worked out well.

But a long time ago, I read David Gerrold arguing that they still chunked believability too often – but by pointing out how wide the corridors were (ostenably to let the cameras through), and when he argued that this was an unrealistic way to build a starship (more air to unnecessarily maintain, he said), he proved the point I’m about to make – a lot of perceived unrealisms are mistaken (more air aboard a ship would mean more time in a crisis without anybody suffocating, air will conduct heat or cold from outside slower than the metal it replaces, and I can think of a few larger 23rd century items besides movie cameras that one would like to physically move through that corridor, so what is unrealistic about a wide hallway?) so don’t stop having a good time because of it.

I still think building a starship in space is the way to go (less effort keeping rain, bugs, and bird nests out of your work – aerospace types would call it foreign object debris or FOD, a bad thing in real-world aircraft, and it seems to me it would still be a hassle in higher-tech vehicles – you’re already where you’re going, and no gravity to complicate fitting large objects together), but, like wide corridors, working on the ground has a couple of big advantages for your workforce – no spacesuits (remember, you are working with tools that would cut one open) & no huge pressurized drydock to make the spacesuit unnecessary. And I realize the STTOS writer’s guide is not canon until it’s contents arrive in a script, but *it* said Enterprise was built at the San Francisco Naval Yards (is that the one on Mare Island?). If it’s good enough for Roddenberry, why is Abrams so wrong?

Enterprise was built many years before Kirk commanded it – this trailer reflects the look of the movie but is not likely to be a part of it. I’m reluctant to get down on the movie because only the *trailer* is unrealistic.

Finally, anyone who insists a movie get every single thing right will never, ever find one to enjoy. Doubly so for Trek, where there is so much more to get right.

935. B - February 7, 2008

It’s a movie. No more, no less.
The people that created this movie are artist. And with artist, it’s open to their interpretation.

936. thylocine - February 9, 2008

the nacelles are clearly air breathing jet engines designed to get the ship into space. Bet they get replaced by warp engines once they’re up there.

937. Elwood - February 10, 2008

I tried to read most of these but has anyone mentioned that if this is the beginning of the Enterprise then it will have her first Captain: Captain Pike? Mr. Spock was his Science Officer and was very close to him (Menagerie). Story: Spock in old age having flash backs to his past with Captain Pike. . . you fill in the rest.

938. Kish, Jason Arron - February 15, 2008

Ok i only have a few things to say so here is my 2 cents worth.

I may only be 28 and not as old as some of these old timers flipping out about the enterprise being built on earth and as for others lets get this whole mess cleared up.

A.) The original San Fransico Ship yards where the USS Enerprise NCC-1701 was built was actually only earth. The San Fran ship yards where later put in space during the time of TNG. Hense why the NCC-1701D was built by the Mars.

B.) All ships from the NX-01 to present day NCC-1701E are able to be flown inside a planets atmousphere (SP). He have seen this in many shows from the TOS when enterprise went back in time to Generations to Enterprise the show with the NX-01 firing on the plasma cannon in NYC alternate timeline.

C.) Unless you are a true Star Trek Fan and knwo what your talking about Sit down Shut up and stop Bitching cause personally I know I am an fan that grew up watching star trek and i dont like piss ants making a big deal and running a mock when they know not what in the star trek timeline…

Thank you

939. Kish, Jason Arron - February 15, 2008

want to retrack the Enterprise D wasnt built by Mars but The Enterprise-D was a Starfleet vessel built at the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards and commisioned in 2363. sorry was pissie and forgot what i needed to type on this

940. Kish, Jason Arron - February 15, 2008

I little info from the NCC thing form earlier

The designation NCC 1701, stands for nothing in particular. The apocryphal tale that “NCC” stands for “Naval Construction Contract” is incorrect, with Gene Roddenberry indicating as much. The “1701” was an homage to the house across the street from where Mr. Roddenberry grew up.[

also from website

The Enterprise is depicted in the teaser trailer of the upcoming Star Trek movie. The teaser shows a swarm of workers constructing the Enterprise in a dockyard somewhere on Earth, presumably the San Francisco Fleet Yards where the ship was listed as being built other sources.[citation needed]

In the final shot of the teaser, the front of the saucer section clearly shows the ship’s name and number enscribed on the hull plating.

Commissioned in 2245,[2] the USS Enterprise is the first United Federation of Planets starship to bear the name “Enterprise”. During the show’s run, the ship’s dedication plaque lists it as “Starship Class”; Star Trek Expanded Universe literature often refers to the ship as Constitution class, and its Constitution-class status was confirmed in dialog in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes “The Naked Now” and “Relics”.

Star Trek: The Animated Series and novels by Diane Carey state that Robert April was the Enterprise’s first commanding officer. Captain Christopher Pike (Jeffrey Hunter) commanded the Enterprise for a decade, and Pike is the commanding officer in the original Star Trek pilot, “The Cage”. Throughout the Star Trek television series, Captain Kirk commands the ship on a five-year mission of exploration. The ship appears in every Star Trek episode.

The Enterprise undergoes a refit overseen by its new commanding officer, Willard Decker (Stephen Collins), prior to the events in The Motion Picture; Decker describes the refit vessel to Admiral Kirk, who assumes command of the ship to confront the V’Ger probe, as “an almost entirely new Enterprise”. Star Trek novels depict another exploratory mission under Kirk’s command between the events of the first and second films.

Spock (Leonard Nimoy) commands the Enterprise, serving as a training ship, at the beginning of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan; Kirk assumes command when the ship is called to investigate problems with Project Genesis. The USS Reliant, hijacked by Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalbán), inflicts substantial damage to the Enterprise; Spock sacrifices his life in order to save the ship. Shortly after returning to spacedock at the beginning of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the Enterprise is ordered decommissioned. Kirk leads his officers in stealing the ship in an attempt to restore Spock’s life, and Kirk destroys the Enterprise to prevent its capture by Klingons.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home opens with Kirk and his officers agreeing to return to Earth to face punishment for their actions in the previous film. En route, they travel back in time to stop a probe threatening to destroy Earth. Upon the success of their mission and return to the 23rd century, most of the charges against the crew are dismissed; Kirk is “punished” with a reduction in rank to captain and given command of the Enterprise’s successor, the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701

from a differen site

The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was a Constitution-class heavy cruiser launched in 2245. In the course of her career, she became the most celebrated Federation Starfleet vessel of the 23rd century.

In her forty years of service and discovery, through upgrades and at least two refits, she took part in numerous first contacts, military engagements, and time-travels. She achieved her most lasting fame from the five-year mission (2265-2270) under the command of James T. Kirk.

The Enterprise was destroyed in 2285. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)

“Enterprise” (a Human word for a venture of scope, risk and promise) has a long Earth lineage, from the age of sail through the warp 5 engine. l’Entreprenant (Enterprising) was a French sailing ship in 1671. A subsequent ship, l’Entreprise was captured by the British Royal Navy in 1705 and renamed HMS Enterprize, a name used in British and American navies through the 21st century. A prototype for NASA’s space shuttle fleet was named Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101) by popular demand in 1976. The first Earth Starfleet vessel commissioned Enterprise NX-01 launched in 2151 under the command of Captain Jonathan Archer, initiating the era of Humanity’s deep space exploration.

See also: Enterprise history

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 in San Francisco and launched in 2245, was christened the Enterprise. Larry Marvick was one of the designers of the Enterprise. (TOS: “Tomorrow is Yesterday”, “Is There in Truth No Beauty?”)

According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space.
According to a computer display that was created behind the scenes, but never used on screen, Jonathan Archer was present at the launch and died the next day. This information remains non-canon because it was never photographed on film.
Captain Robert April oversaw construction of her components and commanded her during her trial runs and early missions. (TAS: “The Counter-Clock Incident”)

Dialogue given in the episode claims the Enterprise was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive. However, this not only violates canon established by Star Trek: Enterprise, but also dialogue given in TAS: “The Time Trap” claiming that the Bonaventure was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive.
Captain Christopher Pike commanded the Enterprise from the early 2250s into the 2260s. His missions included voyages to the Rigel, Vega and Talos systems. Pike’s half-Vulcan science officer, Spock, who served under him for over eleven years, would become the starship’s longest-serving officer. (TOS: “The Menagerie, Part I”)

and as for the captains of Enterprise

Captain Robert April (2245)
Captain Christopher Pike (2250s through early 2260s)
Captain James T. Kirk (2265-2270; as Rear Admiral in early 2270s)
Captain Willard Decker (during refit in early 2270s)
Captain Spock (2281 through 2285)
Admiral James T. Kirk (during the Khan crisis of 2285)

Figure if someone wants to run there mouth try to beat that cause i gave you websites also
Thank you

941. Javier - February 16, 2008

Wow! this guy really has no life if he goes in search of this type of information that or he is a real star trek nut.

942. HotSexyLatin - February 16, 2008

Give the man credit. He actually did his reseach and looked it up for everyone. so why call him a nut. At least he has a hobby.

943. Rolly Fannus - February 16, 2008

Actually, the font is correct. Just look at the U.S.S. Enterprise Blueprints, released several years ago. The font there matches the one used in the teaser exactly. So perhaps it was the ORIGINAL font before Kirk’s time.
And yes, the nacelle proportions are correct, the largeness is enhanced by the depth of field in the photography. ANd thirdly, the foreign teasers incorporate non US space chatter.

944. Wha - February 18, 2008

What a contrast here. Film students and normal people typing a few lines at a time saying that this might make the franchise palatable to the general public…

…vs NERDS with no life who literally must have spent an hour typing their rambling blather about how a new media property doesn’t match the old media property.

Um. Wow.

945. NAVIGATOR67 - February 22, 2008

Well – I finally got my first look of the “New-Old” Enterprise. I have been a devoted fan of Start Trek thru all the years. Even thru the depression era of DS9. Please let me say, that with time – things not only change, but get better. Star Trek needed an infusion – and this I think is it BIGTIME.
Superman returned…Batman began….even Battlestar Galactica got it.

As a DEVOTED fan, I respect all the trek-lore, the so called “geeks & nerds” for I am one too. BUT – the one thing I am appreciative & thankful for – is the “Genesis” that Star Trek is going to have. All of us fans – old & new haven’t had a good Trek in quite a long time. And I am burning with withdrawal because of it…until now.

This movie will do for Star Trek, what it needed so badly – the chance to live on again. Don’t worry – all the lines & stories will match up sometime.
For now – lets be grateful & thankful that we have Star Trek coming back – and judging by the trailer – not just a renewed sense of excitement…but with a vengeance that can give us all exciting action, great stories, and a chance for Generation X, Y, & Z to strengthen our fanship for this loved cult.

J.J. Abrams & his team have my support – and my thanks. For a shot in the arm, or kick in the @$$ because I see many great movies ahead of us in this bold era. I don’t mind seeing 1968 technology. But we have the ability to make 1968 technology be sharper, clearer, and just downright breathtaking.

Just think of the possibilities when TNG is modeled in this same formula.
Years from now – I think we can all look back – and thank J.J. for reviving Trek – and giving us what we all know & love…Star Trek.
The Enterprise has a long standing tradition of honor & pride.
Let’s not let HER down – as all of us know, she has never let us down.

946. Frank Poole - March 29, 2008

I gotta chime in if anyone’s still listening.
1) IMO Star Trek has been in unimaginative, untalented hands pretty much since Gene Roddenberry died. They’ve relied more on technobabble than drama almost forever. The original series at its best is the only Star Trek to deserve the designation of Science Fiction.

2) The canon is so corrupted from too many cooks that it will never make sense.

3) This new reboot (and that’s what it is whether anyone’s admitting it or not) is a desperately needed cleaning of a crap-encrusted slate. Star Trek may live up to its original potential for the first time since 1966. It has been handcuffed for too long by a mediocre-to-rotten creative team and the need to pander to a nostalgia-and-detail-obsessed fan base. No more rock-and-roll-haired villains. No more bad actors being given roles just because they got lucky enough to be cast over forty years ago (i.e. Walter Koenig). Hopefully the only priority will be dramatic quality and a renewed sense of wonder and possibility.

947. Capt. Chip C. - April 9, 2008

Poole, that’s a great post (though you’re right – I doubt anyone is still listening at this point).

Still, I’m not sure if I agree 100% with you. As far as drama goes I think the post-TOS series are just as good or better than the original. Don’t get me wrong I’m definitely a fan of TOS, but I do also enjoy and respect the work that has been done after Roddenberry.

Your second point is spot on I think…. so many people on this site are arguing canon-this and canon-that and in reality it’s exactly like you said: there is no reliable canon in star trek. The different series (hell, even different episodes in the same series) have overlapped and contradicted each other so much that it’s laughable to try to get discernible canon out of it. And I’d like to add another point on top of it for the canonists out there: This is TV folks. It’s fiction. The star trek universe doesn’t have to have rock-hard continuity like the real world does.

Your third point I semi-agree with. This is going to be a reboot in a lot of ways, I don’t think we should be kidding ourselves by thinking otherwise. And I also agree that Trek has gotten stale as of late and needs a fresh kick in the pants. I think the scale you suggest is a little over the top though. You make it sound as if everything since the TOS days has been total trash and like I said before I just don’t believe that to be true. I do have the same hopes that you do though: the hope that this movie will bring about the top-notch drama and brilliant storytelling that Abrams in known for.

948. Dano - June 1, 2008

I hope this Star Trek will rival that of the second film (Wrath of Khan). The only episode worth watching!

I think it is in good hands with JJ in the context of scale, but i just hope the he is giving as much energy into building substance as he is on the ship!!

949. LENNY - June 6, 2008

my friend lenny, thinks it will be shit !!!

950. JAMIE - June 6, 2008


951. Captain Sakura - June 29, 2008

I’m looking forward to seeing what this is all about. Ship is impressive, retro, but not out of line for the time in which the movie is to take place. I like the iconic TOS looks and feel.

I’ve read a bunch of the comments, and will withhold my opinions on all things until after the release of this one. However…I hope it does well, I have no intention of boycotting it for any reason (including the lettering, which looks like it was from the TOS Tech manual), and would like to see a new series from this era (Pike? April?) or even a new Constituion Class ship with a different name (knowing that Exeter, Constellation, et al) have had problems. Perhaps the adventures of the Lexington…?

Just a thought.

952. William Grillaud - July 2, 2008

I don’t know what all of the chatter is about.I saw and got a full picture of the new Enterprise from Star Trek 11.What happened was that a merchandise guy spilt the beans by posting an official pic of a shirt that has the full side view of the new Enterprise in’s a pic taken from the FX shots of the film.
If you do not want spoilers,then do not read onwards.Here is as much as I can describe;
First of all,the new design casts no doubt that it “IS ” “THE” Enterprise .I saw the ship in FULL profile and “side/top” view.In short,This design will not let you down.
1-She has the same azrec hull plating design as in the motion picture.
2-The engine nacells are large in the front only,thenthe rest of the nacell is straight like the original.the ends are the same as the original but have no”white ball”underneath the end,the top peaks of the end are extended just a bit,and lastly -the top of each nacell “glows”light blue.almost as if the hull plating was translucent/solid(great effect).The front of the nacells light up and spin much like the original but are”yellow/orange/reddish.
3-The struts that hold the engines to the main hull are more or less “straight” (not angled or “swepped back” like the motion pictue Enterprise).the only exeption is the points where they connect to the engines and hull.There they taper out and flow down to the hull and engines(but only very little).
3-the secondary hull is a mix between the original television show’s and the motion picture’s sort of a mixture of both.Not as long and thin as the original,but “fatter” and shorter like the motion picture.HERE IS THE BIG SPOILER!!….she has a “radar/sattelite dish in the front of the secondary hull like the original TV version(just a bit smaller in proportion).she does not have a glowing blue ligted navigational array like in the movies,but does have some lighting above and behind/around the dish.
4-The “neck”or the fin that connects the secondary hull to the primary hull is as well a mix of the movie version and the TV is still tall and”thin”(NOT like the Enterprise-D or E).At the back end right where it connects to the secondary hull,it taprs out a bit until it goes flush/even with the secondary hull.The front of the “neck” has retained a topedo bay right where it meats the front of the secondary hull…but not EXACTLY like the motion picture version,but similar…sleeker and more flush to the fin.It as well is different as it seems to have very few port hole lights compared to the motion picture version or the original TV version.Very few lights,almost none exept for a spotlight that shigns up the nacell strut as it meats the secondary hull.
5-The primary hull is completely round like the original(NOT oval or pointed like Voyager,Enterprise-D and E).the impulse engines are almost exactly like the original TV Enterprise,only a bit larger.they do not have a blue lighted top like the motion picture version,rather they have the same metal “strip” that runs from the impulse engines to the bridge section like the originat TV version.I saw no detailed “paser banks”on the top of the hull like the motion picture version has in three different places.The Brodge structure itself looks more like the original TV version,only “sleeker”.The top of the bridge dome does in fact light up white like the original TV version.The only thing kept from the motion picture design is the three “spotlight”rectangular holes on three sides.The “NCC-1701″ is much larger and pronounced than any other version.It is written in black with a thin white outline on each letter/number.The “NCC-1701″is also much closer to the rim of the primary hull rather than closer to the bridge structure.It still retains a large spotlight on the”NCC-1701″like the motion picture version.the running lights are like on the original TV “pilot”version..exactly,with two black lines coming out of the lights on port and starboard.the strangest thing is that they added the same four lighted squares that are on the top of the saucer section of the original TV version.The side”rim”of the saucer section has the same three colored “strips” as the motion picture version.
All in all,the new Star Trek 11 Enterprise looks like a “mash” between the motion picture vesion and the original TV version….leaning more towards the original TV version,only a bit more”styleized”.From a first glance she CANNOT be mistakened for anything but the ENTERPRISE herself.My only critique is that she does not have enough port lights in all,but lots of spotlights here and there.
oh,I almost forgot……..right where the bridge structure meets the saucer part she has a sort of “bump”or”lip” like an additional does not taper up from the saucer neatly like the other versions.but it does taper up.Looking at the whole picture it looks pretty goog,and fits pretty well(the bump or extra deck).It fits the look of the ship very well.
I can sum it all up with this….if you liked the original TV Enterprise,and if you liked the refit motion picture Enterprise…… will LOVE this newest incarnation!! She looks ALL ENTERPRISE!!
I have the picture,but I cannot release it to you guys because I do not want to end up being sued by Paramount.But I will answer any questions that you might have.I don’t have clue as to the INTIRIOR of the ship,but I know EXACLY what she looks like on the exterior.
…Hope this helps…….The ship holds out,beleive me.We now have to see if the script,acting,cast,directing holds out.

953. David C., Chelsea, MA - July 23, 2008

Ten months away – I cannot WAIT for this movie, and neither can anyone else in this thread. By the way, this thread started in January of 2008, and is still going strong!


954. james tolson - July 30, 2008

the necelle pylons look angled, similar to the galaxy class, if u look at around 44 seconds in, at the bottom of the frame u can depict the pylon outlines. .

955. james tolson - July 30, 2008

btw i have seen the low orbit pic, infact i use it as my wallpaper, though i thought that was clearly a fake?

956. Jason Farnsworth - August 20, 2008

There’s a rumor going about that the Enterprise in the film will be larger than the galaxy class of TNG. Is this true, and if so, why so big?

957. Frank Steinbach - September 8, 2008

Glaub ich nicht das es so beginnt
Ich halte das für ein Fake…

958. Jack - November 8, 2008

It’s a bloody movie guys…. a well made story from someones IMAGINATION that they decided to share with the rest of us, and we are the better for the sharing.

Some stories are ok, some are quite good, and some are epic. Lets wait and see.

Incidentally,I am delighted every time that real science plays catchup with science fiction. Magnetic shields to protect astronauts…now where did we hear that first of all? The only thing that I envy, is that our children and their children will live in an age of scientific wonder, what marvels they will discover for themselves. Roddenbery’s imagination gave us a glimpse into the possibility of hope and adventure, thanks Gene, now we get to live the dream for real. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.