


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Star Trek Teaser Trailer Review &amp; VIDEO</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/</link>
	<description>the source for Star Trek news and information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:36:35 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jack</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-1196682</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-1196682</guid>
		<description>It&#039;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&#039;s imagination gave us a glimpse into the possibility of hope and adventure, thanks Gene, now we get to live the dream for real.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a bloody movie guys&#8230;. 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.</p>
<p>Some stories are ok, some are quite good, and some are epic.  Lets wait and see.</p>
<p>Incidentally,I am delighted every time that real science plays catchup with science fiction. Magnetic shields to protect astronauts&#8230;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&#8217;s imagination gave us a glimpse into the possibility of hope and adventure, thanks Gene, now we get to live the dream for real.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank Steinbach</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-1032221</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank Steinbach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-1032221</guid>
		<description>Glaub ich nicht das es so beginnt
Ich halte das für ein Fake...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glaub ich nicht das es so beginnt<br />
Ich halte das für ein Fake&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Farnsworth</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-958051</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Farnsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-958051</guid>
		<description>There&#039;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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james tolson</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-897128</link>
		<dc:creator>james tolson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:35:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-897128</guid>
		<description>btw i have seen the low orbit pic, infact i use it as my wallpaper, though i thought that was clearly a fake?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>btw i have seen the low orbit pic, infact i use it as my wallpaper, though i thought that was clearly a fake?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james tolson</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-897113</link>
		<dc:creator>james tolson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-897113</guid>
		<description>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. .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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. .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David C., Chelsea, MA</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-872116</link>
		<dc:creator>David C., Chelsea, MA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:32:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-872116</guid>
		<description>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! 

Impressive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ten months away &#8211; 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! </p>
<p>Impressive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Grillaud</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-813912</link>
		<dc:creator>William Grillaud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-813912</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;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 orbit.it&#039;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 &quot;IS &quot; &quot;THE&quot; Enterprise .I saw the ship in FULL profile and &quot;side/top&quot; 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&quot;white ball&quot;underneath the end,the top peaks of the end are extended just a bit,and lastly -the top of each nacell &quot;glows&quot;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&quot;yellow/orange/reddish.
3-The struts that hold the engines to the main hull are more or less &quot;straight&quot; (not angled or &quot;swepped back&quot; 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&#039;s and the motion picture&#039;s sort of a mixture of both.Not as long and thin as the original,but &quot;fatter&quot; and shorter like the motion picture.HERE IS THE BIG SPOILER!!....she has a &quot;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 &quot;neck&quot;or the fin that connects the secondary hull to the primary hull is as well a mix of the movie version and the TV version.it is still tall and&quot;thin&quot;(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 &quot;neck&quot; 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 &quot;strip&quot; that runs from the impulse engines to the bridge section like the originat TV version.I saw no detailed &quot;paser banks&quot;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 &quot;sleeker&quot;.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 &quot;spotlight&quot;rectangular holes on three sides.The &quot;NCC-1701&quot; is much larger and pronounced than any other version.It is written in black with a thin white outline on each letter/number.The &quot;NCC-1701&quot;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&quot;NCC-1701&quot;like the motion picture version.the running lights are like on the original TV &quot;pilot&quot;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&quot;rim&quot;of the saucer section has the same three colored &quot;strips&quot; as the motion picture version.
  All in all,the new Star Trek 11 Enterprise looks like a &quot;mash&quot; between the motion picture vesion and the original TV version....leaning more towards the original TV version,only a bit more&quot;styleized&quot;.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 &quot;bump&quot;or&quot;lip&quot; like an additional deck.it 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........you 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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;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 orbit.it&#8217;s a pic taken from the FX shots of the film.<br />
    If you do not want spoilers,then do not read onwards.Here is as much as I can describe;<br />
   First of all,the new design casts no doubt that it &#8220;IS &#8221; &#8220;THE&#8221; Enterprise .I saw the ship in FULL profile and &#8220;side/top&#8221; view.In short,This design will not let you down.<br />
1-She has the same azrec hull plating design as in the motion picture.<br />
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&#8221;white ball&#8221;underneath the end,the top peaks of the end are extended just a bit,and lastly -the top of each nacell &#8220;glows&#8221;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&#8221;yellow/orange/reddish.<br />
3-The struts that hold the engines to the main hull are more or less &#8220;straight&#8221; (not angled or &#8220;swepped back&#8221; 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).<br />
3-the secondary hull is a mix between the original television show&#8217;s and the motion picture&#8217;s sort of a mixture of both.Not as long and thin as the original,but &#8220;fatter&#8221; and shorter like the motion picture.HERE IS THE BIG SPOILER!!&#8230;.she has a &#8220;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.<br />
4-The &#8220;neck&#8221;or the fin that connects the secondary hull to the primary hull is as well a mix of the movie version and the TV version.it is still tall and&#8221;thin&#8221;(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 &#8220;neck&#8221; has retained a topedo bay right where it meats the front of the secondary hull&#8230;but not EXACTLY like the motion picture version,but similar&#8230;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.<br />
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 &#8220;strip&#8221; that runs from the impulse engines to the bridge section like the originat TV version.I saw no detailed &#8220;paser banks&#8221;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 &#8220;sleeker&#8221;.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 &#8220;spotlight&#8221;rectangular holes on three sides.The &#8220;NCC-1701&#8243; is much larger and pronounced than any other version.It is written in black with a thin white outline on each letter/number.The &#8220;NCC-1701&#8243;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&#8221;NCC-1701&#8243;like the motion picture version.the running lights are like on the original TV &#8220;pilot&#8221;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&#8221;rim&#8221;of the saucer section has the same three colored &#8220;strips&#8221; as the motion picture version.<br />
  All in all,the new Star Trek 11 Enterprise looks like a &#8220;mash&#8221; between the motion picture vesion and the original TV version&#8230;.leaning more towards the original TV version,only a bit more&#8221;styleized&#8221;.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.<br />
oh,I almost forgot&#8230;&#8230;..right where the bridge structure meets the saucer part she has a sort of &#8220;bump&#8221;or&#8221;lip&#8221; like an additional deck.it 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.<br />
 I can sum it all up with this&#8230;.if you liked the original TV Enterprise,and if you liked the refit motion picture Enterprise&#8230;&#8230;..you will LOVE this newest incarnation!!  She looks ALL ENTERPRISE!!<br />
  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&#8217;t have clue as to the INTIRIOR of the ship,but I know EXACLY what she looks like on the exterior.<br />
&#8230;Hope this helps&#8230;&#8230;.The ship holds out,beleive me.We now have to see if the script,acting,cast,directing holds out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Captain Sakura</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-20/#comment-807022</link>
		<dc:creator>Captain Sakura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-807022</guid>
		<description>I&#039;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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;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.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve read a bunch of the comments, and will withhold my opinions on all things until after the release of this one. However&#8230;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&#8230;?</p>
<p>Just a thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JAMIE</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-19/#comment-734787</link>
		<dc:creator>JAMIE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:03:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-734787</guid>
		<description>BUT I THINK IT WILL BE PRETTY BLOODY GOOD!!!! WELL HERES HOPING ANYWAY....BUT SEEING IM IN AUSTRALIA I WONT GET TO FIND OUT TILL MONTHS AFTER YOU LUCKY LITTLE AMRICANS WHO ALWAYS GET YOUR FILMS MONTHS BEFORE THE REST OF THE WORLD. DO YOU REALIZE HOW LUCKY YOU GUYS ARE?? WELL YOU ARE!!! I THINK I MIGHT MOVE TO HOLLYWOOD !!! I WONDER IF THE BRADY BUNCH HOUSE IS UP FOR SALE?........</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BUT I THINK IT WILL BE PRETTY BLOODY GOOD!!!! WELL HERES HOPING ANYWAY&#8230;.BUT SEEING IM IN AUSTRALIA I WONT GET TO FIND OUT TILL MONTHS AFTER YOU LUCKY LITTLE AMRICANS WHO ALWAYS GET YOUR FILMS MONTHS BEFORE THE REST OF THE WORLD. DO YOU REALIZE HOW LUCKY YOU GUYS ARE?? WELL YOU ARE!!! I THINK I MIGHT MOVE TO HOLLYWOOD !!! I WONDER IF THE BRADY BUNCH HOUSE IS UP FOR SALE?&#8230;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LENNY</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/comment-page-19/#comment-734781</link>
		<dc:creator>LENNY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:57:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#comment-734781</guid>
		<description>my friend lenny, thinks it will be shit !!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my friend lenny, thinks it will be shit !!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
