Star Trek Movie Featured In Empire Cover Story w/ New Images [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek Movie Featured In Empire Cover Story w/ New Images [UPDATED] October 28, 2008

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Two weeks ago JJ Abrams new Star Trek movie got the cover story treatment at Entertainment Weekly and this week it gets the same for the UK magazine Empire. Today Empire released some new exclusive photos as well as an excerpt from JJ Abrams from their cover story, see below.

 

Empire cover recreates classic publicity photo
Here is the new cover

 
Click the cover to see the TOS publicity shot and the new shot ‘energize’

New publicity photos


Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto)
(click to see fullsize at Empire)

Abrams talks costumes
Like the EW cover story, Empire spoke to Star Trek director JJ Abrams. You have to pick up the magazine to read the full interview, but Empire offers this teaser online of Abrams talking about the wardrobe:

For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project, which was how to take something that’s kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary colour costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut? It’s ridiculous and as potentially cliched as it gets. How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?

New images from the film


Kirk (Pine) in an ‘armored EVA suit’ along with Sulu (John Cho)
in what appears to be a shuttle
(click to see fullsize at Empire)

NOTE: This is not yet confirmed, but the actor on the left appears to be Greg Ellis who is playing Chief Engineer Olsen (see TrekMovie article for more on Ellis)


Spock (Quinto) at viewscreen (or is it a window, note you can see top of the saucer)
(click to see fullsize at Empire)

UPDATE: Empire added one more image


Uhura (Zoe Saldana) chats with Kirk and Chekov (Anton Yelchin)
(click to see fullsize at Empire)

 

Comments

1. larry - October 28, 2008

WOW

2. Ciarán - October 28, 2008

Cool as!!!

3. Brandon - October 28, 2008

Cool stuff can’t wait till may.

4. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

Nice. Not so air-brushed as EW. NICE Viewscreen. (Although, I’d have to wonder, if it’s the main bridge viewer, do you want to have glossy reflexions while you’re battlin’ dog-bitten Romulans?)

5. Al - October 28, 2008

That cover sucks. Spock looks like he is wearing a wig and has some sort of damage to the side of his face. Kirk looks like he is a refugee from Dawson’s Creek.

6. nine - October 28, 2008

Looks like a window to me…see the reflection (or direct view) of the registration NCC on the saucer hull at the bottom of the view screen? Maybe it’s a window or transparent display that can show other views or has a heads up display type overlay.

7. mikey_pikey - October 28, 2008

amazing , even the viewscreen is impressive!! Can’t wait, will be a fun ride! :)

8. Guenther - October 28, 2008

@5:
Of course Spock wears a wig… Maybe this shooting was weeks ago and do you think he still has this haircut?

I like these shots, even if the Photoshopping Clique is back again… Maybe it was the make-up clique… or a mix of both, but they didnt jump on the “green Spock face train” that EW did…

Heh, notice the “NCC” and some saucer parts on the viewscreen?

9. Trekmatt - October 28, 2008

i like that viewscreen pic!

10. AJ - October 28, 2008

“…the entire project, which was how to take something that’s kind of silly and make it feel real…”

Say what?

To make something silly feel real is the entire project?

From the horse’s mouth. It implies that he wants his Trek to be silly, too. But more real. Maybe he’ll take on “Spongebob” next.

As someone once said: “Laddy? Don’t ya think you should…rephrase that?”

11. mikey_pikey - October 28, 2008

oh, just noticed something , i think this viewscreen is also a window, u can see the saucer at the bottom of the screen, gives viewers a better sense of realsim i think.

12. rehabilitated hitch1969© - October 28, 2008

i like it, i like it a-lot.

the bridge looks massive. MASSIVE.

spock – looking good.

why the english get such good pics first? is their economy not in crisis? this, i do not understand.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

13. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

JJ — or Bob, because I know one of you is reading this — what’s so ridiculous about Spock’s Moe Howard haircut? (hmm. Think I answered my own question.) Actually, I always liked the Spock look, but I thought (especially by the time of Enterprise) that it was indeed ridiculous that everyone on a planet had the same haircut. T’Pring and T’Pow were diff, but later even Valeris had the Moe-brow look. Vulcanians love them some good music and some huge wall art suitable for government puchase and display in airport terminals. Therefore, Vulcans have some aesthetic sense. It would only be logical to aspire towards individualism to ensure the protection of the race.

14. BrF - October 28, 2008

The reflections on the viewscreen are a funny thing. True that you wouldn’t want them there while fighting the Romulans, et al. — but they might be there, nevertheless. Seeing them here and now makes me wonder where they’ve been all these years, and seems to indicate a willingness to think through these little bits of verisimilitude. I like it.

15. tbk1701 - October 28, 2008

It almost seems to me that the Viewscreen is a window looking out across the hull. And that information can be displayed right on it.

16. nine - October 28, 2008

@11

Yeah…I remember way back when that J.J. said he wanted to give a better scope for just how large the Enterprise was…I think having it a window with graphical overlays and a HUD while giving an elevated view of the expansive saucer section would be one way of doing that. I think it’d make the bridge feel less like a room on a closed set and more like the command center perched at the top of a 20+ story tall star ship. Definitely a good thing. Falls right in line with the “epic” scale people in the know keep mentioning.

17. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

Wait — there’s no circa 1988 digital alarm clock in the top center of the main viewer! This violates canon. This is a catastrophe!

18. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

Also — if that IS a window, instead of a display, then we’re right back to the very first pissing-match that Trek Movie ever hosted!!

Where’s the main turbo lift in relation to the viewscreen?? Shouldn’t it be directly behind Kirk’s chair??

19. mikey_pikey - October 28, 2008

@16, lol you took the words right out of my mouth. Ah I’m psyched now :) even more so, i mean…EPIC!

20. McCoy - October 28, 2008

:o)

Ok…now we’re getting somewhere….. looks good so far.

21. TrekMadeMeWonder - October 28, 2008

OK! Lets forget last week’s EW cover.

These are much better! Especially the cover.

Love the large viewscreen!

Quinto = AWESOME!!!

22. montreal paul - October 28, 2008

18. CmdrR – October 28, 2008
“Where’s the main turbo lift in relation to the viewscreen?? Shouldn’t it be directly behind Kirk’s chair??”

Ummm… no. It would be over his left shoulder, not directly behind him… according to TOS anyway.

23. eagle219406 - October 28, 2008

If it is a window it shows that it had a few more. If you remember the series, you almost never saw them passing a window or having any windows in their quarters. But a view from the exterior clearly showed that it had them.

24. Garovorkin - October 28, 2008

Oh yeah this looks totally Cool !

25. Dennis Bailey - October 28, 2008

Well, I believe there’s more than one turbolift and/or exit from this bridge.

The main viewer appears to be both a window and a display area. Very cool.

26. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

The still shots from the film are amazing.

I am anticipating an asthetic element of realism never before seen in Star Trek.

I love the “window”. Defeinitely makes the bridge appear more “functional”, and like an actual naval command center.

I also love the still shot of Kirk in the suit.

17 days until the trailer!!!

27. richpit - October 28, 2008

I’m jazzed about this movie and have been from the day it was announced. That said, the more quotes I read from J.J., the more concerned I get. He’s talking a lot of smack about Trek…being “silly”, too many references to Galaxy Quest, trying to make it “legitimate” etc. Is he saying that Trek wasn’t already “legitimate”? If he had such disdain for the source material, why did he take the job?

Again, don’t get me wrong…I’m a fan of J.J’s other work (mostly, not Felicity) but I’m getting worried.

28. tbk1701 - October 28, 2008

Yeah I love the fact that it’s an actual window. It does help it to feel more real. And having displays right on top of it is really cool and makes sense and keeps it modern concidering how you can have displays on your car window even now. Of course they have them on the Enterprise.

29. Johnny Ice - October 28, 2008

I really like the large viewscreen and a window concept .Very cool

30. Brad - October 28, 2008

Dang you TrekMovie.com!!!! That picture of spock standing in front of the viewscreen window with the saucer visible in the background just made me mess up my underwear….. BAD!! This movie is going to kick the butts off of Trekkies all over the world. I can FEEL it!!! WOOO HOOOO!!!

31. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

22 montreal paul — That’s the point. If you go by the TOS set, then the turbolift doors open to reveal that week’s guest star nicely framed at Kirk’s shoulder. But, if you look at the 11′ shooting model of the E used in TOS, you can clearly see what’s obviously meant to be the turbo lift directly aft of the bridge. A conundrum — one of so many in TOS; that’s why we love her, like a dorky/sexy girlfriend.

32. Darth Quixote - October 28, 2008

Quinto looks perfect in the movie stills. Not so perfect in the covers. Wait, maybe that’s wrong. He looks TOO perfect in the covers. Somebody needs to lay off the Photoshop.

33. BND - October 28, 2008

Caption one:
“Seriously? We just pee right in these suits?”

Caption two:
“And this is our aquarium, captain.”

Starfish and wet, warm waists… ahhhhh

Arrrrrr…

34. tbk1701 - October 28, 2008

A new pict is up now check it out

35. DarthLowBudget - October 28, 2008

Cool beans, dig the window.

Is this issue of Empire on stands in the US right now?

36. Commodore Redshirt - October 28, 2008

I like the look of both pics. Who it the guy with Kirk and Sulu and why does Kirk look so worried?
I also like how the cover mimics an old Nemoy/Shatner shot that may have been from a TV Guide photo shoot back in 1967…(I always liked that shot)

Now if only the EMPIRE branding was not there, then I could add these to my rotating desktop… time to get out the PHOTOSHOP…

37. Nomad - October 28, 2008

Kirk and Sulu look as if they are about to get their Halo on. Their phaser rifles must have built-in chainsaws. Spock looks iconic in front of that billion-credit viewscreen. Got to love that Metroid Prime like HUD and the visible ship’s registry, but why go all out on a viewscreen, only to shine spotlights on it?

38. Shatner_Fan_2000 - October 28, 2008

Geez, what a crappy quote from JJ! TOS ridiculous and cliche? Uh, no. If it feels cliche now it’s because they did it FIRST, and so many others copied. So now JJ’s going to make everything “legitimate”, huh? Oh brother.

39. Radam - October 28, 2008

LOOK! Another new pic of Uhura on Empire!

40. SarahJM - October 28, 2008

In the past thirty seconds the Empire site added a third picture

41. Izbot - October 28, 2008

I’m gonna guess it’s the viewscreen on the bridge although we’ve never seen an actual window used for one. Love the graphic overlays, the fact that you can see the hull and the viewscreen’s overall hugeness.

These pics of Quinto as Spock are far better than what we’ve seen before, especially compared to that bizarre over-photoshopped EW cover. I read here recently some talk about Quinto cutting his hair for the role but I have to agree that so far it looks like a wig. Really hope that’s not the case as those Vulcan and Romulan wigs we’ve had to endure through the Berman years were really attrocious.

42. That One Guy - October 28, 2008

Why do Kirk and Spock look so happy? And grinning… and standing… next… to… each… other….

Oh, thank The Prophets.

Denise!!!

43. Captain A-TO-THE-mazing - October 28, 2008

Is that a Super Star Destroyer on screen??? LOL Just the glare, but at first glimpse..

Glad to see the franchise is now in HD and has the viewscreen to prove it!

44. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 28, 2008

You Terrans must remember that in the 23rd century, boys can kiss boys and like it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxTpyCdriY

45. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

First off… Zoe = YUM. Secondly, that appears to be Kirk in his proper gold tunic in front of her.

46. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

crap — no, not Kirk. Cause he’s in his black thingie. crapcrapcrap.
But, Zoe’s yummy.

47. ensign joe - October 28, 2008

Love that bridge screen shot..

I think 2009 is gonna be a good year!

Hey Anthony: Any news on movie watch parties / midnight screenings?

Imax screenings?

Too soon?

48. tbk1701 - October 28, 2008

No thats Kirk on the left I think this is a reverse angle of the shot we have already seen of them when they are in front of the viewscreen.

49. Commodore Redshirt - October 28, 2008

The Zoe Saldana as Uhura shot is also great!

50. SB - October 28, 2008

45:

Nope. According to Empire, that’s Chekov.

I haven’t seen a single shot of Chris Pine in the gold tunic thus far — and you’ll notice that in all the shots Paramount has allowed, he’s in the black one. I doubt we’ll see him in a full gold captain’s tunic until the closing moments of the picture.

51. CmdrR - October 28, 2008

Good bet, SB. I agree. Just got anxious there.

52. Bennie - October 28, 2008

oh men, I love all the pictures if been seeing now. I think it is going to be a great movie that will kick the franchise in the but, so we folks can enjoy a new trek stories….

53. Jason Regan - October 28, 2008

I absolutely love all the set shots. The bridge behind Uhura looks fantastic – I’m more than happy to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. Costumes are looking great too. The more i see of this, the more excited I am.

54. Jeffries Tuber - October 28, 2008

31 CmdR – In TOS, the Turbolift is located at about 1 o’clock relative to Kirk’s chair. But if the main screen is just a screen and not a window, then there’s no reason to assume that Kirk’s chair [or the bridge for that matter] is actually located on the same X-Y axis as the ship itself.

I love these pictures. The glare on the window/screen is annoying, since glare-free glass and plastic has been around for 10 years.

My only gripe is a growing disenchantment with Quinto’s Spock. His wig is too fake looking. Spock’s the Vulcan heart of the movie, and I’m sorry but Quinto looks less like Spock with the makeup and hair than he does in person. His skin is too porcelain-like. His eyebrows are too drag queeny. And Quinto seems to be interpreting him as non-masculine. For all the countless choices to be made about canon vs. the new vision they’re putting forth, did Spock’s bowl cut really have to be so slavishly identical? Especially given that Sulu and Chekov’s have been eliminated. I also don’t like that the first ‘emotion’ we see from Quinto’s Spock is Sylar’s angry underbite.

Pine’s Kirk is looking better with every reveal.

55. Thorny - October 28, 2008

The publicity stills are horrible… someone run amok with Photoshop, no doubt. But the action shots from the set are very encouraging.

56. T2 - October 28, 2008

It’s a beautiful thing

57. Izbot - October 28, 2008

27. richpit –
“the more quotes I read from J.J., the more concerned I get. He’s talking a lot of smack about Trek…being “silly”, too many references to Galaxy Quest, trying to make it “legitimate” etc. Is he saying that Trek wasn’t already “legitimate”? If he had such disdain for the source material, why did he take the job?”

and

38. Shatner_Fan_2000 –
“Geez, what a crappy quote from JJ! TOS ridiculous and cliche? Uh, no. If it feels cliche now it’s because they did it FIRST, and so many others copied. So now JJ’s going to make everything “legitimate”, huh? Oh brother.”

I agree that the “Galaxy Quest effect” seriously hurts Trek’s credibility. That movie skewered TOS perfectly, had better effects than the majority of Trek films and was even more fun and intertaining than some. It also effectively took the actors portraying those iconic characters and placed them before their roles which also removed Trek one more step from believable reality. JJ and/or anyone in his position has a real up-hill struggle to overcome. Sure, for diehard fans the Galaxy Quest effect may have little impact on whether or not they’ll see it (though some fans like Shatner Fan 2000 may only go see it to be critical of it) but for many movie viewers in general Trek has become a parody of itself. If JJ *wasn’t* aware of this and wasn’t attempting to address it then I would be worried.

58. Alex - October 28, 2008

Finally makes sense to have the bridge the way it is, all consoles facing the front screen instead of the captain’s chair for example. A window really makes sense. First Contact’s holo-screen was as ridiculous as could be, since everyone was looking at stupid wall when it wasn’t active.

59. Nostromo - October 28, 2008

It’s suddenly completely obvious that the new viewscreen is a window with heads-up displays on it, isn’t it? But it never occurred to me until this picture. Really like that idea.

60. ensign joe - October 28, 2008

#57 “If JJ *wasn’t* aware of this and wasn’t attempting to address it then I would be worried.”

Good point.

61. James - October 28, 2008

Viewscreen looks awesome.

Spock looks ace.

Uhura looks HOT.

Kirk looks like he’s a character from Halo.

Spock doesn’t look as ‘green’ in these photos – I guess they eased off ye olde photoshop. Almost a pity – I kind of liked a bit of the green.

Guy in the gold shirt standing next to Kirk in the Uhura pic – PIKE?!

Almost.

62. Eddie - October 28, 2008

Blow up the widescreen pic and can see Quinto’s five o’clock shadow. I know that on Heroes he looks like one of those guys that has to shave twice a day.

I’m figuring that’s the reason they keep photoshoping his face in all these cover pics.

63. captain_neill - October 28, 2008

I quite like the new stills, still angry that the bridge has been completely redesigned. Uhura is looking hot.

The viewscreen looks cool in the shot but I think it should have been more faithful to the original.

The actors look great but no matter how good they are they will never take the place of the originals.

64. captain_neill - October 28, 2008

Love how Pine and Quinto recreate the classic Shatner and Nimoy photo

65. OM - October 28, 2008

…Kids, is it me, or does Quinto’s face look plastic?

66. Brian - October 28, 2008

They’ve got to cool it with the excessive photoshopping….they make Quinto look like a mannequin.

67. Ryan Spooner - October 28, 2008

Why, when clicking on the title of this news article on the front page, do I get a page full of the following:
“�������ս�rɖ�y�iV��NJ�@�$�@jS$%Q�[�R��m�,� �bV�Y�F�u_�͘���N- �jT��_����豵�~͉��G_��æ�{�����0B��+a�4����Ξ;�y�g�a����O�gn�jY/O�ӉKบ ���b��C;�S6′�xg�qܝ�Y}������� �=I&�x۱�”�c�3ٓ8�L�q� ��”
???

If I click on the comments link I get here just fine.

68. SirBroiler - October 28, 2008

I hate the uniforms. I thought we were updating this for modern audiences? Instead, we get the same, lame 60′s design of the uniforms. I’m excited for this movie – don’t get me wrong.

But damn – I wanted something that you could believe space explorers would wear. Not pajamas.

An all of the non-fans are just going to see ‘the same old Star Trek’ when they see these images that harken back to the TOS design.

To nostalgic for my taste.

69. captain_neill - October 28, 2008

Think the viewscreen is cool but I feel it is too wide for the era, I think one other problem I have is that it looks more advanced than the 24th Century.

Thats’ weird to me

70. Felix Sulla - October 28, 2008

It seems to me just as likely that the viewscreen is a viewscreen, but with a viewing mode (perhaps even the default viewing mode) that allows it to effectively be a window. In other words, it precisely simulates the view which would actually be presented *if* the wall behind the screen weer transparent. Frankly, I always thought the “forward” mode of the viewscreens in all the series was in effect supposed to be just that. Abrams appears to have gone to the extra effort/expense of really postulating what a “window” mode for the viewscreen would really look like.

And me likey. ;-)

71. Daoud - October 28, 2008

31/54: I think the usual fanexp/retcon for the bulb at the back of the ship’s bridge on the model, was that was where the SPARE turbolift car was parked… that there was an outer ring around the bridge, with the back 90 degrees part of it being the corridor for the lift, and the front 270 degrees being a service corridor, jeffries tube access, toilet, etc.

The new bridge window/screen is a good extrapolation. When docked, let down the protective door. When at warp, up goes the “wall” that has the viewscreen. Thus, you can have both the old TOS we’re used to, but behind the viewscreen of old, was the window we’ll see now. Yeah. Sure.

72. Canonfornication - October 28, 2008

im getting a Superman Returns vibe from the recreation pic!

73. AJ - October 28, 2008

Ryan:

Looks like the beginning of JJ’s new marketing campaign.

Read into the symbols!

74. Q - October 28, 2008

Zachary Quinto is looking much better in these photos, as opposed to the ones in Entertainment Weekly.

*squeals*

75. captain_neill - October 28, 2008

If JJ is such a fan why is he so bloody critical of TOS.

He critiises the 60s elelments and mentions Glaxy Quest in comparison

He is trying to make it to Star Ward like

I hope JJ has it right but I really hope he does not screw up

76. Dr. Image - October 28, 2008

Well I’m getting a Galaxy Quest-y feel from these.
Maybe it’s that damn white bridge.
Still, this purist remains optomistic!

That cover- as with the EW- why does the word “gay” keep coming to mind? (And I have gay friends who think the same thing, BTW.)
It’s the retouching… and the pose… and the lighting… I think.

77. Rusbeh - October 28, 2008

Great pics.

Nevertheless Abrahams annoys me big time with his comments.
whats up with this guy?Has he zero respect for a 40+ years cult franchise or why must he constantly devalue everything Trek stands for and mention this rubbish Galaxy Quest????
Back off man!!!
Forget Child Wars , Trek rulez

78. the king in shreds and tatters - October 28, 2008

No more glareless future-windows? Damn.

79. SimmerALPHA - October 28, 2008

I think it’s Michael Amador from 24 next to Kirk, not Greg Ellis.

80. Canonfornication - October 28, 2008

Regarding GQ – In ‘Enterprise,’ the ship and the uniforms looked similar as Galaxy Quests, also there was a young black dude at the helm in GQ…and later in Enterprise. They even had those Xindi aliens that looked like Sarris. It was weird. Did they do that intentionally?

It was almost like Galaxy Quest the tv show!

there were some very cool star trek homages in GQ though (hell the whole FILM was one giant homage)..but stuff like the shape of the ship was based on the starfleet ‘A’ insignia (e.g a TNG commincator/badge)…the spacedock was exactly like starfleets…and when the camara pans out of Tim Allens eyeball after hes just been beamed back to earth – very similar to Picard in the opening First Contact shot…plus that rock creature – that MUST have been inspired by shatners lost ending to Trek V (he wanted a rock creature but it looked *beep* so had to drop it) – i mean it was exactly the same set up – Shatner/Allen trapped on the planet with a god/rock creature as the crew try to beam him up…..and the time travel stuff at the end was kinda like the end of Generations..

Galaxy Quest was the last great star trek movie!..

81. bgiles73 - October 28, 2008

Damn space bugs all over the windshield! Mister Spock easy with the Rainex!

82. Al - October 28, 2008

Spock looks like he is wearing a wig in ALL the shots.

83. tribble farmer - October 28, 2008

WICKED.

84. Brett Campbell - October 28, 2008

#38 – Excellent point, and for those who complain that TOS looks dated, maybe it’s because the episodes were filmed 40 years ago when they didn’t have the same “industrial light and magic” that they do now. Still, the effects were pretty good for the time and it’s the stories and the acting that hold up 40 years later and which made all of the spin-offs and this reboot possible and desireable for the Hollywood money men. Long live TOS, the first and original “Star Trek”! May this film do its legacy justice and help the franchise live long and prosper.

85. Nostromo - October 28, 2008

Nice that Quinto is doing the Nimoy pose on the bridge. So far we’ve seen some classic Kirk, Spock and McCoy poses in the movie stills. Makes you suspect that they haven’t thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

86. M-BETA - October 28, 2008

A Guess that I think could be a SPOILER (but only a guess)

anyone else taking a guess that Greg Ellis is a ‘red shirt’ who has an ‘incident’ and that’s how a Cheif engineer position becomes available.

Enter Scotty??? Just a guess

87. eagle219406 - October 28, 2008

Just a question. WHat makes people so sure he’s even standing on the bridge?

88. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 28, 2008

68.

I agree with you on the uniforms. At the very least, they could have had the women wear tights under the skirts, to make them more believable.

I really love the new viewscreen/window. It adds a whole lot of realism. But I now think that the bridge is too bright and busy. When I saw the first photo of the bridge, I thought it was great that they redesigned it and all. But there’s nothing special about it.

89. Son of Sarek - October 28, 2008

Once again the pics are stunning! Kirk, Spock, etc. will once again become relevant to our time. Based on interviews and comments, I sense that this film will herald the return of Trek to pop culture. Time to bring on the trailer!

90. SB - October 28, 2008

It’s like I’ve said before: you have to admire JJ for knowing how to give the fans what they want:

First he gives us some absolutely killer publicity stills to stoke the enthusiasm of everyone who’s looking forward to loving the movie…

…then he references Galaxy Quest, to tick off the people who apparently can’t make it through a day without finding some reason to hate the movie.

Is this guy a showman or what? ;)

But seriously, folks. I’ve had a good vibe about this picture from the first, and every photo I see and every hint of story I hear about just makes it better. Too bad about everyone who apparently can’t bring themselves to feel the same way…

91. Trekee - October 28, 2008

Love the viewscreen and the hull outside. Agree that the reflections are odd but maybe they turn the bridge lights out when they have to look out properly, or something higher tech! :-)

92. mikey_pikey - October 28, 2008

B4- hehe if u look closely at the viewscreen, you’ll see this in the top right hand corner, now lets hope thats only reference to star trek nemesis we’ll ever see again :) :)

93. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 28, 2008

84.

Good for the time? If you really wanted to see “good for the time” then you have to see 2001: A space Odyssey. The movie that finally beat it out, in terms of special effects, was Star Wars, which came out nearly a DECADE later. TOS was one of the only shows, at that time, to use special effects to a large degree. So in a sense, Star Trek’s special effects were….”unique”.

94. Anthony Thompson - October 28, 2008

57. Izbot.

Hey homeboy, I think the Austin Powers movies pretty effectively skewered the Bond franchise. Right? Have the Bond films suffered as a result? I think NOT!

95. Nostromo - October 28, 2008

#94 – Well arguably that’s because the Bond films reinvented themselves as a less camp version of themselves, just as Trek is doing for TOS…

96. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

Let’s be perfectly clear. Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, and Burk are fans of Star Trek….JJ…not so much. He liked TWOk, and that’s about it. His opinions about the look of past incarnations of Trek are more representative of what the “mainstream” thinks. So are some of his comments (which, if you’ll remember, need to be geared toward steering some of those types to see the film despite their preconceived notions about Star Trek).

And “Galaxy Quest” does make it more difficult for mainstream moviegoers to view Trek seriously. That is quite legitimate.

So, the two writers and two producers are Star Trek fans. Abrams is about as big a fan of Trek as Nick Meyer was (he changed the look too).

To much of the general public, much about Star Trek (TOS) ‘does’ look silly…If his objective is to make it appear more “real”, then so far—IMO—he’s done a helluva job! I don’t care if he’s a fan or not. It makes no difference whatsoever.

80% of the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” is made up of Trek fans. Be happy with that. Geez.

97. pinky - October 28, 2008

Like the new pic of Spock, looks amazing. New Kirk seems perfect in every shot. Have yet to dislike a pic or a style or a pose — even if it’s just the back of his head. Kirk is Kirk. :)

But see, I get that they’re trying to change the costumes to something more modern and that they want to update hairstyles… but why change things that really don’t need to be changed?? Some things don’t need to be changed. Like, the viewscreen… did they need to make the already busy bridge REFLECT in it’s face? What was wrong with the way the viewscreen looked before? Did they need to change the bridge colours from deep blacks and reds and blues to ultra-bright blues and whites?

Sometimes leave things be. Pick and choose, guys, pick and choose.

98. montreal paul - October 28, 2008

31. CmdrR – October 28, 2008
“22 montreal paul — That’s the point. If you go by the TOS set, then the turbolift doors open to reveal that week’s guest star nicely framed at Kirk’s shoulder. But, if you look at the 11′ shooting model of the E used in TOS, you can clearly see what’s obviously meant to be the turbo lift directly aft of the bridge. A conundrum — one of so many in TOS; that’s why we love her, like a dorky/sexy girlfriend.”

You do know that kirk’s chair is swivelled so that we cannot see what would be over his left shoulder of what would be behind him. His chair is swivelled. You can see that in relation to where Sulu is sitting. Chances are that the turbo lift is just off screen… on the extreme left side of the photo. We need to see the whole bridge to be able to see anything. For all you know, what you are looking at could very well be teh bathroom. ;)

99. ensign joe - October 28, 2008

#96

word

and if anything it provides perspective

100. Smike van Dyke - October 28, 2008

@Canonfornication:
Great nickname and you are absolutely right about Galaxy Quest!

101. Commodore Redshirt - October 28, 2008

Re: 97. DATA KILLED SPOT!

” OMG! OMG! OMG! … EXCLUSIVE FOOTAGE! …”

WTF are you smoking? That is the kind of prank that I hate the most of all.
Please don’t do that kind of thing. It is beyond childish…

102. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 28, 2008

Sorry Anthony:) I couldn’t help it!

103. Jason Regan - October 28, 2008

Can’t believe everyone’s getting worked up about JJ’s quote. By today’s standards, the sets and costumes on the original series DO look silly. Lots of you will have seen them for real in various exhibitions, and there’s no way that those fabrics and quality of craftmanship would stand up to the scrutiny they’d receive on a big screen now. If he was really that dismissive they’d have been totally redesigned instead of the enormously respectful update they have received.

104. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

38.

Good point! Trek did come first and was made cliche by people who never got it, so now it’s going to be changed by people who never got it for people who don’t gett it.

Here’s a big middle finger to Trekkers courtesy of JJ.

105. Spock Jenkins - October 28, 2008

Apologies to the new 97, my comments were for the Rick-Roller who appears to have now been removed….

106. Dif - October 28, 2008

Wow. I love all the nitpicky comments that totally miss the whole “taking something silly” comment from Abrams.

I’d rather sit through a re-release of Nemesis than this movie. Seriously.

Is it obvious only to me that the uniforms weren’t silly? They’ve evolved to be less silly, why couldn’t they just make the skirts a little less short and sexist and still gone with slightly subdued versions? I don’t get it.

The talk of making anything science fiction “legitimate” is ridiculous as well. I don’t want my science fiction to be legitimate! I want it to be FICTION. I want to be able to sit back and watch it and think of how things *could* be. Making it legitimate like a bridge comparable to an Apple Store?

I’m not even sure why he would think Spock’s haircut isn’t ‘legitimate’. Was it born out of wedlock?

I’m not concerned with images as they’re showing so little of the setting and mostly the actors…though I’m convinced Spock was created by the keepers on the Shore Leave planet.

The more the people involved talk, the less I want to see this movie.

107. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 28, 2008

101.
Geeeeez!

108. NL-NaeZ - October 28, 2008

I Love Zoe Saldana!!

109. Dun - October 28, 2008

That entire quote from J.J. makes me think we would have been better off with Nemesis 2…..I really, really hope that trailer is good….PLEASE LET IT BE GOOD! :)

110. Iowagirl - October 28, 2008

One fine day JJ will decide to only talk after a certain period of reflection and then we’ll have peaceful silence.

111. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

#94—”…I think the Austin Powers movies pretty effectively skewered the Bond franchise. Right? Have the Bond films suffered as a result? I think NOT!”

To be fair, there are a few differences in that analogy. Bond does not suffer from anywhere near the lack of mainstream appeal that Star Trek carries as baggage. There is no “geek stigma” associated with Bond films, and really never was.

And the AP movies stand on their own as completely hilarious a bit better than GQ. It’s all about Mike Meyers. Quite frankly, without knowledge of some of the direct parodying in GQ, it isn’t nearly as amusing, IMO.

Before Casino Royale, my wife had never seen a James Bond movie. To this day, she has yet to watch a Star Trek movie( She knows William Shatner as the guy in the Brad Paisley video).

She loves Austin Powers. But when we watched GQ together, I laughed all over the place, while she may have laughed in one scene. She didn’t get it.

112. nephron - October 28, 2008

Dudes…Star Trek WAS silly. Admit it. It was cheap, silly, and 2/3 of all the episodes were nothing more than examples of lousy writing. It’s always been ENTRY-LEVEL science fiction for the unwashed masses. We’re talking about a TV-show, after all.

That doesn’t mean you can’t like it though. I like Star Trek (TOS anyway), but I’m not kidding myself – it’s a cheap and oftentimes laughingly bad TV show, so quit acting so off-put that Abrams had the “nerve” to imply that Star Trek was exactly what it was: silly.

If you want good science fiction, stay the hell away from the idiot-box & pick up a book.

113. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

Somehow JJ believes Trekkers are the cause why the series was looked back upon as corny and B quality.

JJ- Is it Trekkers fault for the movies and subsequent series staying that way?

Did it occur to you Trekkers have been wanting a feeling of “quality” in it the entire time?

To get quality, does that mean changing everything how it looks?

Does quality mean design or materials?
I loved the designs of the original but that doesn’t mean I didn’t want to see higher quality materials used.

114. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

#106—-”I’d rather sit through a re-release of Nemesis than this movie. Seriously. ”

Then why in the heck would you take the time to read and post about it on this site?

115. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

#113—”Somehow JJ believes Trekkers are the cause why the series was looked back upon as corny and B quality.”

Based upon what?

“Did it occur to you Trekkers have been wanting a feeling of “quality” in it the entire time?”

I don’t know why you would even assume it didn’t.

116. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

#112—”I like Star Trek (TOS anyway), but I’m not kidding myself – it’s a cheap and oftentimes laughingly bad TV show, so quit acting so off-put that Abrams had the “nerve” to imply that Star Trek was exactly what it was: silly.”

I’m mostly with you there. There are only, IMO, about 25 great episodes of TOS, and the rest varied from decent to bad. Sometimes, it was ‘so bad’—- it was fantastic!

But asthetically, it ‘is’ silly—especially to people (like Abrams) who were introduced to it after Star Wars…The costumes, the set designs, everything…

Some people here act like they didn’t already know that Star Trek has been the butt of many jokes for a long time.

117. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

Star Trek TOS had the best writing around folks. If you think otherwise give me an example of better written science fiction.

Let’s see a small green guy with big ears and uses a “force” to push things. That sounds pretty silly to me. A character named Jar jar who goes around bumping into things with a silly voice. Still silly. Small little hooded creatures with yellow eyes scavaging parts and robots. Silly. Small furry creatures that look like teddy bears killing of the most powerful organization in the galaxy. Not silly, lame.

At least Trek was rooted in things familiar to most people. It isn’t silly or a stretch to think there are other life forms in our galaxy and we unite for the greater good. A fleet of Starships named from our own history. (Enterprise, Lexington, Potemkin , etc) With a chain of command similar to our own Navy. Ships that can travel faster than light based upon real theories being floated by astro physicists today by creating an envelope (warp) in space.

Trek had a sense of humor. Only a couple bad episodes gave it a stigma that people who don’t get it can’t see past. (ie Spock’s Brain)

118. Harrison - October 28, 2008

8 / 10

These shots tell us a lot about how JJ thought about rebooting the franchise. All in all, the creative team have obviously gone out of their way to keep much of the classic look.

Some things are completely different, but one really does have to forgive them for whatever becomes of the bridge, which was supposed to be the high tech command center of a massive interstellar star ship, but which could necessarily never really convey the idea within the set. If new technology and a reboot is what it takes for someone to make putting the bridge on the top of the ship make sense, then I’m all for it.

I’m simultaneously excited and disappointed that the look isn’t a bit more dirty. I really love the visuals of BSG, but apparently these guys think they can make it really colorful, futuristic AND realistic at the same time. Overall, they’re doing pretty well, but then me, I was for a reboot after DS9. They seem to have kept even more than I would have, while being flexible and sensible enough not to apply convention or canon to things like federation technology, which oddly enough makes the new movie feel more like the future than any previous iteration, which is a very good thing.

119. AjaxLou - October 28, 2008

With each new photo released I’m digging it more and more!

Pretty please – let’s have one of gal we’re all waiting to see!

….and the adventure continues….

120. Anthony Pascale - October 28, 2008

next rickroll or any fake ‘found exclusive secret image, video’ bs = banned for a week. I am getting tired of that stuff

121. Will.I.Am - October 28, 2008

:O
I can SEE “NCC” ON THE HULL OUTSIDE THE WINDOW!!!!!!
in the pic of Spock in front of the screen!

122. Alex Rosenzweig - October 28, 2008

I have a dark monitor where I’m looking right now, so I’ll have to check again later, but I can’t see the saucer on the viewer. :/

The thought occurs, though, that it still doesn’t have to be an actual window. All you need is a visual pickup mounted in the right spot on the outer hull, and you could get a forward view that would look exactly like a window on the viewer. ;) OTOH, if it *is* a window, I wonder if it’s an homage to the pilot version of the Enterprise filming model, which had a rectangle on the front of the bridge module that some took to be a window, way back when.

(‘Course, once we see the exterior of the ship, or we see any shots in which there are other images on the viewer, it’ll resolve that question. ;) )

What intrigued me a lot more was what–on this monitor, anyway–looked like other Federation starships out in front of the Enterprise…assuming of course that all those pairs of reddish blobs and gray disk-like things are ships and not more reflections of lights around the bridge.

123. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

115.

Based upon previous statements JJ made. I’m paraphrasing and not quoting, maybe Anthony can help find the article somewhere on this site.

Basically, JJ has been saying movie producers have been making movies previously, based on what they think Trekkers want to see and that he (JJ) simply wants to make a good movie (implying the trekker movies were bad or what they wanted to see was bad). That he’s making movies for fans of movies and not Trek fans (as though Trekkers aren’t fans of movies but fans of klitshke). JJ has been implying there is a pre-conceived notion in Hollywood that Trek is synonymous with B quality science fiction. I don’t know how it got that way, but what I am saying is, it’s not because of Trekkers it got, or stayed that way.

124. BK613 - October 28, 2008

93
2001 was a movie with a movie budget (apples and oranges.)

To do fair comparisons, you should use carrots:

http://www.aldenbates.com/g/carrot1.jpg

(From Lost in Space, TOS’s contemporary competition on CBS.)

125. rag451 - October 28, 2008

I see a few complaints about the ‘silly’ comment in Empire; however, JJ Abrams is on record, as are Orci & Kurtzman and the rest, about the wonderful stories to come from TOS and the unique characters which have stood the test of time.

I hope this movie works. I haven’t seen or heard anything the last 18 months which tells me this movie will be a farce or intentionally disrespectful to Gene Roddenberry and the many dedicated writers, producers, and actors who made TOS classic.

BTW, that bridge view is something else… One of the shots that worked so well in First Contact, IMHO, was Picard showing Lilly Earth from the “porthole” on the Enterprise-E. Can you imagine what that will look like on the big screen? Wow! I’m impressed so far, and I see no reason not to feel good about next May.

126. N - October 28, 2008

Quinto seems too pink. I though Nimoy had a green make up in TOS? Does anyone know?

127. Dennis Bailey - October 28, 2008

#117:”Star Trek TOS had the best writing around folks. If you think otherwise give me an example of better written science fiction.”

Simple – the original “Twilight Zone.” Game, set and match.

And now someone will opine that “Twilight Zone isn’t science fiction” and that time waster of a meaningless debate will start up for the millionth time. I’ll pass on participating this time around, thanks. :-)

128. BK613 - October 28, 2008

122
Maybe it is a window. Maybe not.

What I hope it indicates is that, whenever we are looking outside, the FX guys will be showing us the parts of the ship that would be visible from the inside. Instead of relying on a static or moving star field.

129. Norman - October 28, 2008

… my wife does this thing with her arm when i am videotaping where she bends it and the ‘crease’ looks like cleavage when zoomed in. when you zoom out, you see that it is just her arm.

point – i don’t know what to think based on the limited (but insightful) pictures we’ve seen. When we see the bigger picture, then we will have a more informed opinion.

BUT – some well respected folks in the Trek realm HAVE seen the bigger picture (parts of the film, been on set, etc.) Those folks include Nimoy, Nichols, Doohan, Cawley.. (i’m sure i am missing a few.) Not to mention Pegg — who is a self declared geek.

If they all – yes all – have said that JJ & crew have got it right, then i am willing to trust their opinion until i can see for myself. No need to get worked up about anything…

Chillax people…

LONG LIVE HARRY MUDD!!!

130. JL - October 28, 2008

WOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW, mannnnnnn!!!!

131. Jon - October 28, 2008

People getting upset over JJ’s quote need to GET OVER THEMSELVES. He’s spot on.

132. Thomas - October 28, 2008

123. John from Cincinnati

I don’t think Trekkers are absolved when it comes to getting mediocre Trek movies. At some point (exactly when is debatable), the quality of Trek movies started to slide but they kept making them because we kept watching them. Paramount could get away with making a lesser-quality product because we would still pay for it. Of course, with Nemesis, everyone finally said “enough is enough”, and so it ended.

JJ wants to make a movie that reaches outside the Trek fan community and make what we enjoy so much something it hasn’t been in a long time: relevant. It can’t be just about us pre-existing fans anymore.

133. nephron - October 28, 2008

#117:
There’s a LOT more to science fiction than Star Wars & Star Trek, and Trek really doesn’t compete well with most of the better stuff out there in terms of characters, storytelling, speculative technology, or thought-provoking ideas.

Examples of good science-fiction are mostly in print. Here’s a few, off the top of my head:

Dune (the first one…stay away from the sequels)
Illuminatus! by RA Wilson & Robert Shea
The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov (anything by Asimov)
Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke
Stainless Steel Rat by Harry Harrison.

BTW, just because I said Star Trek is silly, why do you assume I think Star Wars is NOT?

Your examples of Trek being “rooted in things familiar to most people” are overshadowed and outweighed by the laughably inane parts of Star Trek we’re supposed to buy, like “parallel Earths”, butt-headed aliens, ill-conceived technobabble nonsense, two-dimensional characters, and a preponderance of RIDICULOUS stories.

Spock’s Brain isn’t the only one y’know. “I AM KIROK!!!”

Once again, I like TOS a lot, and will be first in line to see the new movie, but Star Trek is what it is: a CONSUMER PRODUCT intended to sell product via advertising to the largest possible television-audience.

134. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

127.

I would put Twilight Zone on an even plain as Star Trek TOS. I love them both.

Trek was an ongoing series of recurring characters and TZ was an anthology so they are a little different.

TZ had some bad episodes too and even worse set designs/quality than Trek. How about the man in the gorilla suit playing the gremlin in ‘Nightmare at 20,000 feet’?

135. Norman - October 28, 2008

134 – hey, that gorilla gives me pause evey time i step on a plane.

136. mikey_pikey - October 28, 2008

hey just about the reflections on the window, yeah we have glass today that stops this, but don’t forget, this is transparent aluminum!!! :)

137. Smike van Dyke - October 28, 2008

Now, I really adore the new pictures and the remarks about Galaxy Quest and that is because I’m an all out geek. The bridge, the uniforms…they just look like a dream come true…

All previous big screen movies and all the newer shows were about getting older, about seasoning, about becoming more mature. This movie looks as geeky and cartoonish as it gets and I*m really starting to embrace that on a personal level.

Remember when they put T’Pol in those colored jumpsuits and started to paint the NX-01 bridge blue? That was the point when I really got into ENT. And this movie seems to be a hundred times more geeky than anything ever seen before.

However, if you look at the commentaries outside the fandom, there is already a lot of negativity. How could we possibly expect the mainstream audience to buy all that? Judging from these pictures, there is no indication that this movie will have any mainstream appeal…

I guess there have to be enough die hard fans out there to support ist…otherwise it could end up being the franchises biggest bomb…but still one of the best Trek movies if not THE BEST!

138. star trackie - October 28, 2008

Pine looks good. but way too much hair piled on top there. If he would’ve went with a TOS style close cropped hair style, he would looks more commanding and a little less GQ. And Spock looks a bit “boysish” and not as mature as Nimoy did when he served on the ship…but all in all, everything looks great and despite my cautious optimism, I’m liking it.

Love that viewscreen. Not so much love for the designer lights that are reflected in it and seem to shine in everyone’s eyes. I would have also preferred more “moody” lighting on the bridge. But I love the “readouts” that seem to be in a seperate layer of glass.

I can’t wait to see all this in motion!

139. Dave - October 28, 2008

I always feel compelled to reference Doctor Who when thinking about this film. As we all know, the BBC updated that seminal sci-fi classic a few years ago. Doctor Who was, in many ways, the Star Trek of Great Britain. Cheap special effects, overly dramatic music and over-the-top acting melding with some quality writing. Doctor Who was probably CHEESIER than Star Trek was and the butt of many jokes.

When the show came back in 2005, so much was changed. Sets, music, acting style. Storytelling became more dependent on character and emotion, and less so on gimmickry. Episodes were in a stand-alone, 1 hour format rather than 30 minute serialized episodes. Traditionalists blasted it for not showing as much deference to the original as they wanted. Today, it is one of top 3 shows in Britain, spawing millions of young fans. Doctor Who is bigger than it’s ever been because it tapped into the modern zeitgeist.

The same thing is happening to Star Trek now. Fans complain of changes to designs they felt were sacrosanct. The cast is “too young.” People said all of these things about Doctor Who. They also said it about a little show called…Star Trek: The Next Generation. TNG was successful because it was not a bald remake of TOS. It was a bold reinvention for the modern age that still retained many of the elements that made people love Trek in the beginning. This movie might actually make Star Trek relatable for young people. It might tap into the zeitgeist like Doctor Who did. Like TNG did. Like…TOS did. Who knows? At least realize the context that this movie is being made in, and the history of updates of cult sci-fi classics that had a touch of camp to them.

140. Izbot - October 28, 2008

94. Anthony Thompson –
“57. Izbot.
Hey homeboy, I think the Austin Powers movies pretty effectively skewered the Bond franchise. Right? Have the Bond films suffered as a result? I think NOT!”

Please don’t call me “homeboy”. The Austin Powers films were not James Bond parodies. They were closer to parodies of “In Like Flynt”, “Man From UNCLE” and other “groovy” spy films from circa 1966. There’s very little (besides the sex-pun female names) that pins Austin Powers to James Bond specifically. There’s no denying Galaxy Quest was anything other than a Trek parody.

141. doubting thomas - October 28, 2008

how is this the same thing? doctor who was continued. star trek is being replaced. obviously the people making this movie looked at star trek and said “this is really stupid. surely we can do better”. instead of keeping what worked and improving on what diddn’t, they seem to be exaggerating what diddn’t work, and replacing what did with “modern” crap. this is a parody.

142. Pah Wraith - October 28, 2008

140. Izbot

sooo how about Dr Evil figure? A BALD man witha a SCAR and a CAT?

143. Novas Imagens de 'Star Trek' na revista 'Empire' | Lotação Esgotada - October 28, 2008

[...] primeira imagem por baixo mostra Kirk (Chris Pine) e Sulu (John Cho). O site TrekMovie acredita que a personagem à esquerda de Kirk é Greg Ellis, que vai interpretar o Engenheiro [...]

144. Norman - October 28, 2008

just for kicks –

can anyone of you photshop gurus produce a the pick above of pine but with hazel eyes and a bit thinner eyebrows?

145. Joe Schmoe - October 28, 2008

How light reflections do you see in the window?

“I SEE FOUR LIGHTS!”

____________________

Not to pic nits, but I would have had Chris Pine wear contacts to match William Shatner’s eye color.

And as far as his hair goes . . . I can extrapolate Kirk’s movie-era hair with Pine’s ‘doo. It doesn’t match up with the straight, thinning style from the 60′s, but it does logically work backwards from the movie-era hairstyle.

146. star trackie - October 28, 2008

#139 “It (TNG) was a bold reinvention for the modern age that still retained many of the elements that made people love Trek in the beginning.”

That’s debatable. Successful yes, but Trek -like? Not by a longshot!

I can get used to, and eventually welcome the change in aesthetics, but if the the core of Star Trek, and I mean Star Trek…not the spin-offs…changes, just to embrace the new kids on the block….I hope they enjoy it.

When I watch StarTrek, I want to see Star Trek, not something drastically altered in conception, execution and presentation that happens to be called “Star Trek”. I don’t expect drastic changes with that very core, as Nimoy himself is happy with it. But if they DID change this apple pie into an apple pie made with oranges, I’d be the first fan off the bandwagon.

147. doubting thomas - October 28, 2008

the bridge is a perfect example. if you look at the bridge in “the cage”, the only things that are unrealistic and dated about it are the coloured-light keyboards and the desk-lamp things.

now when they’re trying to “update” that bridge, what do they do? do they tone down the lights, remove the lamps, and enhance the detail in the original, realistic bridge design? no, they throw away the design, create a less practical-looking replacement, add more blinking lights, and leave the damn lamps!

148. Izbot - October 28, 2008

113. John from Cincinnati –
“Somehow JJ believes Trekkers are the cause why the series was looked back upon as corny and B quality.
JJ- Is it Trekkers fault for the movies and subsequent series staying that way?
Did it occur to you Trekkers have been wanting a feeling of “quality” in it the entire time?
To get quality, does that mean changing everything how it looks?
Does quality mean design or materials?
I loved the designs of the original but that doesn’t mean I didn’t want to see higher quality materials used.”

You seem to be having an argument with yourself. I don’t see anything in the above article that jibes with what you are assuming here. Where does he say or even imply that Trek fandom made Trek corny? I am not following you. Oh wait, there’s more?

123. John from Cincinnati –
“Basically, JJ has been saying movie producers have been making movies previously, based on what they think Trekkers want to see and that he (JJ) simply wants to make a good movie (implying the trekker movies were bad or what they wanted to see was bad). That he’s making movies for fans of movies and not Trek fans (as though Trekkers aren’t fans of movies but fans of klitshke).”

Wow. That is some pretty ridiculous reasoning. So JJ decided to take over the reigns of Star Trek because everything that made it successful was wrong? And this is what you’re getting by reading between the lines every time he says something in an interview? Let me get this straight: You think somehow JJ noticed Trekfans dress weird and go to conventions and they turned Star Trek into something corny? I’m dumbfounded. Wanting to make a good movie implies the films that came before are somehow inferior?

And who’s Klitshke? Sounds like a Russian writer.

149. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

#117—Abrams isn’t speaking of the writing. The statement in question is in the context of a discussion about asthetics, and in particular, costumes. He never said or implied that the writing was silly. The set designs, fashion (including hair cuts) and costuming can and does look very silly to many people by today’s standards. But never was his comment an indictment of the writing, and you shouldn’t infer that in your post.

150. Norman - October 28, 2008

for all we know, since there is time travel involved and it is ‘not exactly a prequel’ – we could be looking at a post-TOS updated bridge. Maybe that’s all we’ve seen so far – who knows for sure???

151. doubting thomas - October 28, 2008

if he was worried about the uniforms and sets looking dated, why diddn’t he go with the versions from “the cage”, which are the correct ones for the time period anyway? the bridge in “the cage” was very practical and realistic, and the uniforms had a genuine naval look too them. they only corned them up for the series, and not even in an over-the-top way, certainly not to a badge-pattern-on-the-uniforms level of corn. a little colour correction could make the series believable, but this movie is going to be iredeemable.

152. KennyB - October 28, 2008

Did we crash Empires server? I can’t get it to display……..Lord Vader will not be happy…..

153. Closettrekker - October 28, 2008

#123—-Actually, what he said was that he wants to make a film that fans of all movies will like, but that established fans can also enjoy. He has said that on many occasions. That is not even close to the words you put in his mouth.

The moment Star Trek is given a massive budget, it can no longer be a fanboy project. Period. We all know that. It ‘must’ have considerable crossover appeal. It cannot appeal to “geeks only”.
There have only been three ST movies made with any real mainstream appeal. The other seven have basically been fanboy films—some done well, others not so well. He is not making a fanboy film that mainstream moviegoers will not want to see in large numbers. How you conclude that there is something insulting in that is beyond me.

154. MHB - October 28, 2008

Careful going to the Empire site – my PC was attached by the Bloodhound exploit when I clicked on the Spock image. Make sure your anti-virus is up-to-date.

155. Bubba2008 - October 28, 2008

So if you look at the original teaser trailerwith the Enterprise under construction, you will notice the shot of the bridge dome has three horizontal areas at the base. The proportions of those areas match the apparent ratio of the bridge screen shown with Spock standing in front.

It looks like the Enterprise bridge now has windows with heads-up-display functionality.This actually makes lots of sense. I always wondered about the practicality of having a strictly video source as your only means of seeing outside. I mean, how easy would it be for an enemy to simply hack your video input and pipe in whatever they wanted just to throw you off?

Love the idea.

156. ensign joe - October 28, 2008

#133 “Dune (the first one…stay away from the sequels)”

The ENTIRE Dune series is nothing short of PERFECTION!

“Do you know what guerrillas often say? They claim that their rebellions are invulnerable to economic warfare because they have no economy, that they are parasitic on those they would overthrow. The fools merely fail to assess the coin in which they must inevitably pay. The pattern is inexorable in its degenerative failures. You see it repeated in the systems of slavery, of welfare states, of caste-ridden religions, of socializing bureaucracies—in any system which creates and maintains dependencies. Too long a parasite and you cannot exist without a host.
-The Stolen Journals”

“Most civilization is based on cowardice. It’s so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. you restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
-The Stolen Journals”

157. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

148.

You need to ask JJ. He’s the one making the ridiculous statements.

158. What it is with you? - October 28, 2008

“How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?”
– JJ Anrams

This isn’t the first time he’s said this. I think he’s more than a little worried!

159. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - October 28, 2008

Doesn’t look like the viewscreen. Appears to be a viewport. Also would seem that viewports have viewscreen capabilities which is quite cool

160. steve - October 28, 2008

That window/viewscreen is kinda scary. Hope the deflectors are working correctly. Would hate to sucked out into space through a pinhole.

I think it’s cool!

161. Darfyn - October 28, 2008

#140 Izbot , in interviews Mike Myers and Jay Roach said Austin Powers was a reflection of the 60′s cool spy flicks , and also a parody of James Bond ! Overall the Powers Set is comedy slapstick , which is Mike Myers career style .
JJ Abrams is a consummate producer/director with many successful series in his career . I’m a constructionist ( and I believe ST cannot be rebooted , since it is really the geeks home), but for sure this movie will be a great adventure !!

162. Izbot - October 28, 2008

154. MHB –
“Careful going to the Empire site – my PC was attached by the Bloodhound exploit when I clicked on the Spock image. Make sure your anti-virus is up-to-date.”

Yeah it crashed my ancient computer here at work (I’m at work?!). Nice of Empire to tack that on for us.

155. Bubba2008 –
“I mean, how easy would it be for an enemy to simply hack your video input and pipe in whatever they wanted just to throw you off?”

My thoughts as well. Remember when Riker did that very thing during Starfleet wargames in “Peak Performance”? Made Picard see a Romulan attack.

163. Chris Pike - October 28, 2008

The view screen. GR’s forward thinking and intention was that the viewscreen was definately NOT a window but a holographic (3d) ultra high res advanced real time display system way ahead of anything we have today. It would look like reality, and gather it’s visual information from ship’s sensors (rather than crude tech optical cameras) allowing an instant actual view of exterior from any point outside of the ship, probably also in the process converting other wavelengths from x-ray to far infra red, UV, microwave etc into visual 3d information. That’s what I’d hope they’d inferr in the new film, technology way advanced from today’s!!

164. Izbot - October 28, 2008

163. Chris Pike –
“The view screen. GR’s forward thinking and intention was that the viewscreen was definately NOT a window but a holographic (3d) ultra high res advanced real time display system way ahead of anything we have today. It would look like reality, and gather it’s visual information from ship’s sensors (rather than crude tech optical cameras) allowing an instant actual view of exterior from any point outside of the ship, probably also in the process converting other wavelengths from x-ray to far infra red, UV, microwave etc into visual 3d information. That’s what I’d hope they’d inferr in the new film, technology way advanced from today’s!!”

In hindsight it’s bugged me that TNG and the rest of the 24th century shows didn’t just do away with the traditional viewscreen entirely and just have a floating holographic zone in the middle of the bridge that everyone could view from any angle. Didn’t understand the point of a holographic imaging area set back behind a frame at one end of the bridge that everyone stares at like a tv. Hardly any advantage to that. May as well’ve had the bridgecrew wear 3-D glasses.

165. Commodore Redshirt - October 28, 2008

Plywood. Everyone know the TOS Enterprise sets were made out of plywood and all of the sound stage planets were made from spray-foam… and then all of it was painted bright colors.

I want this movie to have the look of the FUTURE with tech I can believe is capable of propelling people through space at a speed many times the speed of light… all while keeping gravity at just the right level. To do all this will require a technology far beyond what we have now and those old little flashing lights and all that wasted space on the old bridge just wont cut it.

Good job JJ&Co.

Only 191 days to go…

STAR TREK LIVES!

166. steve - October 28, 2008

#4 – Nice. Not so air-brushed as EW. NICE Viewscreen. (Although, I’d have to wonder, if it’s the main bridge viewer, do you want to have glossy reflexions while you’re battlin’ dog-bitten Romulans?)

-

It could be that in a battle they dim the bridge lights a bit. Meaning, the entire bridge is darkened. Though that might make it worse.

But, good catch. It will be interesting to see it all in action.

167. mikey_pikey - October 28, 2008

TRANSPARENT ALUMINUM!!!!

168. Bubba2008 - October 28, 2008

Honestly, the initial shots of th ebridge shocked me at first.

But as I’ve thought about it, it really makes sense given the current ideas about interface designs and such.

I mean, just look at the iPhone. Simple, clean, efficient. Why wouldn’t that be art of future interface designs, especially in an environment where speed was of utmost importance in an emergency?

The brains of the ship should be kept as spotless and clean as possible, so as not to interfere with operations and tech functionality.

169. OR Coast Trekkie - October 28, 2008

Great shots. Zoe Saldana is an abolutely beautiful woman.

Whatever Quinto/Spock is standing by, whether it be the main viewer on the bridge, or perhaps an observation lounge or conference room window on say deck 2 or 3, to be able to have computer graphic overlays over the glass (transparent aluminum) or within it is awesome!!!

170. Bubba2008 - October 28, 2008

Also, given that JJ said he wanted Star Trek to feel as if it was connected to us NOW, it makes sense they would incorporate current ideas of tech and design so it actually feels like an extension of our current lives.

That always got in the way for me with Star Trek. Tech was so far removed from what we know today, it was hard to relate to it actually existing.

171. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

153.

You’re arguing with JJ. Again, I am not making the conclusion. JJ already has through his statements. Once I find the quotes I’ll provide them to you. Most of them were from interviews from this web site.

I for one, a diehard Trekker, have been wishing for a great, great Trek movie made in a vision I have always had for the series but have never seen. The closest were ‘City on the Edge of Forever’ and ‘Wrath of Khan’.

The difference is I am wanting to see a vision of Trek that I have always known was possible as seen through my fandom filter, knowing that it was always capable of being. JJ wants to see it through his Star Wars/Realistic filter not knowing it will be successful because it is really silly and Galaxy Questish, cliched.

I guess we both want the same thing, but we’re coming from two opposing viewpoints and I feel, JJ was insulting along the way not only to Trekkers but the TOS as well. By statements saying some Trek fans are silly for wanting to hold on to the minute details and that TOS was cliched and silly. While I am saying TOS was magnificent, dated, but magnificent and if it can be brought up to date without sacrificing what made it so popular would be great.

172. MrLerpa - October 28, 2008

#167: Bingo! you get the prize!!

173. maxmacster - October 28, 2008

Wish some people could see that these ‘plastic’ Quinto photo’s are shots for the relevant mags.
Do you think he shaves his eyebrows and keeps his hair in that style when he has other filming commitments?
Why not try and enjoy the fact we are some some pics after a long barren spell since the teaser.

Bring on the Trailer!
James Bond opens here (UK) on Friday. Anyone know if the Star trek Trailer is gonna be with it? is that for American release only?

174. TrekMadeMeWonder - October 28, 2008

Ahh the apathy,

Personal Log.

Four of of my friends say Star Trek Is dead, and that it should go away for twenty years. What would it take to get them back?

175. Bubba2008 - October 28, 2008

AND, if the windows ARE actually the bridge viewer/HUD, then it actually makes sense. If you look at the teaser trailer, those windows (and hence the bridge) are located lower down the familiar bridge dome, supply a level of protection not there in previous Enterprise designs.

It never made sense to me that the most important area of the ship was so clearly positioned to call attention to itself. “Please focus your attenetion HERE!!!)

176. McCoy - October 28, 2008

#174: “What would it take to get them back?”

Zoe.

177. Canonfornication - October 28, 2008

Thanks man…I like the red hot chili peppers song Californication so I rifted off that (not the dirty tv show with mulder)

Watching Galaxy Quest at the cinema was really great…almost like another TOS movie…kinda like what Wes Carvens New Nightmare was to the Freddy franchaise

178. Canonfornication - October 28, 2008

that was to 100 btw

179. Scott - October 28, 2008

Two things I haven’t heard mentioned –

- The unflattering under-lighting on poor Zoe. Somebody get that girl some cucumber slices, stat!

- Quinto’s eyebrows are too straight. This could ruin the film for me. ;-) Spock’s always had a nice, subtle curve to them. Oh — they didn’t in The Cage, you say? Well then, if they were going for a Cagey look, why didn’t they give Zach the ragged bangs instead of the wiggy-looking page-boy?

Just saying. It matters not.

Scott B. out.

180. Third Remata'Klan - October 28, 2008

Love the window pic.

And dang, Zoe Saldana just may be claiming the title of Hottest Trek Woman Ever!

181. Neil Bradley - October 28, 2008

If the viewscreen is now a window, maybe they will get to say “Positive Shield” to cover up the viewscreen like in the original BSG. :)

Notice the HUD shows B4. A reference to ‘Nemesis’ perhaps? :)

182. Schultz - October 28, 2008

I know I’m repeating myself, but I just don’t like the photoshopped version of Quinto-Spock on all these covers and promotional photos. In the images from the actual film he (like everyone else) looks a-okay however. So I don’t think I should worry. I used to have a few problems with Pine as Kirk at first—couldn’t really envision it—, but in the EVA shot he looks great. And Uhura will be my next wife, I think. ;)

PS: I’d love to hear at least one cue from the Star Trek score now. :)

183. Donn - October 28, 2008

Dave’s post somewhere above about Doctor Who was right on. Great old science fiction which was successfully brought into the modern era with fresh technology but the same core storytelling that is essentially “Doctor Who.”

If Star Trek: The Next Generation doesn’t have the core “Star Trek” nature to you… I don’t think you can be helped. I’m not saying it has to be your favorite of the series’, but it is Roddenberry’s vision, and while it does expand the definition as the season go on, it still retains the spirit and concepts of TOS. If you disagree, can’t see how you would ever be happy with JJ’s Star Trek.

184. Mr. Bob Dobalina - October 28, 2008

Loving the new pics. Everything is looking groovy, but I wish JJ wasn’t so apologetic when talking about Trek. He liked it enough to take it on. but classic Trek has never needed to offer any apologies for it’s aesthetics, for it’s costumes, for its sets, fot it’s writing etc etc.

It IS what it IS. And what it IS, is a classic. It’s not Star Wars, never has been and never should be. Because the kids that don’t dig 12 Angry Men because it’s black and white also don’t dig classic Trek is not your problem JJ. TOS needs not offer any “apologies” to anyone, and neither do you JJ, Just give us the best TOS style movie you can.

185. Captain Scokirk - October 28, 2008

a minor annoyance,

Abrams always brings up Galaxy Quest- an affectionate spoof as if it is the real Star Trek,
plus he never calls Star Wars silly, but always calls Star Trek silly, now I think despite his lack of reverence he will make a good movie, because his first goal is to make a great MOVIE, not neces. a great STAR TREK movie which is always what Meyer did, not being a trek fan he pinned it to naval heroics/hornblower and then proceded to make great MOVIES, so if Abrams is using Star Wars as his frame of reference and judging by this shot of Spock on Admiral Akbar’s bridge we can say “yes”, this all might work out, but as a Trek fan I still find it annoying that he equates Galaxy Quest with real Trek, and calls it silly, as if Trek is the only fantastic genre around, nothing silly about the premises of say alias, LOST, or cloverfield, but Star Trek why that’s just absurd! On some level most fiction has an element of whimsy but it doesnt make it spoof or satire(Galaxy Quest), calling Trek silly is like saying Bonanza was silly(which it was not) they were 1960′s Television shows using the production standards of their time. It’s a question of set design, budget, production value, Lost in Space is silly, not Star Trek.

186. Invader - October 28, 2008

Looks good! Bridge…still too bright though…

187. AJ - October 28, 2008

Perhaps JJ wants to take Trek and remove the aspects which make it “silly.”

When I was 9 watching the show in syndication, I took it completely seriously, and even had a feeling of wonder watching the ship and crew do their thing.

Maybe (hopefully), he wants to update his Trek to do the same for a new generation of fans (Ewww..that sounded like dorky marketing).

188. Falvoant - October 28, 2008

171…..Wait untill you see “Blood and Fire”
It is brought up todate without loosing the look and feel of the orig TOS
I am extremly proud to have been part of that episode and am even prouder to be part of “phase 2″…I feel we will be going where the TOS fan wants to go….
Good luck to J.J. But I don’t see this as a life changing experience which for those of who lived TOS…it was!!!
Its just a movie…….

189. Schultz - October 28, 2008

#185 Galaxy Quest was closer to the original StarTrek spirit than e.g. Voyager was. I completely understand Abram’s comments.

190. montreal paul - October 28, 2008

Most trek fans keep saying that Galaxy Quest was the best Trek movie ever made… no wonder JJ is saying that too.

And yes, TOS looks silly now in 2008… not in 1966. You can’t have the sme styling on the screen now.. it doesn’t hold up. Heck, even the first few seasons TNG look kinda silly.

The message and spirit isn’t silly.. just the cardboard sets, etc. Yes, yes… in the 60′s it was cutting edge. But it looks dated now.

191. Bubba2008 - October 28, 2008

Well, when I went to see Cloverfield and the ST teaser finally played its hand to reveal that it was Star Trek, out of the dark theater you could hear various teen voices express disdain, laughter and a few less than flattering comments.

To them ST is irrelevant and passé.

I’m looking forward to JJ changing that.

192. Dr. Image - October 28, 2008

My guess is that the main viewer IS ALSO now a big-ass window!
When “video feeds” or graphics are needed, it just, well, becomes opaque and displays stuff.
I mean, the technology is virtually here now.

193. Mr. Bob Dobalina - October 28, 2008

#183
“If Star Trek: The Next Generation doesn’t have the core “Star Trek” nature to you… I don’t think you can be helped. I’m not saying it has to be your favorite of the series’, but it is Roddenberry’s vision, and while it does expand the definition as the season go on, it still retains the spirit and concepts of TOS”

Hold the phone there. TNG was. in fact, Roddenberry’s vision as was Genesis 2 and Spectre….and they have about as much to do with “Star Trek” as TNG.

TNG was written differently, using a and b plots, it lacked the hand to hand action, it had a boring and completely different type of musical scoring, there was little conflict, practically no sexual tension, the lighing was sterile and cinematography completely different. The FX was edited on video and looked it while the sound FX were bland and uninteresting.. It was a very different show and bore no resemblence to the 60′s TV series.

Love it if you want, for what it was, a well prodcued. nut often mediocre 80′s TV show. But don’t ever try to put TNG and TOS in the same basket, they are as different as night and day.

194. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

137.

Consumer products. Everything you listed. Actually, anything in entertainment, including books are consumer products. So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

I used Star Wars as an example because that is what JJ said he grew up as a fan of, while saying Star Trek (an extension of our own future) was silly and somehow Star Wars (a long time ago in a galaxy far far away) was realistic. If putting bolts and rivets and details on the Enterprise makes it believable then knock themselves out. Another argument for another day.

butt-headed aliens, technobabble – Again, things added to the franchise later, amongst other things, that led to the franchise being where it’s at out. I was talking about the quality of the writing of TOS. The parallel Earths I thought were interesting.

two-dimensional characters. This is something JJ and I agree on, the TOS characters are great. The path that lead to the destruction of the franchise were those who thought we needed un-true heros and a more darker, realistic universe (see Ron Moore). It steered the franchise away from an optimistic future and great heros to just another sci-fi franchise you can see anywhere, maybe contemporary today, but Star Trek was always about being better than what was happening in today’s world. Like JJ said, maybe it’s about time the world sees an optimistic portrayal of the future.

195. Alex Rosenzweig - October 28, 2008

#164 – “In hindsight it’s bugged me that TNG and the rest of the 24th century shows didn’t just do away with the traditional viewscreen entirely and just have a floating holographic zone in the middle of the bridge that everyone could view from any angle.”

I think that was probably more an issue of budget than anything else, because I seem to recall reading that Mr. Roddenberry had been looking into doing something like that. I think the VFX complexity and cost was just too much. As you might recall, early in TNG they used something similar in the conference lounge, with floating imagery over the table, but that went away fairly quickly.

196. Captain Scokirk - October 28, 2008

189- that may well be, but he doesnt seem to be refering to Voyager, and ultimately I don’t agree at all, Galaxy Quest is about a T.V. show and it’s fans, Star Trek is about a crew of explorers/navy officers on missions, it maybe dated as ultimately all things are, you cant seperate yourself from the world around you, but it is no sillier than great World War II movies, or say a film like the Bedford Incident or Torpedo Run, orRun silent , run deep. The setting is fantastic, and I think grounding it in realism as abrams is doing is acceptable and welcome, but I think he is not the first to try this, he is just the first to be given almost unlimmited resources with which to do it with. And I think there is a fundamental diference between a realistic production design approach ,relative to budget and deeming something as “silly”. Besides and I go back to the Galxy Quest as Trek substitute, that is like evaluating a poltician entirely by their portrayal on Saturday Night Live versus their actual personna.

197. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

184.
185.

I totally agree with both of you, on everything.

198. classictrek - October 28, 2008

this is so exciting. how good does quinto look in front of the view screen!!
superb!

Greg UK

199. Alex Rosenzweig - October 28, 2008

#188 – “Wait untill you see “Blood and Fire”
It is brought up todate without loosing the look and feel of the orig TOS”

I’ve seen the trailer, and the revisions to the bridge set rock! I could still see it looking clunky in the eyes of folks who think that the glass-and-glitter of the new movie set is what the bridge “should be”, but to me, it does prove just how far even a few updates take the original design.

200. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Wow, Uhura’s hairstyle is awful.

201. sean - October 28, 2008

I’m a huge fan of TOS, but come on folks, it IS dated, it DOES have a certain amount of cheese that needs to be expelled for this to work. I only consider about 1/3 of TOS to be truly great, 1/3 to be tolerable, and 1/3 to be rather embarassing. It has acheived iconic status over the last 40 years, but it’s also managed to become a punchline to a majority of the moviegoing audience. JJ is just acknowledging the fact that he has an uphill battle in getting this thing to work.

202. Harry Ballz - October 28, 2008

Sean, I am in complete agreement as to your breakdown of the old TOS episodes!

Let’s hope JJ and crew drew their inspiration from the 1/3 that was truly great!

203. sean - October 28, 2008

#164

The easiest answer to that is probably just a matter of aesthetics – a viewscreen works better, from an at-home viewer’s perspective. It gives a focal point for the set design, etc.

Although, if I recall they did show what you’re suggesting on DS9. It was tech employed by the Dominion.

204. Jordan - October 28, 2008

Don’t they have anti-reflective glass in the 23rd century? Thats something that has always bothered me :P

205. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

This film with the different colored shirts looks dated already.

206. Decker Unit - October 28, 2008

I know where the turbolift is!! It’s right behind the hostess station with the barcode scanners ;-)

207. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

So what happens when an attacking ship comes from behind the ship? They’re screwed!

208. nephron - October 28, 2008

201 sean:

Agreed. Some of the stories were good, but for the most part Star Trek was nothing more than a cheap TV show. It was a fun & entertaining show, but that’s all it was.

A question that interests me is, Why do people think Star Trek was so great? Many people put it on a pedestal of greatness, like it’s the Moby Dick of science fiction or something.

One possible answer is they don’t know any better because they’re watching TV instead of reading. If you examine Star Trek in the context of the wider world of science fiction it just doesn’t hold up. Compare it to, say, Alan Dean Foster’s Humanx Commonwealth books. Star Trek looks like a Saturday-morning cartoon by comparison, but most people don’t read so they don’t know how low Star Trek ranks in the larger world of science fiction in terms of quality.

209. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

So, the new Enterprise bridge is kinda like the Star Destroyer bridge?

210. Captain Scokirk - October 28, 2008

ALL of Star Trek is dated, even Star Wars Ep. IV is from the 70′s look at Luke’s bowl cut, and in ep.V and VI 1980′s Helmet Hair becomes dejour, and all the buzz cuts in Eps. 1 & 2 will scream turn of the century, to say nothing of Padme’s belly shirt, all of this stuff is datable, from the 1970′s utopianism of The Motion Picture through the hotel lobby look of Reagan era TNG with it’s 1940′s women’s hairdo’s the late 80′s and early 90′s saw 40′s retro fashions, shoulder pads and double breasted suits? Where do theos updo’s come from. Even this film has that cast from “one tree hill” look that speaks to our current state of things, and the new uniforms look like they are crossed with “chic” athletic clothes biking/runners ware. The important thing is that it takes it self seriously and has a “realism” to it, which I think this film clearly does, but make no mistake about it this film can do 500 mil and it will not displace “The Original Series” anymore than the new bond replaces Sean Connery, it will introduce Trek to a “new” audience and then see Trek become like other franchises that are “reinvented” every few years(like the Bond movies or Batman), that’s probably okay, but to us direhards it will be a little bit sad because for all it’s successes and failures one of the things that made Trek stand out was its honest attempt to fit together(more or less) and it is becoming more and more clear that atleast from a visual point of view this simply doesnt reconcile with the “Trek canon”, Tine-travel excuses etc. but hey who cares? 10 bucks for two hours of fun, and a chance to see an Enterprise on the big screen, are you really gonna stay away cause the new Kirk has his real hair? Of course not see you next May!

211. Trekker1091 - October 28, 2008

I STILL would like to see what Leonard Nimoy as Spock looks like in this movie. Is it me, or have they showed all the major players BUT him? I mean come on, its not like we haven’t seen Spock old before. Note the episodes of TNG where Picard and Data go undercover as Romulans to make contact with Spock, for example. Still, I want to see what Nimoy as Spock looks like in this movie. I wont truly be satisfied until they do :).

212. Yulin - October 28, 2008

Is it me or does Quinto’s whig look like polyester? It doesn’t look real at all. And why does his face look like clay? Dude’s a Vulcan, he needs a greenish complexion and the shininess needs to be tones down.

213. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

I can agree TOS is dated but this whole thread and argument about Star Trek being silly can be summed up as follows.

Let’s say 20th century Fox wants to make a new Star Wars movie but without George Lucas. Let’s say they hire, Leonard Nimoy to direct. Nimoy then comes out and says, ‘Geez, I hope it doesn’t come out like Spaceballs. I mean how can you make relevant and realistic a small green guy, furry teddy bears, a guy with a big dark helmet on his head, and a villain that looks like a lump of pizza?” In addition, he decides to re-do the bridge of the Vader’s Star Destroyer to look, well like a white plastic iPod store?

As a Star Wars fan, I’d be pissed. Who is this “Trek” guy and what is he doing with MY franchise? Does he “get “Star Wars?

I hope this explains some of the angst I have to those of you that don’t understand where I’m coming from.

214. AJ - October 28, 2008

TOS is great, warts and all.

Great FX and production design cannot make this film great if the story and characters aren’t superlative.

Remove the “cheese” factor, and make it work!

215. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 28, 2008

OMG! Trekkers getting into an argument over fashion?
*faints*

216. AJ - October 28, 2008

213/John from C:

The Emperor looks like a lump of pizza?

217. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

216.

Jabba

218. Captain Scokirk - October 28, 2008

213- I hear you, make no mistake I think this could be a great movie, but that analogy is pretty spot on,

Which brings me to this point and I am not joking; the diference between a Star Wars fan (exclusively) and a Star Trek fan(exclusively, I happen to love them both who is forced to pick between Shakespeare and Dickens? Actually I dont like Dickens but I digress….)is that a Star Wars fan thinks he is cool… that’s it, were all geeks but the Trek fan owns it as part of I.D.I.C. whereas the Star Wars fan thinks being a Star Wars nut is the same as being a sports fanatic, and that they arent nerds, they are wrong. That’s it, only significant distinction. Discuss…

Putting aside efx, (which have now been “fixed”) what is so cheesy about the original series ?(relative to most contemporary television from the 1960′s)

I would say atleast 2/3 of trek is good or great, 1st and 2nd seasons rule, and even the third year had some gems so allowing for the occasional 1st and 2nd season turkey I think you easily hit 2/3 greatness.

As for literary sci fi vs. visual well look at books vs. t.v./film, its about accesibility more people view than read, doesnt diminish one or the other, I’d guess Trek converts people to literary sci fi, why ekse would Harlan Ellison continue to court the Trek vote over the years…..

219. Ashley - October 28, 2008

hmm, the HUD design reminds me a LOT of the GUI in the new Battlestar Galactica…specifically the one used in the Pegasus on the DRADIS screens…..

220. Sam Belil - October 28, 2008

More and more it is has become apparant to me (and should to all of us). This a COMPLETE REBOOT/REIMAGINED tale. Forget how racidically different the bridge looks. It is by far MORE modern looking than the Voyager bridge, Enterprise-E bridge, etc. As an “old-school purist”, I really believe that Abrams and co. have “trashed everything from the past” and are starting “fresh” (just like w/Casino Royale). In terms of timeline I really feel that this movie will a COMPLETE BREAK from what have come to know and see from TOS over the past 40 years. For example in terms of “the doomed Captain Pike — in this movie”, his “doom” will not be getting blasted by the delta rays from on Class-J Starship, but perhaps sacrificing his life to save Kirk and crew (the needs of the many….). This also would explain why there will not be appearances of:
1-Gary Mitchell
2-Lee Kelso
3-Dr. Piper
4-Alden
5-Carol Marcus
6-Finnegan
7-Charles Garrovick
8-Number One
9-Dr. Boyce
10-Ben Finney
I still hold my theory that as result of “Future Spock’s” traveling back in time to save Kirk (and he knows there will be changes), it will COMPLETELY ALTER the TOS timeline as we have KNOWN it over the past 40 years. This will allow the “TOS” series to start out fresh a’la “Casino Royale”. It worked for James Bond (and I’m a huge fan of 007). Not so sure it will work for Star Trek. I HOPE IT WILL WORK!!!!

221. Izbot - October 28, 2008

203. sean –
“#164
The easiest answer to that is probably just a matter of aesthetics – a viewscreen works better, from an at-home viewer’s perspective. It gives a focal point for the set design, etc.
Although, if I recall they did show what you’re suggesting on DS9. It was tech employed by the Dominion.”

As I said, in hindsight. I fully understand it would’ve been a logistical nightmare to do it every week. I was sad that the 3-D display in the briefing room in “Last Outpost” was never seen again, same with the infrequently-used telepresense communication system on DS9 (“Dr Bashir, I Presume”, and at least one of the Eddington vs. Sisko eps).

But I think the central TV screen thing only further underscored TNG’s upper middle class American shopping mall feel. Everyone sitting around watching the television in their Lazy-Boy recliners, flying through space on a Carnival Cruise ship. And what do they do with their free time? Play wii on the holodeck!

222. TomBot99/4A - October 28, 2008

What’s up with all the Galaxy Quest hate? Be it spoof, parody, whatnot; it was also a big love letter to TOS, not a hate filled diatribe against cardboard/plywood sets and dated asthetics. Are low quality digital effects the “new” cardboard of our times? ;-) Anyway, what will really be more interesting is what kind of story comes along with all these purty pictures. Mainstream appeal and long time fans will be mostly swayed by that I think, not what every little doo hicky thing a bob looks like…

223. lostrod - October 28, 2008

In the picture of Spock in front of the bridge window – it doesn’t look right. It looks like the Spock image was inserted into the shot. The edges around him don’t look natural.

Just a thought.

224. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Maybe in this Trek they have hologram transmissions like in Star Wars?

225. The Quickening - October 28, 2008

68. I don’t hate the uniforms, but I agree with your basic premise. It’s not that the uniforms are bad to me, there not. It’s just that they seem out of whack (meaning out of date) with the other design elements around them. I think this was an error on the part of the film makers, made because they are trying to appease the fans and the general audience at the same time and I didn’t think that was ever a good idea.

I still say a flat out reboot would have been the wisest and best thing to do, but that would have taken a lot of courage and creativity. Something sadly lacking it Hollywood.

226. montreal paul - October 28, 2008

213 – john

i still don’t get your angst. i think you are reading too much into it. And.. my iPod looks nothing like the bridge and vice versa.

I’ve been a fan for 40 years and am not reading too much into it. I am a HUGE TOS fan and I am exciting about this new movie… it really needed updating to be on th escreen now. I think it looks fantastic! The movie is gonna rock too!

227. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2008

218.

I agree with you. Trekkers are talked down to by everyone. You nailed it. Star wars fans think they are somehow “cooler” than Trek fans.

This explains the attitude I get from JJ Abrams when he talks about Star Trek and it’s fans. In his defense he has stated he believes in the optimistic message but he also said on here recently he didn’t even like the characters of Kirk and Spock until he made this movie.

Someone posted earlier, well ‘Abrams must have liked Trek enough to take on the project’. Wrong. Paramount paid JJ enough money to take on the project.

228. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

How big is this bridge anyway? If you look at the letters on the hull, this bridge must be HUGE compared to the old one.

229. Kev-1 - October 28, 2008

I think Bob Justman was right on target when he said in one of the documentaries that Star Trek was about “leading an ethical life.” Not always easy to achieve, hence lots of story fodder. But I think he was saying that the core of Trek has always been the characters. And those characters operate in a world that had its own internal consistency, its own rules and technology– the shirts, the communicators, the ship with pods — as long these things fit together in the fictional world of Star trek, the audience could concentrate on the characters. Watching trek should be entering their world rather than making it like ours. I think when moviemakers concentrate on making Star Trek technology like ours today, they are missing the point, i.e., uniforms that were one piece becoming layered pieces because that is the style today or Head Up displays on the viewscreen because we have those on fighter planes. The window screen makes a good visual and they can say it’s transparent aluminum or something but it still looks pretty shakey against photon torpedoes. Very Imperial Star Destroyerish.

230. The Quickening - October 28, 2008

158. What it is with you? wrote:

“How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?”
- JJ Anrams

This isn’t the first time he’s said this. I think he’s more than a little worried!

Then he should have showed some balls and rebooted and redesigned everything instead of pandering to TREK fans–throwing them a familiar design element here, a totally redesigned element there. Abrams can’t even be true to his own sensibilities. And is it necessary to rag TOSs ’60s design to pump up your own film? A classy person wouldn’t say anything at all.

231. JimJ - October 28, 2008

I’m telling ya, all these pessimistic fans do NOT embrace what Trek is truly about and they ARE going to kill it. Some of the comments here border on completely ridiculous. So, some things are different. BIG DEAL!!! So, some of you don’t like the hair. BIG DEAL!!! So some of you don’t like the uniforms. BIG DEAL!!! So some of you think the bridge looks “blasphemous” (is that a word?). BIG DEAL! Just wait until the exterior of the big E comes out. Hell will practically be freezing over by then. Maybe some of you really do need to move out of your parents basements! I’ve been a fan since 1966 and I am FIRED UP for this movie. To quote my hero: “Get a life, will ya people?!”

‘NO KILL I”

232. montreal paul - October 28, 2008

232 – JimJ

I agree with you. If this Trek fails.. it’s the fans taht killed it by being stuck on eye color, hair styles, fasshion and not letting go of the past to embrace the new. THAT is what will kill it.

233. Mikey - October 28, 2008

Basically I love everything about what I’m seeing so far, but if the Starfleet ladies have no sleeves on their uniform, where do their rank stripes go?

234. 5.8.09 - October 28, 2008

WTF? THE VIEWSCREEN IS NOT A HUGE WINDOW COMPLETE WITH SUNGLARE!!! DOES JJ REALLY THINK STARFLEET WOULD BE SO STUPID AS TO COMMISSION A STARSHIP WITH A HUGE WINDOW ON THE FRONT, ESPECIALLY AFTER IN NEMESIS SHINZON BLEW UP THE ENTERPRISE E’S VIEWSCREEN? DIFFERENT FILM, DIFFERENT TIME, BUT THE VIEWSCREEN WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE A SCREEN PROJECTING A HOLOGRAM…FIRST CONTACT GOT THE IDEA RIGHT…BUT A HUGE WINDOW? BRILLIANT…THE SHIP SHAKES TOO HARD AND SUDDENLY THE SCREEN CRACKS AND EVERYONES BLOWN OUT INTO SPACE…

AND AS FOR SEEING THE REGISTRY NUMBER OUTTA THE VIEWSCREEN, THE SCALES ALL WRONG… THE REGISTY NUMBER SHOULD APPEAR AT LEAST 10X BIGGER THAN IT APPEARS IN RELATION TO SPOCKS LOCATION OR ELSE THE ENTERPRISE SEEMS 10X SMALLER THAN IT IS…

235. blake powers - October 28, 2008

bet that guy in the red suit next to kirk gets killed.

236. dalek - October 28, 2008

Bond premieres tomorrow night in UK. Odds on the trailer?………

237. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Who likes Galaxy Quest? That movie sucked.

238. Captain Scokirk - October 28, 2008

I loved Galaxy Quest, and I love Spaceballs, but I do not equate them with their source material, they are affectionate parodies, and do not reflect the “core” of the originals, but mainly good naturedly mock the conventions and trappings of the settings/situations of the original works, so when the guy in charge says he is afraid his “serious” new movie will be like the original thing which he claims indirectly is indistinguishable from it’s parody unless he is “real careful” ; fans of all concerned raise their collective vulcan eyebrows. Not an unreasonable reaction.

I think the reality is the powers that be know we will be there when the movie comes out regardless of whether or not the viewscreen is a window or not, so they can bank on atleast 50 mil, maybe 75 so how do they expand that audience by another 200 million +

Everyone worries that this will be another Star Wars prequels, the films we all hated and then proceeded to watch repeatedly, any one would be honored to have three such failures together they made like what a billion dollars? I think the path they took was clear…..

239. Ziggy - October 28, 2008

Odd….

Has the pic been flipped?

Uhura’s insignia looks reversed…..

240. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

yeah, we could pray for this to be another Star Wars prequels. They made millions of dollars despite “fans” hatting every single one of them. Compare that to Nemesis, which is still struggling to make its money back.

241. admiral R - October 28, 2008

everybody relax, it going to be fine… right norman… norman coordinate!

242. Jeffries Tuber - October 28, 2008

Regarding the Apple Store crap that’s been thrown around, hasn’t it occurred to anyone that the iPhone looks like Okuda’s TNG interfaces? Black background, solid colored icons with rounded edges…

It’s pretty clear that we’re only or mostly seeing Pike’s Enterprise in this movie. And the graphic interfaces resemble those from the most recent Star Wars videogames.

Here’s my reading of the images: JJ has stated that he wants to make optimism cool. I see the brightness of the bridge and the brightness of the updated Kirk-Spock photo above, as an expression of that optimism. It certainly stands in contrast to the ‘Dark’ phenomenon in geek films that began in 1989 with Tim Burton’s BATMAN.

243. Third Remata'Klan - October 28, 2008

#242 – Jeffries Tuber

I like your theories.

Um…why no Scotty?
Where’s the Peggster?!

244. Commodore Redshirt - October 28, 2008

208. nephron

“…Why do people think Star Trek was so great? Many people put it on a pedestal of greatness, like it’s the Moby Dick of science fiction or something.”

Well, Trek (TOS) WAS among the best Sci-Fi Hollywood had done up to that time. You mention other fine written works, and I agree. The works of Robert A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Frank Herbert, and many others are wonderful. But Trek was a TV show….

Also, in regards to many of the posts on this thread and elsewhere, I think the it’s funny the way people who are too young to remember the 1960′s and 1970′s have such a poor understanding of the scope of entertainment in the era. Sci-Fi was “kiddie stuff” to Hollywood and “fringe” stuff to publishers. For every “Forbidden Planet” or “2001: A Space Odyssey” that a studio made, there were 10 or 20 “Lost In Space” or “My Favorite Martian” or “Land of the Giants” or even “Planet of the Apes”…and don’t get me wrong, I love that stuff, but was it good Sci-Fi? Not really…

I also remember the groans of fans when the first TMP pics came out… and again when TNG started…

I guess we Trekies are a hard bunch to please.
That is until we get comfortable with something… then we don’t want it to change AT ALL…

Oh well, just a few thoughts…

STAR TREK LIVES!

245. sean - October 28, 2008

#227

I’ve always viewed the Star Wars fans vs Star Trek fans in the context of the Who vs Led Zepplin prism. Typically, Led Zep fans were ‘nerds’ and Who fans were ‘jocks’ (although I’m not a jock and love The Who in far greater measure, but let’s ignore that for the moment). I think Star Trek fans have always been the ‘nerds’ of geekdom, whereas Star Wars fans (with it’s far greater mainstream appeal) are the ‘jocks’. Thus why ST fans tend to get picked on a lot more.

When it comes to JJ, however, he’s made it clear that he does like Trek. It was Orci & Lindelof that were the catalyst behind him taking on the movie, but he’s made it clear he was a fan (if not a hardcore one). What’s he said about Kirk & Spock was that before making the movie he didn’t ‘love’ the characters, but having made it he really does. I don’t see anything wrong with that, nor do I think that means he disliked the show. I think he’s just pointing out the flaws we’re all more than familiar with.

246. T Negative - October 28, 2008

Love the new pics!! I like the fact that Spock has the two rank insignia bars on his sleeve as he should have.

However, I really want to see Kirk in his GOLD tunic dammit!!

Thanks TrekMovie for all of the new pics posted in one convenient spot!

247. Kirk's Revenge - October 28, 2008

It looks like Kirk and Sulu are aboard the dropship from Aliens.

“Game Over, Man! Game Over!”
–Hudson

248. captain slow - October 28, 2008

A window…….oh dear…….

249. captain slow - October 28, 2008

i expect next we shall have a picture of scotty shoveling antimatter into the warp core….hahah

250. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Spock really IS like Darth Vader. He strides in front of windws, and he chokes Kirk with his hands,

251. Alex Rosenzweig - October 28, 2008

#225 – “I still say a flat out reboot would have been the wisest and best thing to do, but that would have taken a lot of courage and creativity.”

Heh. Neither of those words are something I’d attribute to reboots. ) I’m just as happy that Abrams and Co. didn’t go that way.

As for TOS, I think people may see it as “cheap” today ’cause our technology has come a long way, but it sure wasn’t cheap 40 years ago. It was almost the most expensive show on TV! I still think the stories hold up, though, even if some of the quirks of late ’60s TV might make modern audiences shake their heads a bit. That said, I have no objection to a visually-modern take on the material that’s faithful to what’s been established before, and since it seems that the film may be just that, I’d be cool with that.

I guess we’ll have to see what happens!

252. sean - October 28, 2008

Also, I agree that the promo photos make everyone look too plastic, but the actual footage seems to avoid that problem.

253. sean - October 28, 2008

#248, 249

Like Star Trek has never had a window? I seem to remember a lengthy discussion between Spock, Kirk & McCoy in front of a window in TMP. What a silly gripe.

254. captain slow - October 28, 2008

253 thankyou….you know …..i did totally forget that star trek had windows in…but now you reminded me i seem to remember a few …..prehaps more than 4……

255. JimJ - October 28, 2008

#233-I know where, if our good Captain Kirk has his way!

256. sean - October 28, 2008

#254

I seem to remember a window in TOS, but it was in ‘Mark of Gideon’ and the replica of the ship was on the planet, so you only saw the faces of the Gideonites outside.

Sorry for saying it was a silly gripe, that sounded rather condescending.

257. Jordan - October 28, 2008

I can understand why some people are upset over the radical differences in design, but I honestly feel that Trek needs updating if CBS/Paramount want to make it more accessible.

Another thing some seem to be forgetting is that this film is not a reboot. It follows the same story, but there will be some differences when Future Spock travels into the past. I think Roberto Orci talked about how they are honoring everything that came before and it would be ashame to completely get rid of all of it. Let’s not forget that the prequel comic will show us the 24th century and I suspect that it will be as we saw it before.

I’m just really excited to see a new Trek movie and I don’t care what JJ & crew alter since this franchise needs to live long and prosper!

258. Izbot - October 28, 2008

222. TomBot99/4A –
“What’s up with all the Galaxy Quest hate? Be it spoof, parody, whatnot; it was also a big love letter to TOS, not a hate filled diatribe against cardboard/plywood sets and dated asthetics. Are low quality digital effects the “new” cardboard of our times? ;-) Anyway, what will really be more interesting is what kind of story comes along with all these purty pictures. Mainstream appeal and long time fans will be mostly swayed by that I think, not what every little doo hicky thing a bob looks like…”

I’m not seeing any hate here for Galaxy Quest (except from, predictably, #237 Enterprise). Most Trek fans enjoyed it. The problem is that it was maybe just a little *too* good — the effects and makeup were better than a lot of Trek movies. Re-read the comments here, most people are saying they loved it enough to consider it ‘the best Star Trek movie ever made”.

230. The Quickening –
“And is it necessary to rag TOSs ’60s design to pump up your own film? A classy person wouldn’t say anything at all.”

Do you think for an instant that Trek fans here would tolerate him “not saying anything at all”? Again, re-read what he’s saying. He isn’t “ragging” on anything. You’re being too sensitive or taking what he’s saying too literally. You can’t make a movie in 2008 about the future based off 1960′s designs and expect anyone to take it seriously. That doesn’t mean Abrams doesn’t take Star Trek seriously, it means to make the film competitive at the box office and realistic to the viewer it has to take into consideration the direction technology has headed in the 40 years since TOS. Otherwise the movie is about quaint notions 1960s Hollywood had about the future and that would come off as total parody — like Galaxy Quest.

259. Everyday_Ponn_Far - October 28, 2008

Sam Belil I don’t think its about old Spock accidentally changing or at least altering how the future will look like by bringing with him 24th century technology or knowledge. Nero will intentionally change the future by killing young kirk.

I think this movie has crossed the line of being a vague “reinvigoration” or “re-imagination” into a full reboot or retelling. The bridge looks way too advanced than modern starfleet ships.

I think the bridge would look cool if they used less of those glass circuits panels thingy

260. Jon - October 28, 2008

234 are you just trolling? I don’t know if you have noticed the fact that EVERY SINGLE FEDERATION STARSHIP WE HAVE EVER SEEN is full of windows, but in case you didn’t know, the FEDERATION STILL USES WINDOWS.

261. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

It’s not glass. It’s transparent aluminum.

262. DJT - October 28, 2008

If you compare the cover of the new shot versus the old Kirk and Spock shot, the angle of the old shot says “heroic”, and the angle of the new one, while only slightly different, says something akin to ‘Spock whispers sweet nothings in Kirk’s ear.’

I agree with others that the new shots are improvements over the first ones. But there are certain subtleties that should be paid more attention in the coming months.

Heroic versus…well…not so heroic.

263. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Can we please stop comparing the new movie to Galaxy Quest. At least this film has a budget.

264. Tim Lade - October 28, 2008

I am so pumped that you can see the top of the saucer. That has been my number one beef about Trek for years. You should have been able to see the nacelles of the Enterprise D from the oberservation lounge and you should have been able to see the entire sauce from the observation lounge and the ready room of Voyager. Further more…you should have been able to see large portions of the massive superstructure of DS9 from Sisko’s office and the promenade! I am sooooo excited to see them showing some awesome perspective for once.

265. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Maybe the bridge goes dark when the ship goes into battle. In TMP Kirk could get a tactical display on the viewscreen during time of battle.

266. The Last Maquis - October 28, 2008

Finally a decent Zoe pic. is it me or does Quinto look less and less like Spock than a just some generic Vulcan guy in these new shots. As opposed to before in what few images we had of him as spock.

267. The Last Maquis - October 28, 2008

??

268. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Zoe looks like a dude.

269. nephron - October 28, 2008

Who says it’s a window?

Why couldn’t it be a really good viewscreen…a “virtual window”, if you will.

Surely in 300 years it’d be possible to make a viewscreen that generates an image as if it’s a window, and of such high resolution to completely fool the eye.

270. Sean4000 - October 28, 2008

This brings back memories of the leak about the enterprise and a convoy of transports hips from way back when.

Did we ever get anything more on that? Fake?

I’ll say it again, this is definitely NOT what I had expected but it IS VERY interesting.

271. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

Where are the blinkie things!!!

272. Stankford Tiberius McFibberich - October 28, 2008

Still nothing.

273. Greek me - October 28, 2008

#262

Recall, the Heroic archetype is a Greek concept. Just sayin.

274. RuFFeD_UP - October 28, 2008

Is it true they’re calling it the iBridge lmfao?

275. Boborci - October 28, 2008

Yes. In Melrose Space, the command center is the IBridge 3G. You’ll also love the Starbuck’s Station.

276. Sean - October 28, 2008

Sorry but the more I see photos from this mess I keep seeing “90210″. This movie looks completely ridiculous. The costumes looks stupid. The bridge looks like Apple Computers did it for them. The time travel story line has been over used. What a mess!

277. SPOCKBOY - October 28, 2008

Here is Pine with the Kirk gold on,,,

http://kelvington.com/spockboy/pinegold.jpg

:)

278. MrAtoz - October 28, 2008

What is up with these horrible pics of Quinto looking like a Mego action figure ? Is the makeup that f’ing bad ?

279. Dr. Image - October 28, 2008

Yeah, it’s the iBridge.
And the least dated Trek is TMP. Period.
Think about it.

I really want to know what the deal is with Pine in black.
It better be good, ’cause it’s damn distracting.

280. Trevorj - October 28, 2008

boborci: I, for one, like the bridge.

Do not take the nay-sayers to heart, Mr. Orci, for they are simply a vocal minority. You shall succeed!

281. SPB - October 28, 2008

AH, YES…

Because the die-hards hate the bridge…

Because they hate the uniforms…

Because they hate the make-up…

Because they hate Pine’s eyebrows…

Because they hate the viewscreen…

…then OBVIOUSLY this means the new TREK movie will be terrible. Sorry, folks, these are all incredibly SUPERFICIAL details, to which you attach much-too-much importance. I’ll wait and see how the acting, writing and direction is before I pass judgment on the film. They can change the color of the uniforms and paint the bridge hot pink… I wouldn’t care as long as the characters and story are engaging and well-told. Lay off the anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive disorders. Oh, wait. We ARE talking about Trekkies, here…

282. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

The fans that hate everything are just people that can’t accept the fact that TOS is over and has been over for about 42 years. Ignore them.

283. Balok - October 28, 2008

Testing…

284. Balok - October 28, 2008

The bridge window is serious canon!!!

The original E model has one!

Check out 3rd pic from top:

http://members.aol.com/IDICPage2/behindthescenes.html

285. Invader - October 28, 2008

I think I like what I think they are gonna do with the viewscreen…cool idea!

Still…bridge is too bright!

286. TL - October 28, 2008

JJ, “How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?” Why did Paramount let this idiot make this film? What a stupid thing to say! How many time has Star Wars been made fun of, remember Spaceballs? You can still make a serious movie if you have the balls to do it right. You can still be true to canon and original set designs if you have a creative mind. The bridge still looks like crap, Kirk and Spock look like a bunch of metrosexual men!

287. C.S. Lewis - October 28, 2008

^285

hehehe. The first photo, the one at the top of the page with the tech sitting to the right of the Big E, is from my film clip :-)

It’s available in restored version at trekhistory.

288. montreal paul - October 28, 2008

287. TL

So what will you be doing opening day while the rest of us at at the movie? Just remember… if you don’t go to see the movie, you can’t bitch about it. Hey, here is a novel idea… go see the movie in May and then make a informed review about it. If you are that unhappy with what you see… then stick to your VHS tapes of TOS and enjoy! I, for one, am excited to see a creative person like JJ take the helm of this movie and bring it up to date.

289. DGill - October 28, 2008

Hmm. My impressions of the film are constantly changing, but right now my thoughts are, “This looks like ‘Star Trek’ for the MTV generation”. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people come to that conclusion a few months from now. I just want to see a trailer before I stick to that viewpoint.

290. C.S. Lewis - October 28, 2008

http://members.aol.com/IDICPage2/behindthescenes.html

Here are close-ups of the bridge portal. On other pages are newly posted transcripts of interviews with Jeffry Hunter. In one, it comments that the cost of the Star Trek pilots (WNMHGB was $500,000) were unusually expensive for the time.

291. Xai - October 28, 2008

193. Mr. Bob Dobalina – October 28, 2008
” But don’t ever try to put TNG and TOS in the same basket, they are as different as night and day”

That an opinion, or an order?

292. Dark_Lord_Prime - October 28, 2008

For those who like the viewscreen pic, but hate the Empire logo, may I present my new desktop wallpaper:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/Dark_Lord_Prime/Spockonthebridge.jpg

It’s blown up to 1024×768, and I ‘shopped out the logo. I had to fudge it a little by cloning and flipping the right side of the screen, but you can’t really tell since I faded it out.

Enjoy! :-)

293. Balok - October 28, 2008

Yes, the IDIC and trek hisotry pages have some really great material…

http://www.startrekhistory.com/restoration/bluescreen.html

The ‘Space Seed” shots of the really show off the classic E…

294. RetroWarbird - October 28, 2008

When’s the scene where McCoy hooks up with Emony Dax at a gymnastics competition happening?

295. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

I need a Leonard Nimoy pic!

296. Darfyn - October 28, 2008

IS TOS OVER ??!!!!! I know Chris , Zachary , Keith , Zoe , Simon , John and Anton are SECRETLY , the sons and daughters of Bill , Leonard , Deforest , Nichelle , Jimmy , George and Walter !!!!!!!

297. ARGTREK - October 28, 2008

The viewscreen looks awesome!!! A quick thought for the ” dated” look of the design. what would the audience of TOS have thinked of a space ship concept of 1921? they certainly would laughed at it. well, same applies today, folks.

298. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

I bet there’s a cool ass scene where Nero gets mad and cracks the window and everyone gets sucked out.

299. JWM - October 28, 2008

Look, I am a big Star Trek fan. I am not a fanatic.

I can assure you, this is the direction they needed to go visually to get my interest, and I suspect a lot of other peoples’. Star Trek has gotten a bit tired and worn down, and there needs to be a little bit of “reimagining” to keep it interesting.

The trend in the movies, ESPECIALLY from ST VI forward, was almost to under-light the sets and make them look dim…um, just because they had better lighitng sets than the show. It worked for VI because of the whole submarine battle feel to it and the tensions that propel the plot, but the “darkness” of the ship sets in TNG films was not great.

I was personally afraid that all they were going to do was put some rivets and moving pictures on the old set. Look, I understand the desire to preserve the look of that which thrilled you when you were a kid/coming up through high school/the only theoretical physics major in the neighborhood. But it’s 2008 and you have to accept that if Roddenberry were alive, he’d have “reimagined” the look too.

Your evidence is…TMP forward. Roddenberry was all about “improving” his creation every chance he got. At least, that’s what it sure seems like to me.

The visuals look terrific, and I just hope that the film as a whole can live up to the hype. It’s desperately important for this film to appeal to more than just the hard core fans, otherwise Star Trek WILL go away for 20 years.

300. Devon - October 28, 2008

286 – “Kirk and Spock look like a bunch of metrosexual men!”

I’m getting tired of seeing comments like this. It’s getting borderline offensive now, not to mention idiotic to no end.

301. ARGTREK - October 28, 2008

BTW, in terms of budget ,one of the reasons why the exec rejected the series first pilot was the enormous production costs ,way huge for the time . then , WNMHGF was more action packed with a still high but more reasonable cost, and we all know the rest.

302. ScreenRant.com - October 28, 2008

Damn Quinto looks like a freaking mannequin in the big version of his closeup. Is that 5 pounds of makeup, photoshop out the wazoo or both???

Vic

303. Enterprise - October 28, 2008

I can’t wait for the sequel – Snakes on the Enterprise.

304. Kelvington - October 28, 2008

I will say I like the view screen. The HUD is very cool, still not a fan of the Concierge station though.

My thoughts on Spock’s makeup is this… On the new bridge shot it looks OK, missing the blue eye shadow though. On the magazine covers I suspect these were shot, after the filming was over, and they couldn’t ask him to shave his eyebrows again since he probably already filming “Heroes” so they digitally fixed them, and they look bad. Just a thought.

305. S. John Ross - October 28, 2008

What #10 said, verbatim.

But still holding out hopes. Karl Urban: TMP may yet rock!

306. paustin - October 28, 2008

awesome stuff….this is exactly the shot I said EW should have done for their cover last week….wooo hooo

307. Izbot - October 28, 2008

270. Sean4000 –
“This brings back memories of the leak about the enterprise and a convoy of transports hips from way back when.
Did we ever get anything more on that? Fake?”

That was very quickly shot down as fake perpetrated by yet another wanker amusing no one but himself on AICN.

308. ZenMartian - October 28, 2008

Hey, the viewscreen looks wonderful/Cool… The graphics overlay on the viewscreen actually makes good sense. For those of you concerned about the reflections… I’d guess that when the ship goes yellow or red alert, perhaps the whole bridge goes dim/dark, therefor, reflection problems solved. Maybe the viewscreen is some futuristic polymer that allows for both a window view port/digital display depending on the circumstances. Canon folks…give it a rest. Go watch the repeats if you expect things to stay the same. I want my Star Trek to be a vision of possible things to come. That’s what the original Star Trek did for me way back in the day….and I would expect this forward look flash-backwards to do the same.

309. Jabob Slatter - October 28, 2008

There is no canon in Star Trek.

310. CyberViking2000 - October 28, 2008

I didn’t even notice until now, that Kirk’s Starfleet badge has no insignia, unlike Spock and the others. Possible spoiler?

311. Jim Nightshade - October 28, 2008

Hmmm……..Well……..Cant you ALL SEE that the SUPPOSED Spock VIEWSCREEN BRIDGE shows Spock obviously standing in the hanger bay….There is a force shield behind him and when the tractor beam pulls ships in there they can remove it….and the stormtroopers all come up on an elevator and….the force is with us all! Again! HAHAHA! On the plus side this one shot looks better than just about anything in any of the three star wars prequels! haha! I bet George Lucas will hire JJ for his next Star Wars adventure now! heheh…

312. Brett Campbell - October 28, 2008

93 – “Star Trek” (and let’s forget calling it TOS for a moment and remember what was for twenty years simply and solely “Star Trek” — before there was any spin-offs or other colon-subtitle “Trek” phenomena, and the seed from which the franchise grew) had a fraction of the budget for effects than 2001 did.

And I was a child back then seeing “Trek” and other sci-fi shows like “Lost in Space,” “Time Tunnel,” “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea,” “Land of the Giants” ad-cathode-tube-induced-nauseum during their original network runs.

Trust me, for the medium, budget and era, “Trek” was superior in effects, story-telling, conception and production to all of these. It’s not great effects that impress me so much as memorable characterization and story. Better effects scarcely improve a film when these other factors are weak — at least not for me.

Forty years after later I believe far more people continue to watch the original “Planet of the Apes” than its glossier, more “modern” (perhaps “post-modern” if we’re not already at “post-post-modern”) remake. Seven years after Tim Burton’s “re-imagination” there are not many who will let themselves suffer a second viewing.

There are certain films that are truly classic from that era. But they have earned that status based on merits beyond effects. And I agree “2001″ is one of them — but you need to take into account medium and budget considerations as well as the available technologies of the era in comparing the quality of its effects with other films and TV shows of the time. And there is going to be a 2009 film version of “Star Trek” because a little-show-that-could by the same name forever changed the face of visual-media science fiction in 1966.

313. Jim Nightshade - October 28, 2008

Dear Star Trek Fans….I think we are ALL NUTS!!!! Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent making a movie about our FAVORITE heroes and worlds/universes! The maker of this movie, while not a Trek fan per se, does recognize the many grand and heroic mythic epics in our trek universe and wants to translate/broaden the appeal to make an exciting movie that Is entertaining and exciting for all movie goers, and at the same is about our TREK AND OUR UNIVERSE….It is optimistic full of humor and character development, a good story full of action and fun and awe inspiring movie making…..

And yet….MANY of us hate it before we have even seen it. Based on how a freaking table on the bridge looks, or that the eye color isnt correct on one of our heros… JJ, Orci and crew can’t win for losing. No matter what they would do many of the purists would not like it for whatever reasons….
“Kirks combination on the safe in his quarters isn’t the same”!!!

If I was the great ORCI reading these comments I would be somewhat dismayed, probably depressed and also probably pretty amused too. Cant win for losing…whatever they do lots of you probably wont like it. So they did it the way they thought they should do it to make it more popular for all movie goers not just trek fans. I agree with the few comments sprinkled throughout that say they like everything they have seen so far…it is star trek….bigger grander cooler, faster, More epic and yes more real looking, for todays for sophisticated audiences….If the story and acting and Character development are also first rate then every TREK fan has something to look forward to….A GOOD TREK MOVIE..maybe even the BEST TREK MOVIE ever….If it needs to look a little more Star Wars like then so be it. Since Star Wars could not have occured without Trek maybe its time for Star Wars to return the favor a little bit,,,,, Every single little thing they have done so far looks like it was all done with great thought to both US FANS and regular Movie making sensibilities….I agree with others who say this will probably be the best star trek movie ever made! I hope it does appeal to the public like they hope it will. That will open the doors for more and different treks in tv movies whatever…If it dies due to lack of support from fans and the public then There probably will be no more trek for a very long while….Me, Im gonna be there to see the movie and hang on for what looks to be a helluva ride!!!!! STAR TREK LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

314. Thomas - October 28, 2008

312. Brett Campbell
Nicely put. In fact, I had the opportunity to watch 2001 again the other day, and it’s still a great movie. In fact, I would personally consider it the best sci-fi movie ever, even over the best of Trek.

315. Gary Seven of Nine - October 28, 2008

288 and 299.

Thanks! You saved me some typing.

I’m trying to imagine the furor that would have bubbled-up if the web was around when TMP was released: “Oh no, the ship looks different…the uniforms are different…the viewscreen doesn’t have the moving light thingy under it!”

BFD.

Different people have done Shakespeare, James Bond, Batman and Trek, and different people will hopefully keep these legacies, and more, alive. So, to all the haters out there: stop looking at the web and lock yourselves in your home with Betamax copies of TOS. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion but sometimes the threadcrapping here makes it hard to enjoy the anticipation of a new Trek film.

And don’t try to tell me that space hippies, planets whose inhabitants are all Nazis or 1920′s gangsters and a Trek Halloween episode (Catspaw) aren’t “Silly”.

“Admiral, wouldn’t it be easier to just put an experienced crew back on the ship?”
“Galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young, Doctor.”
“Now, what is that supposed to mean?”
- McCoy, Kirk and Uhura, STII

“Is it possible… that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness? Would that constitute a joke?”
-Spock, STVI

316. Jim Nightshade - October 28, 2008

And Brett Campbell #312 I agree with you….I also grew up in the 60s…..Twilight Zone was delightful….as was Outer Limits….Yah i watched Lost in Space, had Lost in space toys…Land of the giants, voyage to the bottom of the sea, time tunnel….etc….. and you are correct sir….Star Trek did not look like any of them….and the stories….well I think even the absolute worst episodes of TREK had better stories and acting than any of those other shows….mainly because the stories had better character development….and as so many have said, showed a positive hopeful future where we explored and sought out the unknown…..

Again….if JJ and all get the core reasons for why Trek is Trek…then the rest DOES NOT MATTER…it will still be Trek….IT STILL IS TREK! This is why I have enjoyed all the movies, all the series…None are perfect but they are all Trek….It sounds like JJS movie is going to be as much or more like Trek than some of the previous movies or tv shows have been…think about it…hmmmmm

317. databrain - October 28, 2008

‘star trek is what is is: A CONSUMER product intended to sell product via advertising to the largest possible television-audience.’

Wrong.

Star trek was never written for the ‘largest possible television-audience’. If this were the case Roddenberry would have written another straight forward western. Star trek was and always has been written for a niche market. For people who see past the limits of todays society and the phony ‘realism’ portrayed in pathetic wastes of films like ‘live free, die hard’. Die hard Trekkies have ALWAYS been the key supporters of this franchise. Period. When the franchise began to go down hill Is when the people churning out trek product began to treat it like that. Just another property . They pissed all over it and this is the result. Bitter fan base. This film will fail too for this very reason.

318. Darth Doorchime - October 28, 2008

Huh! That cover reminded me of this: http://raphael.longbournprods.com/images/spock_kirk_1024.jpg

Cool picture!

319. Gary Seven of Nine - October 28, 2008

#317

*Anything* that airs on a major television network, especially prior to the proliferation of cable TV was put there for one thing: RATINGS for it’s given daypart. Ratings are used to sell advertising time and ad revenue funds the growth and profitability of the network, which happens to be a business. If the network makes money, then the show producers will most likely get an order for another season of a show, which makes also makes them money. If Trek were just another run of the mill western, then NBC would have shot Roddenberry’s pitch down because the market was saturated (but he did call Trek “Wagon Train to the Stars” because TV execs could relate to the money-making potential of a straight western). At the time, there was no such thing as a niche market when it came to ratings; only numbers of viewers. We can all thank Star Trek for forcing the networks to break ratings into demographics, because only after Trek was cancelled, did NBC realize that Trek drew a specific kind of viewer: male, usually on the younger end of the typical American consumer.

If NBC didn’t think that they could make money off of Trek, then it never would have aired on their network. Outside of community access cable, there is only one other television network that I know of that is non-profit and that is PBS.

320. Aggi - October 29, 2008

#234 5.8.09
This ist not the ENTERPRISE!!! If you take a look at the registry number you will clearly see TWO 0s (Zero). So if the first number you can see is a 7 and the next two are a 0 you will have the number 700! And this is not the ENTERPRISE. In this case the bridge we saw in the last days is not the ENTERPRISE bridge.

Now we have to wait for the trailer – better – the film!

321. Aggi - October 29, 2008

Hm, I think I have to correct my comment #320. The 0s are the Cs from “NCC”! Maybe it is the ENTERPRISE bridge and maybe not. The only letters to see is a Part of a “N” and two “C” and a hyphen. At the First look I thought that the Light reflections on the hull will blend a part of the 0 out. But with a closer look I can see the two “C”.

Now we have to wait for the trailer – better – for the film.

322. Jon Reeves - October 29, 2008

To confirm, that IS Greg Ellis in the 2nd picture, as Chief Engineer Olsen.

323. FranBro - October 29, 2008

I always thought of the “window” in TOS as simply a viewscreen. It would go on and off, change angles and have video and graphics appear.
They would even say, “”screen on”, “viewer ahead”, “reverse ang;e on the viewer” etc… How is that consistent with a “window”…? I never heard them say, “hey, look out the window.” It’s that damned nemesis film that brought the whole “screen is also a window” crap into play. I mean seriously, on a ship with some serious hull action going on, they would put a glass window on the most sensitive part of the ship..?!?!?

ummm, no.

324. Mark from Germany - October 29, 2008

If you look close enough, you will see, that the stars we see on the viewscreen are a projektion. We are not looking out of a window in that pic. Look at the edge of the viewscreen.. the whole picture, complete with the stars, seems to reach over the edge of the inner frame of the viewscreen.
The stars and part of the ships’s hull we see on the viewscreen may be just a projection. Maybe the crew is watching something that Spock wants to show them. Maybe something that has happened outside the Enterprise a while ago and that was filmed by Enterprises Exterior cams. Or maybe the ships hull we see is not that of the Enterprise..

Anyway…it will be fun to find out the answer in may…

325. fakesteve - October 29, 2008

Aggi, I think it is the bridge… first you see in the bottom right corner of The Spock image a HeadsUp Display that reads “NCC 17″ and then in the second line something like “Command”, and then, as you assumed, we look down at the NCC part of the ships signature. I guess the window is even visible in the teaser trailer, I marked it red in this picture here…

http://thorstenwulff.com/bridge.jpg

326. Buckaroohawk - October 29, 2008

databrain (#317),

While I appreciate your viewpoint, I must disagree with it. Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek so he could do two things; One: Explore then-current social issues through a sci-fi lens. Two: Make money from it. The order of these priorities was known only to the man himself, but make no mistake, he wanted to make money from Star Trek. So did Desilu (later Paramount). So did NBC. So did the companies that advertised on the show.

When Trek was resurrected in the late 1970s, it was mainly because Star Wars was raking in huge amounts of cash. Every film studio was looking for a similar property, and Paramount had Star Trek. It was brought back because the studio heads believed that there was money to be made.

Every movie sequel, and every spin-off TV show, was developed because the franchise was financially viable. When its viability became diluted, development ceased. In every case, however, the goal of the filmmakers was to reach the widest possible audience, not simply to cater to the core fanbase.

Don’t confuse your personal feelings about what Trek is with the intentions of those who made (and are making) these films. They want to tell a good story and they want you to be entertained because if you like what you see, you’ll buy the licensed products based on the film, you’ll see the movie multiple times, you’ll buy the DVD, and you’ll buy tickets to the sequel.

Make no mistake, Star Trek is a corporate franchise. It exists to generate cashflow, and it MUST cater to as large an audience as possible to remain viable. It has always been that way, and it always will be. We fans take much more than that from Trek because we’re emotionally involved in those characters and that depiction of the future, and that’s fine with the studio because it adds up to a few more dollars in their coffers, but they want the dollars from as many people as they can get planted in theater seats.

Now, before people start hissing that I’m being a buzzkill, let me say this. Star Trek has given us some wonderful concepts, and it has inspired millions of people over the years. Many doctors, engineers, scientists, military personell and government officials (not to mention writers and filmmakers) have stated that Trek had a tremendous influence on them. That is an amazing triumph and something that everyone who has ever been involved with Trek should be proud of. None of that would have been possible, though, if Roddenberry and others didn’t think that Star Trek was a financially viable product. For better or worse, it all comes down to the money. That fact doesn’t change what Star Trek is for each of us, but it is the reason WHY Trek exists.

327. captain_neill - October 29, 2008

No matter what I say I will go and see the film as I want to support this film.

Re reviewing the pics I have to ask if JJ Abrams actually watched Star Trek? The viewscreen was never a window, it was a screen only, sensors were used to display an image of the course ahead.

Why all of a sudden is it a window? It is another elelmetn further proving that I really dispise this bridge. Faithful to the original, hah! More unfiathful to the original.

I was never expecting a carbon copy but a more updated feel to that classic bridge, darken the colours and replace the coloured controls with touch screen versions.

I just hope the film has the Star Trek feel in the characters and sotiry, because visually it aint there.

And when he belittles Star Trek I feel he does not repsect Star Trek and is defintely remoulding it into his image.

Not happy with the bridge at all.

328. Commodore Redshirt - October 29, 2008

312. Brett Campbell
and
313 Jim Nightshade
and
315. Gary Seven of Nine

wow.
What a fine read.
What a pleasure to read posts about the “Trek Idea”.
…and not the “canon wars” or “fear of change” that many feel the need to post. tHANKS!

And thanks to all the thoughtful posters here who contemplate, debate, and express their thoughts about JJ’s Trek… ESPECIALLY those who avoid the cry or rant or b!+<# postings that we all ‘love” so much…

Only 190 days to go!

STAR TREK LIVES!

329. captain_neill - October 29, 2008

Star Trek was a ground breaking show in its day. there was nothoing like it

How dare JJ Abrams insult it

330. fakesteve - October 29, 2008

[327] captain_neill, for me it looks like a fusion between TOS and Kubrick. The realism of windows on the bridge reminds me of the look of 2001, the space station and the moon shuttle. I guess that is what JJ and company are striving for, Roddenberrys vision with Stanleys realistic depiction of space travel…

331. captain_neill - October 29, 2008

I will go and see the film

The actors look great but the visual aesthetics are just wrong. I embrace Star Trek and its ideals and I will go and see the movie in the hope that this film honours the philosophy of Star Trek.

I will prob like the film in the end, but I disagree with many of the things JJ has done.

I want Manny Coto to guide Star Trek, he was much better.

I wish Enterprise wasn’t cancelled

332. captain_neill - October 29, 2008

But isnn’t realism ruining films these days.

it is too much of a change, I am trying to place this film in cannon but it is very hard.

My only option is to treat this as universe B with no connection to the Star Trek that inspired us. We will always love the original

I just hope JJ understands Trek, I hope he does not turn it into a Star Wars film. Two different entities

333. Commodore Redshirt - October 29, 2008

326. Buckaroohawk

…also a great post!

This is a good day at the site…

334. Patra - October 29, 2008

If you see the enterprise image from the teaser trailer, you will see large opening structure under the bridge module.

I think there the large window is.

335. fakesteve - October 29, 2008

[334] you mean like this, Patra?

http://thorstenwulff.com/bridge.jpg

;))

336. fakesteve - October 29, 2008

Tonight will be the world premiere of A Quantum of Solace in London, and a lot of hardcore fans are unhappy. No pre-title sequence, no Moneypenny, no Q, no magic weaons or laser watches. Just Bond seeking revenge.
Totally different from what The Broccolis did for 45 years.

But it will save the franchise for new generations, and make lots of money.

While I watched Goldfinger on DVD saturday, I will go and see the new movie too. They can coexist, and they don’t try to compete.

337. Kirk's Toupeé - October 29, 2008

I’m a bit behind, just started watching first season of Heroes on DVD and knocked out by the whole thing! I reckon Quinto will be PERFECT as Spock, he has that same creepy weirdo-ness that Nimoy had in “Invasion Of the Bodysnatchers”…………

As for Chris Pike as Kirk, not seen him in anything else yet, so not sure (sorry to be not so with it..)

338. fakesteve - October 29, 2008

And here is the original bridge window from 1964…

http://thorstenwulff.com/Pikebridge.jpg

339. fakesteve - October 29, 2008

[275] The IBridge 3G has a window that reflects conspiciously like the new MacBook Pro… come on, Bob, admit that Jony Ive visited the set at least once…

340. fakesteve - October 29, 2008

New Captain, old ship… just for fun I faked Pines head on this classical Kirk shot…

http://thorstenwulff.com/NewKirk.jpg

341. BK613 - October 29, 2008

326
Yes there is a profit motive.

Fortunately, that does not preclude the possibility of Great Art. Shakespeare didn’t write in a vacuum; he wrote for the theater. He expected people to come and pay to see his plays. He expected to make money (and he did).

But the fact that he expected to and did make money off of his work did not prevent him from producing Great Art.

Nor does it preclude the makers of TOS from making great SF.

(On a side note, maybe a little perspective is in order when denigrating FX of a bygone era: I am sure the highly-elaborate and expensive productions at the Globe Theater in the 17th century would look “cheesy” to 21st century eyes.)

342. MrLerpa - October 29, 2008

I think that you all need to be reading between the lines here, there seems to be so many smart and articulate people posting here that it surprises me that you can’t actually see what JJ is doing.
He’s NOT talking to US life long Trek fans, he trying to convince the general public that a movie based on star trek has some credibility to a mass audience, an audience whose perception of TOS has been clouded by three decades of spoofs and parodies and comedy skits. How many impersonations of Kirk have you heard over the years? Dozens of them? and “all…..with….the….same…shatneresque inflection”. How many “beam me up Scotties” have you heard? How many double handed punches to the gut followed but a karate chop to the back of the neck, not to mention the bloody “Vulcan DEATH grip” (God I hate that miss-term).

JJ is trying to convert people to trek and see it as serious –which WE the hardcore fan base already do and understand.
To bring the general public onboard he has to give them new points of reference and tow quick and easily understood ones are star wars and (its NOT like) galaxy Quest.

Please try to read what JJ and other cast members say from that perspective.

The Fact that Bob Orci regularly visits this site (seven months after principle photograph ended) and is willing to interact with us shows that his interest in star trek and its fans goes way beyond just getting a pay check for some random script he turned in.

It even sounds to me reading the excerpt for the article that Chris Pine may well have been reading a few of these posts…the brave soul.
I say give JJ and his crew the chance they deserve, they didn’t have to interact with the readers of this site, yet they have, they don’t have to try and respect canon but they seem to be trying.

343. The NCC Factor - October 29, 2008

Epic! :D

oooh my I can imagine sitting in the cinema, looking at that huge bridge, seeing a nice long pan around it, hearing the surround sound music and sound effects “beep” :D haha, getting rather excited now ;)

hurray for the fact that Quantum of Solace is out on Oct 31st here in the UK :D that Star Trek trailer is the only reason I’m going to see it really.

344. mikey_pikey - October 29, 2008

@343 , is the new trailer attached to bond in the uk? havent heard anything official on it, i’d go see quantum too just for the trailer if it were the case, i have feeling it isn’t tho, more likely to be attached to max payne, which is realised on the 14th here.

345. star trackie - October 29, 2008

#282 “The fans that hate everything are just people that can’t accept the fact that TOS is over and has been over for about 42 years. Ignore them.”

Well, canceled perhaps, but hardly “over.” Unless you’ve been out of circulation awhile. Welcome back Rip VAn Winkle!

346. Garovorkin - October 29, 2008

It looks so good and we have wait till May to see it . Damn !

347. Gene Roddenberry's Ghost - October 29, 2008

Due to the multiple alternative timelines in this movie, we don’t really know if this bridge shot is in “our” timeline or the modified one that Spock goes back to fix.

The outrage expressed by some seems premature.

That is all.

Return to the whining.

348. Antni - October 29, 2008

Maybe that pic of Greg Ellis next to Kirk is the pic with that shuttle we saw also it may be a mission where Ellis is killed.

349. JL - October 29, 2008

#308

“I want my Star Trek to be a vision of possible things to come. That’s what the original Star Trek did for me way back in the day….”

Someone needed to say it. Very well put.

350. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#323 – “I always thought of the “window” in TOS as simply a viewscreen. It would go on and off, change angles and have video and graphics appear.”

Okay, to be clear, it always was a viewscreen. There was never any doubt of that.

The question is, is it still a viewscreen on *this* set, or an actual window with an HUD overlay? I don’t think the one image is really enough for us to be able to tell. After all, a really good viewscreen ought to be able to act like a window…until the characters need it to do something different. ;)

351. JL - October 29, 2008

ALSO

#313

“JJ, Orci and crew can’t win for losing.”

How true. It’s kinda depressing. These guys actually seem to be using T.L.C. with Trek in an effort to make it relevant again, and people are moaning and bitching. Opinions are great – don’t get me wrong – but man, some of these comments are really sub-surface nitpickings. WHO CARES IF KIRK’S EYE COLOR IS NOT BLUE??! IT WON’T HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHETHER THE MOVIE KICKS @SS OR NOT!!!

352. Dom - October 29, 2008

It’s kinda bizarre. For a film that’s pushing making everything functional and believable, the official screengrab-type stills look great, but the posed publicity photos are abysmal.

Quinto and Pine look like a couple of teenagers dressed up for a fancy dress party in those Empire and EW photoshoots.

What gives me hope is that they look good in the actual widescreen movie stills.

353. Chris Doohan - October 29, 2008

275

Bob, thanks for adding that starbuck’s station, although it wasn’t as good as the Coffee Bean in the crew lounge food court.

PS By the way, those Ferengi’s charge way too much for the synthetic latte

Cheers

354. Scott - October 29, 2008

if this new movie is an alternative timeline, then I’m all for these radical changes in technology. But if it’s not, it DOES need to connect to what is established in TOS, otherwise it makes the foundation of Trek meaningless. I think it’s ridiculous to complain about the color of Chris Pine’s eyes, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask to have some consistency in the basic canon.

355. ВЯЧЕСЛАВ - October 29, 2008

А почему Кирк в чёрном? А где жёлтая униформа? Ухура, Кирк, Спок отличны!

356. Kobayashi_Maru - October 29, 2008

Looks fantastic…and I think the whole timeline thing (354)* will be the fallback to explain away all of the inconsistensies in any canon. I think it was absolutely BRILLIANT to do it like that and not piss in the face of all these years of star trek.

Bringing Nimoy back was the ONLY way to go.

Brilliant.

357. karanadon - October 29, 2008

Hey Anthony, any ideas as to whether the Star Trek Trailer’s attached to QoS in the UK yet? Seems unlikely, as it comes out in a couple of days, but I was just wondering =)

358. montreal paul - October 29, 2008

Just wondering if any of you have considered that Nimoy endorses this movie. If he felt that JJ was going to ruin Trek or write a bad movie, he would have never agreed to appear in it.

359. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#354 – Ahh, but are we actually seeing a radical change in the technology itself, or simply in the way it’s being visually presented to us? After all, even in TOS, the technology was described as extremely advanced; there were just practical limitations in what they could show us. For example, I never for a moment believed (even as a kid in the 1970s!) that 23rd Century consoles were actually built using 1960s-style circuit boards. It was always obvious (to me) that that was a sort of visual shorthand to say to the viewer, “Lots of electronic gear here.”

I always thought that one thing that gave TOS a huge advantage over the other shows is the degree to which what was done was not explained in detailed technological terms. That gave us, as the audience, the ability to reinterpret what was going on “behind the walls” without having to change what we saw the characters actually doing. (as but oner small example, it’s easy to imagine the old “electronic clipboards” of TOS as large PDA-style devices with interactive displays, even though such things were unknown in the ’60s.) In some ways, this film may be simply another example of the same thing.

#356 – “Looks fantastic…and I think the whole timeline thing (354)* will be the fallback to explain away all of the inconsistensies in any canon. I think it was absolutely BRILLIANT to do it like that and not piss in the face of all these years of star trek.”

I dunno… If the end result is a timeline otherwise identical to the one we’ve known, but with a few relatively minor changes in “look”, I suppose what you say could hold. But if it’s any more significant an alteration than that, if the intent is to say that what we know went on to happen suddenly might not have happened, then I think an ongoing alternate timeline would itself *be* pissing in the face of all those years of Star Trek. That’s just my take, though, and others’ mileage may of course vary.

360. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#358 – Oh, absolutely. The fact that not only did Nimoy endorse and agree to be a part of the film, but also said early on that it does not trash overall continuity, has played a very important part in how I perceive this film.

361. Mike - October 29, 2008

I love how BRIGHT the Enterprise bridge is.

Also, Uhura is looking wicked hot.

362. C.S. Lewis - October 29, 2008

The original fans want a tangible validation that their upbringing, and thereby they themselves, are still relevant to a much changed world.

I often think of Shakespeare and The Globe when reading these discussions… I note that anyone participating in the performance of Shakespeare understands the period and limitations of the plays in order to get past modern prejudice and touch the deeper meaning. The truths presented in “Henry V” go way beyond five guys on the stage pretending to be the armies at Agincourt — and a “realistic” presentation of that battle would overwhelm and obscure that meaning.

So too the 1960s Star Trek. There is an ethic in the program, thanks to “Gene Coon Was a US Marine” and others, that represented the zenith of American civilization. The newer Trekish programs undertook a different, more of a global philosophy, that does not resonate with those that came of age when this country was something special.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to say such things in today’s atmosphere, more so even to formulate the thought. So visual designs and cues substitute for open endorsement/validation much as combat veterans revere the Stars and Stripes or I revere my late mother’s Book of Common Prayer.

Younger fans might consider this in their thinking about the old program and strive to understand the deeper meaning of that series, the meaning beyond minimalist sets, stage acting, and stories that are morality plays not entertainment as it is understood in the world of ADHD.

Anyway, just sayin. You guys might learn something in the process that might be very valuable. Think of it as “Mere Star Trek” (apologies to the Anglican priests that post here!)

363. star trackie - October 29, 2008

Obviously the timeline changes and things like Trek tek changed along with it. But established characters shouldn’t change eye color…not in this day and age of CGI and contact lenses. This has Nimoy as Spock…the Kirk Nimoy/Spock served with had green eyes. If you ask me to believe that Pine’s Kirk is the same Kirk that Nimoy’s Spock served with, just younger…shouldn’t he have green eyes as well?

IF you are really trying to connect the two timelines together using Spock as bridge, my answer is yes. I’d be interested to hear why JJ’s answer is no.

364. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#171—”By statements saying some Trek fans are silly for wanting to hold on to the minute details and that TOS was cliched and silly”

When did he ever say that Star Trek fans were silly? You are removing words from their proper context and twisting them into something else entirely. If your conclusions are based upon that, then they have no merit whatsoever.

“I am saying TOS was magnificent, dated, but magnificent and if it can be brought up to date without sacrificing what made it so popular would be great.”

About 20-25 episodes were as good–IMO–as anything ever produced for network television. Another 25-30 are a bit weak in some areas, yet I classify them as decent. The rest are just bad….some of them, so bad—they’re fantastic!

The only thing consistently ‘magnificent’ (other than its vision) about it is its wonderful characters, IMO. That sets it apart from the spinoff series and other sci-fi television shows.

In other words, ‘what makes it so popular’ is Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Those characters and a vision for the future in which mankind does not destory itself, but instead, unites to conquer the social ills of society which plaque us today and to explore the final frontier are things Mr. Abrams and his creative team have made clear as an objective for this film.

#214—”Remove the “cheese” factor, and make it work!”

I haven’t deduced that JJ Abrams wants to do anything more than that.

365. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#352—”For a film that’s pushing making everything functional and believable, the official screengrab-type stills look great, but the posed publicity photos are abysmal.”

Agreed, but that is the work of the magazines….not the filmmakers.

366. Admiral_Bumblebee - October 29, 2008

Hasn’t it been said somewhere that Kirk wears black because it is the standard uniform for cadets? What I ask myself is, why is Kirk a cadet whereas every one else wears regular uniforms and seem to be in the officer-rank? And suddenly cadet Kirk is in command of the Enterprise and gets promoted to captain before everyone else? Spock served 7 years under Pike and suddenly a cadet gets promoted to captain before him? Yes that is the base for a good friendship!

367. MrLerpa - October 29, 2008

I think I need propose something for all those out there who keep going on about alternate timelines and parallel dimensions.

How about this movie is just “Star Trek”, just like TMP was a simple continuation from the series but looked radically different (I think I prefer the design the TMP enterprise to the TOS one…although…), just like TWOK continued the series but with another quite radical (unexplained in canon??) change in the design from the previous movie (and I never really liked those red uniforms, sorry).

What if you just look at this movie as part of the same series it’s just chronologically out of step? It’s not a re-boot or a re-anything it’s just a star trek movie, if it looks different it’s because it’s been made forty years later and they’ve spent $150,000,000 on it and the actors are different.

Does that make any sense?

I’m just hoping that the new Enterprise adds to my dilemma of which design is my favourite!

368. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

The bottom line in all of this is that there are different levels of fandom represented in the creative team behind this project.

The director happens to be more representative of casual fandom. That’s it. It is no worse than that. The writers and producers range from semi-serious to hardcore fan.

Even someone who is as huge of a TOS fan as I am must recognize that there is alot of “cheese” in that 40+ year old television show. Some of it is outright “silly”, and beyond ridiculous. As good as the top-tier TOS episodes were, the show was far from perfect, and much of it is not palatable to younger audiences today (my kids, for example, who laugh at TOS, but like the original movies). The film must be attractive to them in order to work.

369. Mark - October 29, 2008

Boy, I always end up depressed with the condition of humankind when I read some of these post. This is all fiction, people. None of it is real. There is no USS Enterprise in the future. There was no bridge, and there isn’t someone named James T. Kirk with brown or green eyes. Shocking, but true. It is a work or fiction from a guy who did it with actors from the 60′s with a very limited budget. We are about to be treated with another interpretation of it with a greater budget and I’m really looking forward to it. I would probably do things differently, but hey, if it makes kids play with Kirk and Spock action figures again, I’m all for it.

And, #359, here’s a though: if it is an alternative timeline, the timeline we know from the original crew will still “exist” along with this new one– it didn’t disappear.

370. cpelc - October 29, 2008

RE: the eye color

here’s a way to explain it…

the medicine that bones said he would give kirk in TWOK, but kirk is allergic.

maybe he had blue eyes…took the medicine to correct his vision then…and suffered an allergic reaction with side effects that changed his eye color.

also..someone commented that spock doesn’t look real sharp in the screenshot at top. Well,the viewscreen/window also explains the set-designer comments from a few months back about making the bridge and then seeing a large blue-screen inserted into the set.

371. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#366- “Hasn’t it been said somewhere that Kirk wears black because it is the standard uniform for cadets?”

EW’s caption editor started falling back on the “space cadets” cliche line, but i don’t recall anything from one of the production team saying that was a cadet uniform. We’re simply told that there’s a plot reason for why Kirk was just wearing the black shirt.

Considering that we’ve also seen various characters–including Kirk!–in what we’ve been told *are* cadet uniforms (i.e., the red outfits from some of the earliest leaked pictures), I’m not putting a whole lot of stock in what EW was saying when it wasn’t quoting people directly.

#367 – “What if you just look at this movie as part of the same series it’s just chronologically out of step? It’s not a re-boot or a re-anything it’s just a star trek movie, if it looks different it’s because it’s been made forty years later and they’ve spent $150,000,000 on it and the actors are different.

Does that make any sense?”

Not only does that make perfect sense, it always struck me as the most reasonable way to handle the situation. And if this had just been a story set in the 2250s-’60s, without all the time travel stuff, that’d be an easy conclusion to reach. While I still hope that is the case, some of the things the producers and writers have said suggest that they, deliberately, made it more complicated than that, though it’s all still vague enough that we’ll need more info to be sure.

“I’m just hoping that the new Enterprise adds to my dilemma of which design is my favourite!”

You and me, both!

372. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

“Where No Man Has Gone Before”
“Balance Of Terror”
“Space Seed”
“Errand Of Mercy”
“Arena”
“City On The Edge Of Forever”
“Amok Time”
“Journey To Babel”
“Friday’s Child”
“The Trouble With Tribbles”
“The Doomsday Machine”
“The Ultimate Computer”
“The Changeling”
“The Menagerie, Part I”
“The Menagerie, Part II”
“The Enterprise Incident”
“The Tholian Web”
“Tommorow Is Yesterday”
“Mirror, Mirror”
“Day Of The Dove”

Those are my top twenty episodes of Star Trek (in no particular order). Those are the only episodes I would classify as ‘great’.

The rest, IMO, range from bad to decent. There is quite a bit of ‘silliness’ in there…

373. AJ - October 29, 2008

355: Vyacheslav:

Vrodye yest’ prichina pochemu Kirk budyet odyet v chernim v filme. Poka ne znayem pochemu. Nam pridyots’ya zhdat’.

A vdrug poyavits’ya piratskiy disk u vas ran’she premiera na zapadye, so’obshchi, pozhaluista ;-)

374. Jason Regan - October 29, 2008

#188. I have enormous admiration for the team behind Phase 2, and they’re doing a great job. That bridge, however, was designed 40 years ago for a far less discriminating and visually educated audience, watching on a delivery medium way inferior to what we’re used to now. If the team behind this movie used something even close to that, it would get laughed out of cinemas.

I remember watching Rollerball back in the early 90′s or so and thinking how poorly the visual style had dated. I saw it again a couple of years ago and thought it looked tremendous – the architectural style, and even some of the clothes were bang in vogue again. Unfortunately the old bridge is just way too clunky and Fisher-Price to benefit from the same resurgence.

What’s really depressing about this board is that all the arguments in favour of that kind of slavish adherence are falling into the exact sad fanboy category that has made Star Trek the butt of jokes in popular culture, and smacks of a petulant insecurity.

To Bob Orci if you read this – I think it’s all looking tremendous and can’t wait for the trailer.

375. Cervantes - October 29, 2008

I can’t speak for others, but on hearing that this Movie was going to reference ‘TOS’-era Trek in a timeframe set at some point BEFORE the ST:TMP, and was going to use the characters of a young Kirk, Spock, etc., I guess that I had a lot of preconceived notions about how closely this big-budget Movie would actually reference some the iconic source material, including the Bridge.

Turns out while some trivial things have remained needlessly close, other things like the overall Bridge design have been very much changed.
I guess I have the same view of all this as I did to the different-looking Star Wars prequels design-work – I preferred the designs of the original designers in many ways. You takes your choice I guess.

376. Hanabi - October 29, 2008

A recent survey asked movie-goers what their most anticipated movie of 2009 is ( http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5675&Itemid=99 ).

STAR TREK was nowhere in the list. :s Does this mean that not enough marketing is being done or? Hopefully awareness will be raised when the new trailer comes out soon.

377. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#376—That’s old news. The marketing campaign has just begun, and won’t be in full gear until November 14th.

378. AJ - October 29, 2008

372:

Closet: Can you do the bottom 20?

“The Alternative Factor”
“Catspaw”
“Spock’s Brain”
“Who Mourns for Adonais?”
“Plato’s Stepchildren”
“The Cloudminders”
“The Gamesters of Triskellion”
“The Omega Glory”
“Miri”
“And the Children Shall Lead”
“Let That be your Last Battlefield”
“That Which Survives”
“The Way to Eden”
“Turnabout Intruder”
“Mudd’s Women”
“By Any Other Name”
“Patterns of Force”
“The Lights of Zetar”
“Charlie X”
“Wolf in the Fold”

As you say, some are irrepressible classics.

“Steppin’ into Eden…Yay, Brother!”

379. Nostromo - October 29, 2008

These new pictures look really promising IMO. I don’t even think the Empire magazine promo shoot looks anywhere near as plasticky as the EW pictures, although the characters undeniably look better in the actual movie stills.

#370 – Yes I was thinking the same thing – the viewscreen-with-primary-hull accounts for the comments from the FX peopple a while back about ‘digital set extensions’ to the bridge – comments that as I recall had everyone up in arms about the film being a Star Wars CGI-fest with virtual sets.

#371- Yes, I still think “it always looked that way and you never noticed” is the most sensible approach to the redesigned elements of the new film. I guess it comes down to whether you regard the physical “look” of the series – sets, actors, costumes – as an inviolable part of canon, or as just window-dressing for the underlying canon of the stories and characters.

I’m still undecided on the new look bridge, but that window/view screen is the best looking part of it that we’ve seen so far.

380. JL - October 29, 2008

#372

You forgot

THE CORBOMITE MANEUVER

Dude, that is a GREAT one!

381. JL - October 29, 2008

(and it depicts Kirk at his Captain-y best, I might add)

382. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#378—-Absolutely… I have always said that some of them are ‘so’ bad—they’re fantastic!

Nice list.

#380—-Didn’t forget it… but that one, IMO, is below the threshold of ‘great’ (although not a “Trek fart” by any means). I have it in the top 30.

383. JL - October 29, 2008

Don’t be hatin’ on The Omega Glory – that has some awesome moments in it – - the fighting between Kirk and Captain Bad Complexion (forgot his name), the giant dude fighting Kirk in the prison cell, the fight at the end…

(lotsa fightin’)

384. Third Remata'Klan - October 29, 2008

#327

Who says it’s the viewscreen? Maybe it’s JUST a window….
After all, the stars on it are traveling horizontally.

385. JL - October 29, 2008

Different strokes as always…

I have always held Corbomite in my top 10, top 15 episodes.

I love the tension on the bridge, McCoy analyzing Kirk and his past, the whole “bluffing” thing, the not-ready-for-prime-time Lt. Bailey, the pure scary-ass concept of a craft so huge they have to back-off on the magnification like ten times to see the whole thing… the E being hauled off to certain doom… seeing the unknown (even if it was a dopey puppet and Opie’s kid brother)… on and on…

Wow, what an episode that is to me! Personifies all that is classic Trek.

386. Third Remata'Klan - October 29, 2008

#367 – MrLerpa

Well said!

The physical production design means very little to me…unless I hate the look of it.

I don’t expect a carbon copy of TOS, because that’s just silly. I want this movie to look like it takes place in the future, not the ’60s.

387. JL - October 29, 2008

#386

Yes.

It’s like ZenMartian said above in #308:

“I want my Star Trek to be a vision of possible things to come…”

EXACTLY my thoughts.

388. Lyle - October 29, 2008

#378

“By Any Other Name” was one of my favorite episodes from Season 2 – The drinking bout between Scotty and the Kelvan alone was one of the funniest scenes in all of TOS!

I found this on Ganyroom… Ganymere… mede… uhhh…

What is it?

It’s ummm… It’s green!

389. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#383—That’s ‘definitely’ among those that are so bad, they’re good.

It absolutely makes my bottom 10…

The thing about bad TOS episodes (or “Trek farts”) is that even a bad script is overcome by the classic characters. There are always still those “moments” in them.

And Shatner’s regurgitation of the Preamble is so corny that it was an instant classic.

390. JL - October 29, 2008

“Shatner’s regurgitation of the Preamble is so corny…”

Yes, this is true. It is extremely cheesy at the end, how he reads his lines.

But I’m not sure why this episode is so widely viewed as crappy. It has an interesting plot, the idea that a race of people would live to be so old and that Tracy bought into the theory that the atmosphere protected him from aging – and he was willing to sell everyone down the river, including Starfleet – to acheive his dream – the whole immortality concept I thought was fascinating.

As long as the plot isn’t dissected for tiny details, why is this eposode considered so bad? I don’t know, someone explain please…

391. JL - October 29, 2008

It even has tons of ACTION, so you can’t say it’s “boring,” right…..?

392. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#388—James Doohan at his best…even in a ‘stinker’. That one is in my bottom twenty, though.

393. Lyle - October 29, 2008

#389

The Omega Glory was really a pretty darn good episode up until the point where the Yangs bought in the US Flag (complete with 50 stars) and the E Plebnista… Before that point it was an episode about the Prime Directive’s breaking by (the very well cast and played) Captain Ron Tracey after the horrible deaths of the crew of the USS Exeter, and Kirk’s efforts to control the situation without making it worse.

But those last 10 minutes or so… Aieee… When Kirk is reading off the Preamble to Cloud William, there is a shot of the document itself and you can even see “United States of America”…

394. Databrain - October 29, 2008

‘The order of these priorities was known only to the man himself, but make no mistake, he wanted to make money from Star Trek.’

And he DID make money, Through the niche market. The demographics clearly showed that star trek appealed to idealistic individuals. Not your every day gropin-for-a-action-movie segement of the population. Of course, I am not of that time period, I was born in the mid-80s. but I have extensively studied the history of everything related to star trek since I first fell in love with its idealism when I was about 14.

I know for a fact that the primary supports of this franchise have been the die hard fans. I never once said roddenberry had no intention of making money from trek, but HE DID SO THROUGH A NICHE MARKET. Not what you people keep trying to pass over as the usual movie going public.

395. JL - October 29, 2008

#393

I see. Right, re: the prime directive. And the American flag thing.

But the wheels fell off the bus at the end – - the majority of the episode is way cool IMO!

Thanks for the insight : )

396. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#390—My only response to that is to point out that this was one of the scripts considered for the second pilot.

Imagine that. How would that have turned out?

I, for one, am glad they went with “WNMHGB”. How about you?

I can tolerate cheese as long as it is K/S/M cheese. But this is one of the cheesiest of the cheesy cheeseball cheesathons.

397. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#393—So we can blame GR’s (then recent) trip to Washington, D.C. for the oversaturation of cheese in that episode…

Yangs in ’08!

398. Databrain - October 29, 2008

‘Make no mistake, Star Trek is a corporate franchise. It exists to generate cashflow, and it MUST cater to as large an audience as possible to remain viable.’
No it mustn’t. This is NOT what made trek take off to begin with. It was the DIE HARD FANS that brought trek where it is today. Not your average action movie going audience.

When you dumb down the essence of trek it is NOT trek anymore, it is something that bears the logo, but it is not the idealistic trek that made the franchise what it became. Primarily a cesspool of alternative culture.

People who wanted a glimpse of what a more all encompassing future held in store. Explain to me in logical terms why they would even continue to create trek output when the demographics for american audiences show that most film goers prefer action films with lots of explosions and car chases?

I mean why even attempt it if this kind of pathetically stupid audience is what you are attempting to appeal to? Up through the next generation and even in many DS9 and voyager episodes, the basic humanistic, fundamental and cerebral premise of trek remained in tact and it evolved.

Then something called ‘enterprise’ happened. This attempt to cash in on the franchise and make it succumb to marketing ploys intended for mass audiences. What happened to this attempt to make trek more accessible? It failed by alienating the die hards. Then it was cancelled.

The film Nemesis failed because of the backlash from enterprise and the fact that it was competing with A lord of the rings film upon its release. Nothing could survive the lord of the rings when those films were coming out.

399. JL - October 29, 2008

#396

“I, for one, am glad they went with “WNMHGB”. How about you?”

Yes, there is no contest there. I seriously doubt TOS would have been picked up if Omega was the pilot episode. But on the other hand I think Omega, as a TOS episode, far outshines many of the other episodes during the 3-year run.

400. Xai - October 29, 2008

Almost 400 posts above me… sorry if these thoughts were already thunk (lol).

The Spock and Uhura shots on the bridge appear to be part of the same scene where we see all the crew (sans Spock). I think Spock is across the bridge, and the remaining crew are looking at him as he speaks.

#371 (and likely others) make a good point. For what we know, the cadet uniform is crimson, I think Kirk’s black uniform is an alternate to the gold standard and likely a command shirt designed for combat or “special ops” I think the writer’s/JJ used it for two reasons. One, Kirk was off-ship on a special mission that demanded a less eye-catching Uni and two, It sets Kirk off visually from the other gold command shirts and the lighter bridge.

401. RD - October 29, 2008

Uhura looks like a cocktail waitress at hip and trendy Hollywood club lounge.

This is not so much a criticism of the look not matching TOS, but rather Abram’s poor choices in his set design of which he has been fiercely defensive. It just has the worst feel, like 2001 a space odyssey collided with the Star Wars prequels. Bright-white sets merged with loud primary colors and campy short skirts.

Honestly, in this area canon should have been thrown out. The uniforms should have been more practical – closer to The Cage & Roddenberry’s original ideas. No campy uniform short skirts. Muted and complementary colors.

While I haven’t seen all the details, seriously the set & costumes are a big miss – not because they don’t precisely fit canon, but because they are poor choices for ANY MOVIE.

402. JL - October 29, 2008

“Nemesis failed because of the backlash from enterprise and the fact that it was competing with A lord of the rings film upon its release.”

It also failed because it was pure (as they say in the UK) shite.

403. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#398—”When you dumb down the essence of trek it is NOT trek anymore”

Who says this film is a ‘dumbed-down’ version of it?

Making it more asthetically appealing to a more youthful audience does not equate to dumbing it down.

Star Trek’s vision is this…

Mankind does not destroy itself. Instead, it unites to conquer the social ills which plaque us today and bands together to explore the final frontier. I have yet to see or hear a single thing which implies that vision has been compromised. If it adheres to that vision…it is still Star Trek.

Men like Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon lived through a period where Mankind was at its worst. The vision was born of that. I ‘do’ feel that vision was perverted (in part due to Roddenberry’s own revisionist view) into something more “utopian” and less character-driven (saturated in unnecessary technobabble) in TNG, but the TOS vision is still there for me and others who fell in love with it as children in the 60′s and 70′s.

JJ Abrams is more of a casual fan…yes. Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, and Burk are ‘bigger’ fans. They have given me no indication that the vision is lost on them.

404. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#398—”The film Nemesis failed because of the backlash from enterprise and the fact that it was competing with A lord of the rings film upon its release.”

“Nemesis” was a poor film. It is as simple as that. It is no better now than it was in theaters. The TNG-era never really translated to the big screen for me. The characters, IMO, were never feature film worthy. Even at its best (FC), the TNG film series was nothing more than mediocre in quality.

Only the Original Series characters ever had any ‘crossover’ value. And if you think this film ‘doesn’t’ need crossover appeal with that budget…you might need to see a doctor.

405. Xai - October 29, 2008

#398 Databrain

“Then something called ‘enterprise’ happened. This attempt to cash in on the franchise and make it succumb to marketing ploys intended for mass audiences. What happened to this attempt to make trek more accessible? It failed by alienating the die hards. Then it was cancelled. ”

_Enterprise failed because it started off with poor stories and it was on UPN, which was only available to about 60% of the US. By the time it got good.. (the final season), many weren’t tuning it in at all. Many “die-hards”. like me, enjoyed the final season as the stories became more the prequel to TOS as was intended.

“The film Nemesis failed because of the backlash from enterprise and the fact that it was competing with A lord of the rings film upon its release. Nothing could survive the lord of the rings when those films were coming out.”

-Nemesis failed because it was a poor story, poorly directed. “Rings just finished the job.

406. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#401—I disagree.

407. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#405—-”Enterprise failed because it started off with poor stories and it was on UPN, which was only available to about 60% of the US. By the time it got good.. (the final season), many weren’t tuning it in at all. Many “die-hards”. like me, enjoyed the final season as the stories became more the prequel to TOS as was intended.”

Amen to that.

I never got the opprotunity to even watch it until I got Directv, and never really sat down to watch it until I bought the dvd set (the rest of Berman Trek had already soured me). I actually find the last season (until the last episode ruined it with Riker, Troi, and a dreaded holodeck) to be the best of ‘any’ of the Star Trek spinoffs.
Like its 24th Century brethren, ENT never came close to matching the quality of the characters in TOS, but you’re right…it really felt as if it was leading up to TOS. I even catch myself flipping back and forth between ENT (on Sci-fi) and Monday Night Football, despite the fact that I have the entire dvd collection.

408. Jon - October 29, 2008

Nemesis failed because it was a piss poor piece of writing and a terrible film, no other reason than that.

409. JL - October 29, 2008

Closettrekker, you and I see eye to eye on a ton of Trek-related stuff, I have noticed that for a long time here on the boards… for whatever that’s worth.

Keep on Trekkin’ y’all

410. Ian B - October 29, 2008

#401-

For me, and I’ve said this before here, the thing that ruins the new girls’ uniforms is the short sleeves. Long sleeves add a touch of class that makes them look like a uniform, if one from a society with a sexier design aesthetic :) With the short sleeves, they immediately fall into party dress territory.

411. RD - October 29, 2008

The single widescreen window is clearly present on the first XI trailer where we see the Enterprise under construction. It is proportionally the correct size just under the dome top of the bridge section, right smack in the middle of the section, in approximately the same location that it was on The Cage pilot.

And it is canon from the original series:
http://flickr.com/photos/clementi/42598237/

412. cpelc - October 29, 2008

the black shirt is easily explained by reading Harry Knowles comments about seeing footage.

he said that everyone is being assigned to different ships and kirk not getting his name called.

we have semi-conclusive reports that old spock has a scene with young kirk….perhaps he tells him that he must be on the enterprise.

kirk convinces mccoy of this too…and he helps him get a ride on the transport shuttle(first week of pics)…but is wearing black because he wasn’t actually assigned a position and thus no colors for designation of operations.

perhaps the reason why everyone is going to be on the enterprise at once is because some type of big threat…which was not present in the old timeline has caused the fleet to be assembled and people assigned to different ships at a sooner time.

if what knowles said about uhura being upset about not being assigned to the enterprise…maybe nimoy-spock visits all of the crew and informs them each of their destiny.

it could be just as detrimental if Nero tried to alter things to where the entire enterprise crew never came together at the same time. because as we know they all saved the day at some point

413. Mark Lynch - October 29, 2008

I wouldn’t like to be the designated window cleaner on the Enterprise now…. ;-)

414. James - October 29, 2008

Maybe it really IS going to be like Chris Pine said – ‘Star Twars’, a cross between Star Trek and Star Wars! LOL!

@403 – Say it again! Sets, cast, crew, scripts and effects change – this we can deal with, but keep the VISION alive. And so far, so good.

415. Holger - October 29, 2008

All right, I’m coming in here pretty late and I didn’t read all of the 400+ posts. So please forgive me if I’m repeating something which was already said here.

JJ Abrams finds the classic TOS look “silly”, “ridiculous” and in need of being made “legitimate”!! I am absolutely appalled by this comment! Abrams still needs to prove he’s legitimate as Star Trek producer, but TOS doesn’t need to have its legitimacy verified by JJ Abrams.

416. Norman - October 29, 2008

c’mon people. if you think about it, the uniforms, cool gadgets, technobabble and everything else was just icing on the cake.

The real fun was tuning in and seeing the dynamic between JTK, Spock, Bones and the other peripheral characters. When that was in full gear, we overlooked the errors in ‘canon’ – yes they were there all along as others have adequately pointed out.

So, in the end – lighten up people. JJ’s real task is capturing the essence of the relationships, not casting actors with the same eye color, hair style, etc. of the original actors!

Let’s see if he did it. By all accounts from Nimoy, and others – he has!

(… and arguing about the view screen?!?!? Sheesh we really need May to get there…)

417. Mark - October 29, 2008

In this great debate, I guess someone has to surrender in an effort to unite all Trekdom! So, to quote Captain Picard– “We surrender!– Please leave us before we wet our pants!” (Okay, I made that last part up…)

I surrender for all of us excited about the new movie to those who don’t want to give it a chance. Why should some of us like it while others don’t? Why can’t we all be unhappy together like those upset about the new Kirk’s eye color and no 1960′s bridge design?

I call for a complete boycott of the new movie and all things related to Paramount. I know that means we boycott the old show, but hey, we gotta stand on principle here!

I then call on Paramount to surrender all the creative team for this new heresy and we take them and cut their nails to the quick! That will teach them for trying to move our franchise forward! We don’t want it going forward, we want it stuck in the 1960′s, by golly. We don’t want any new people liking our Trek– we want it to die with us!

Everyone who is with me, shout “I surrender!”

418. Jeffries Tuber - October 29, 2008

What do people have against primary colors as departmental coding?

419. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#416 – “The real fun was tuning in and seeing the dynamic between JTK, Spock, Bones and the other peripheral characters. When that was in full gear, we overlooked the errors in ‘canon’ – yes they were there all along as others have adequately pointed out.”

Really, they weren’t overlooked. They were just easy enough to reconcile. And in the rare cases where they weren’t, people just laughed good-naturedly at the producers and moved on.

Sometime in the last 10 years or so, people stopped laughing, and stopped playing. That’s been a shame.

420. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#409—Glad to hear it!

#410—”Long sleeves add a touch of class that makes them look like a uniform, if one from a society with a sexier design aesthetic :) With the short sleeves, they immediately fall into party dress territory.”

I spent many years in the US Marine Corps, and although skirts are now only optional for women, there are both long-sleeve versions (service and drass alpha) and short-sleeve versions (service and dress bravo). I never, ever, saw them as being in “party dress territory”. I am quite sure that none of the females I served with in my years did either.

The mini-skirt uniforms were both empowering and sexy in the 1960′s. Now they are just sexy, something that, IMO, has been either altogether missing, or improperly done in Star Trek since TOS.

I wouldn’t change a thing about the way Abrams and his production designers have approached the uniforms. I will reserve judgement on the bridge until I have seen it all (not just a piece of it)…as advised by Orci and Kurtzman (who said that once we have seen it in context, we will likely feel as though this is the movie bridge most faithful to TOS) and James Cawley (who was also impressed with the look). It is impossible, IMO, to judge the room without the floors.

421. Captain Robert April - October 29, 2008

“I think the reality is the powers that be know we will be there when the movie comes out regardless of whether or not the viewscreen is a window or not, so they can bank on atleast 50 mil, maybe 75 so how do they expand that audience by another 200 million ”

I’m sure they said the same thing before the premiere of Nemesis.

It wound up with an $18 million opening weekend and got beaten out by a J-Lo romantic comedy.

422. Cpt. Retri - October 29, 2008

@313

yeah but still, the bridge looks ridicolously cheesy, it’s way too bright and flashy (it’s a friggin quasimilitary spaceship for fk sake not some Tokyo Game Show stand), the female uniforms are just plain retarded (who would serve in such a dress, it’s beyond unpractical…come on they’re spacenauts after all) and Quinto doesn’t quite satisfy my taste as Spock; truth be told in each and every promo pic I’ve seen he resembles a 90′s Broadwayish-wannabe transvestite more than anything else which is…disturbing since he isn’t even wearing eyeshadow…yet.

You’d think that given the budget and JJ’ maniacal attention to promotion and viral marketing (Cloverfield docet) they could’ve at least come up with some decent mag. covers (I can’t stand Quinto’s wig and the photoshop work makes him look like a plastic figure, what the heck) since those are what most of the people outside of the trek fanbase (aka that “new” and more “causal” audience Orci and co’ have been wanting to reach since day 1) are going to see of this movie in the next few months aside from the trailer.

423. Cpt. Retri - October 29, 2008

yeah, he definately reminds me of that movie where Wesley Snipes and the dude from GHOST were acting as transvestite, what was the title again.

424. Jon - October 29, 2008

@ 415. By 2008 standards, it IS ridiculous.

425. AJ - October 29, 2008

I’ll happily disagree with Closettrekker, and say that ST:FC blew my knickers off.

It was a terrific Star Trek film on so many levels. Frakes ‘loosened’ everyone up, and got them into a classic lore-filled adventure with thrills and chills, and a nice compact ending.

If JJ’s film can be nearly as good, I’ll be content (ducks and hides).

426. JL - October 29, 2008

“…………so how do they expand that audience by another 200 million”

I have a question for you all.

Did anyone here think Transformers was going to do the business it did…. ?

A freaking niche movie based on a line of plastic toy robots….?

Did you?

Look at the business that movie did. A Transformers movie directed by none other than Michael “Pearl Harbor” Bay. A filmmaker who has been the butt of many Internet jokes for quite some time.

An entertaining, well-done, revitalized TREK film has the potential to do that kind of business and more. Mark my words. If it is done right and it entertains in a big way, the new TREK is going to make plenty of coin.

427. captain_neill - October 29, 2008

JJ Abrams is doing a lot of things to annoy me

I want Star Trek to move forward but I want the sets to be reflected of the past, not trash it. You can honour the past and pay loads more respect to the 60s.

I am trying to reserve judgement until I see the film, I want to see the film and then I will hopefully like the film.

However at the minute the pics have got me worried about how the kids of today will watch this and never appreciate the Star Trek we grew up with. This is so different

I hope to eat my words but right now it seems he is screwing up our beloved show.

428. captain_neill - October 29, 2008

I was unimpressed with Transformers

God the scary thought would be Michael Bay directing Star Trek.

429. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 29, 2008

427.

Thank God it is different!!!

430. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#421—-”I’m sure they said the same thing before the premiere of Nemesis.

It wound up with an $18 million opening weekend and got beaten out by a J-Lo romantic comedy.”

And it did ‘not’ feature Kirk, Spock, and McCoy…It was ‘not’ directed by JJ Abrams and produced by Bad Robot…It was in the TNG-era “geeks only” club…It did ‘not’ boast a budget in excess of $150 million and special effects, the likes of which have yet to be seen…

I have never paid a dime to see a TNG-era movie. The last time I bought a ticket to a Star Trek film in its first run (TWOK at the Alamo theater doesn’t count) was 1991.
I know alot of people who went to see “Generations” only out of curiosity due to the presence of some of the original cast.

The last thing this movie’s appeal should be compared to is the worst of the TNG-era film series (which, even at its best, was merely mediocre)…To people like me, as well as to people I know who are (like Abrams) casual Star Trek fans at the most, there is no comparison.

431. Shoney's Big Boy - October 29, 2008

“I surrender!”

432. barrydancer - October 29, 2008

#388 “By Any Other Name” was one of my favorite episodes from Season 2 – The drinking bout between Scotty and the Kelvan alone was one of the funniest scenes in all of TOS!

I found this on Ganyroom… Ganymere… mede… uhhh…

What is it?

It’s ummm… It’s green!”

And I love how they revisted that a bit in TNG “Relics” when Data can’t figure out what the Aldebran Whisky is and simply says “It is green.”

433. Kobayashi_Maru - October 29, 2008

I’m going to go ahead and make a promise that 90% of the people on this board, especially the people whining about the movie..

will love it.

434. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#427—”However at the minute the pics have got me worried about how the kids of today will watch this and never appreciate the Star Trek we grew up with.”

They already ‘don’t’ appreciate the Star Trek we grew up with. That was never going to happen.

My kids laugh at TOS, even the remastered episodes I tune into at home. The only thing which has them sharing even a little bit of the excitement I have for STXI is the fact that Abrams is behind it with a huge budget and there is a cast they can identify. The production design needs to look as cool to them as the TOS design looked to me in the 70′s (when I started watching it). If that’s what it takes for them to receive Star Trek’s vision, I think it’s great. If anything, maybe they will be more willing to tolerate what looks silly to them in order to watch more K/S/M stories if they like this movie.

Star Trek’s long term future is them…not us.

435. groovey one - October 29, 2008

I surrender to the cannonist, too

436. Dave in RI - October 29, 2008

#334-335
I think that large opening you are referring to is a floodlight like in TMP. The bridge is 2 decks up from there…unless they made the new bridge massive and takes up 3 decks!

437. Captain Scokirk - October 29, 2008

Re: The Omega Glory-

This is a mildly interesting episode, it all hinges on the multiple/parallel worlds theory which all subsequent Trek series simply ignored.

I think saying an episode is either great or crap diminishes Star Trek, in that even the worst episodes have great moments (the same can be said about the movies) that combine to a satisfying collection or say CANON of stories to enjoy, disect and delve into.

The Yangs and Cohms are a period appropriate “Twilight Zone” style gotcha!

It all depeds on whether you buy the multiple world thing seen in Miri, Bread and Circuses, Return of the Archons, Omega Glory,

its sort of like being graded in physics or math, you may make an arithmatic error but if you grasp the concept the teacher may not hold that slight error against you. So if you think parallel worlds is bunk you probably think those episodes built on that premise stink, but if you accept the premise than you might enjoy the dependent story.

I think they compounded the conflict by sometimes explaining the reasons for the parallel world (A Piece of the Action, Patterns of Force, Paradise Syndrome) and other times merely suggesting Human civilization was a universal evolutionary step(the before mentioned Miri, Return of the Archons, Bread and Circuses, and of course the Omega Glory)

But taken at face value The Omega Glory takes on such ambitious themes as, Patriotism, War, Interventionism, Corruption, Allegience to symbols vs. ideas, and is still wrapped in an entertaining action adventure story. So even at it’s supposed worst TOS was more ambitious than the hours and hours of alien of the week, technobabbled fluff some of the later shows passed off as Star Trek.

And that is why I think it is a disservice to limit Classic Trek’s greatness to a list of 20 episodes.

438. ZenMartian - October 29, 2008

#349 – JL:

Hey, bro…thanks for the headsUp on my comments! I’ve been around long enough to have actually watched the original series when it first came on tv. Personally, I can’t get enough of GOOD sci fi. Why can’t folks just give JJ and the crew some love for having taken the time and effort to make the dream possible…making another Star Trek movie!! And here they went and did the ingenious thing of starting from the beginning just so the fans can enjoy it from a different perspective and hopefully, many more film goers will dig it too. I have the utmost faith that this new Star Trek movie will do for me what I’ve been praying the longest for… it will WOW me! >:-)

439. Captain Scokirk - October 29, 2008

In writing my last post I sort of came to an explanation for the conflict between explained parallel worlds, and those that are mysterious “just like earth!” planets.

The episode “Paradise Syndrome” establishes a space faring race that seeds the galaxy with human settlements(unbeknownst to the settlers ala Stargate, etc.). Whether explained by dialogue or not this can be seen as the reason unknown to our crew why they discover so many planets “exactly like Earth but slightly different…” maybe it’s the Assignment: Earth people? Who knows.

440. Startrekin' Joe - October 29, 2008

I surrender to the purist! Reject to the innovators!

441. fizzbin - October 29, 2008

# 434 I agree with ya bro. Most of the kids today don’t appreciate anything we grew up with. My daughter laughs at most of the old shows I used to watch commenting “how 70′s or how 80′s”. I don’t think this generation is going to take anything on screen seriously unless there’s some major updating and plenty of eye candy. I can also say that my daughter is actually interested in going with me to see the new Star Trek movie simply by what she has seen so far and how much I’ve been filling her in on the interesting aspects of Trek. So heres to the new generation of Trek fans.

442. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#437—”…even the worst episodes have great moments…”

Great moments do not–IMO–equate to great episodes, just as bad episodes do not hinder the overall worth of the series.

“…the same can be said of the movies”

And yet I would not place STV: Shatner’s Great Trek Turd Of ’89 in the same category of worth as I do TMP:DE and TWOK. I can watch either of the latter two at least twice a month without tiring of them. If I’ve seen STV twice, it was too many times…and the presence of even one “great moment” in that film is debatable in itself.

“I think it is a disservice to limit Classic Trek’s greatness to a list of 20 episodes.”

I don’t think it limits the greatness of TOS at all. As we tried to point out above, even the “stinkers” in TOS are sometimes ‘so’ bad that they are classics (something I could never say with a straight face about TNG, for example). There is nothing wrong with ranking episodes subjectively. I don’t think any subsequent spinoff series is even in the class of TOS.

I may only find 20-25 episodes in 3 seasons of TOS to be “great”, but I can hardly find 25 episodes in 21 seasons of 24th Century spinoffs series that can even hold my attention.

I hardly think that qualifies as doing any disservice to TOS.

I simply do not enjoy watching “Spock’s Brain”, or “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” (despite its admirable social commentary), nearly as much as watching “City On The Edge Of Forever”, or “Space Seed”.

443. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#441—My boys like the original movie series, as we’ve watched them (along with other “guy” movies) every non-football Sunday together since they were all very little. But they cannot take the old classic episodes. They cannot see past the production designs. I have tried to explain that it was great in its time, but what I get in response is always “Maybe so, but it sucks now, Dad”. They think nothing of ripping apart “The Doomsday Machine” or “Arena”. Don’t get them started on something like the Horta.

It will be they and their peers who determine this upcoming film’s success.

It is not as though they are less intelligent than we are. It is just that watching TOS to them is like you and I watching a puppet show and being expected to take it seriously. They have their own expectations of what the 23rd Century might look like, and it isn’t the 1960′s visual interpretation of that vision we know as TOS. I’m betting that Abrams’ updated vision of it will be alot closer.

444. star trackie - October 29, 2008

#441 “I don’t think this generation is going to take anything on screen seriously unless there’s some major updating and plenty of eye candy. ”

And is there some reason I,as a STar Trek fan, should care if this generation takes Star Trek seriously? If they don’t get it, their loss. If it’s altered to appeal to their narrow vision and strays from what it was, then it becomes only a shadow of what I became a fan of. So why do I care if it fails? The kiddos don’t get a flashy new Spock? Too bad so sad.

I want it to succeed and will be there with bells on, but if ‘todays” kids never have a “trek” of their own, that appeals to “them”, I really couldn’t care less.

445. Mark - October 29, 2008

#441 & 443– voices of reason! Finally!

446. Trek Nerd Central - October 29, 2008

After scanning some — not all, I confess — of these posts, I’m wondering again whether a few of my fellow devoted fans out there might be happier without any new “Star Trek” at all.

Don’t you folks realize that minus this reboot (commence semantics freak-out now), we’d probably be looking at a future without a major Star Trek release? That *no one* would *ever* greenlight a slavish homage to the original show, complete with styrofoam rocks?

If you feel like watching the old show, go ahead and watch the old show. If you feel like watching an homage to the old show, watch New Voyages.

From everything I’ve seen so far, it looks as though yes, Abrams et al have made some updates, but they seem to be keeping the movie true to TOS characters and themes. And they seem to have preserved enough of the original’s iconic visual cues and design touches.

It could well be that when all is said and done, the movie disappoints me. But I plan on giving it a chance.

Additionally. . .

#266. Actually, I was just thinking that shot of him in front of the window looks very Spockian — Nimovian, even.

#388. One of my favorite moments ever.

#434 re: #427. My kids love the original show. I brainwashed them early. They respond to the same things I did when I was younger — the storytelling, the characters, the crushability of certain actors.

#438. ZenMartian, you speak for me and many, I suspect.

447. Dennis Bailey - October 29, 2008

#421:”I’m sure they said the same thing before the premiere of Nemesis.”

No, they didn’t.

448. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#444—”And is there some reason I,as a STar Trek fan, should care if this generation takes Star Trek seriously?”

Then, by that same reasoning, is there some reason that Paramount and Bad Robot should care if you—as an old Star Trek fan stuck in the past—if you like this movie or not, when the goal is (above all else) to get more people than ever before to appreciate a story set in the ST Universe and ensure a strong future for the franchise?

But seriously, in answer to your question, I think there is.

Why wouldn’t you want another generation to embrace the Star Trek vision? Why wouldn’t you want them to embrace the idea that Humanity does not have to destroy itself, but instead, can unite to conquer the social ills of today and go on to explore the final frontier?

What part of that vision is lost in changing to asthetics of that setting to accomodate a younger audience???

Are the color schemes of the bridge and William Shatner’s eye color really things more important to you than communicating the vision we have shared for decades to another generation…and in greater numbers than ever before?

“…if ‘todays” kids never have a “trek” of their own, that appeals to “them”, I really couldn’t care less.”

What a shame. I’m glad the fate of that vision isn’t in ‘your’ hands…

449. Buckaroohawk - October 29, 2008

Databrain (#398),

It seems we’re talking about two different things here. You’re thinking of Star Trek’s integrity and I’m talking about its financial viability. What you said about where it came from is correct, but where it came from and where it’s going (or, as some would say, where it MUST go) are very different things. The hardcore fans cannot support the franchise alone. There simply aren’t enough of us. For Trek to survive it must attempt to bring in and hold a much wider audience. And just to make my point crystal clear, that is something that it has ALWAYS TRIED TO DO, with varying levels of success over the years. The people who made the TV shows and movies were never out to just reach the core fans, they wanted as big an audience as they could grab. That’s what Star Trek was supposed to do from Day One.

Trek faltered as a franchise when it stopped being compelling to the general audience as well as the die-hard fans. The fanbase became fractured and there was just too much product out there to hook the average TV viewer or movie-goer. It seems to me that this film, if nothing else, is an attempt to distill Trek back down to its core; to prune away all the myriad branches and take it back to its roots. That’s why they’re using the characters from TOS, beacuse after all these years those characters are still the ones that most of the public (not just the fans) think of when someone says the words “Star Trek.”

I must also say that, in my opinion, you’re doing Trek a disservice when you equate its attempt to appeal to a wide audience with “dumbing it down.” At its most fundamental level, Star Trek is good science fiction, and that can have a very broad appeal. It doesn’t have to be “dumbed down” to reach a large audience. I’m not sure where your assumption that it will be comes from, since we know almost nothing about the complete story in this film. If you’re judging it just on the images we’ve seen or a few quotes from the actors and crew, then you must remember that the pictures don’t tell us much of anything, and the quotes are representational only of the people who said them and not necessarily indicative of the film they have produced.

Finally, I want to say that I understand why you feel the way you do. Star Trek is extremely important to me, too, and I don’t want to see something precious to me mis-handled. I’ve been a fan my entire life and I cannot understate the tremendous effect its had on me. I do realize though, that despite what it means to me personally, Star Trek is a property that its owners want to exploit. That isn’t at all a bad thing, especially when good movies and TV shows (and books, comics, etc.) come from it. This new film may be radically different than the Trek we’ve known in the past, but it can still be Star Trek (even better, good Star Trek) if we accept that Trek can, and indeed must, change to reach beyond its fan base. Just because the filmmakers are trying to reach a larger audience doesn’t mean they’re leaving us behind, or dumbing Trek down. Give the audience, the filmmakers, and especially Star Trek, the benefit of the doubt. Remember, Star Trek cannot abandon us. We can, however, abandon it if we don’t give it the chance it deserves to continue.

Is anybody even still reading the posts on this article?

450. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#438—Some of us have been here giving this creative team plenty of “love” for their efforts for quite a long time.

I, for one, am very grateful. I’ve been waiting a long time to see the iconic original characters recast and for Star Trek to once again return to its most romantic era.

#448—Should read: “What part of that vision is lost in changing the asthetics of that setting to accomodate a younger audience???”

Sorry.

451. Richard Handler - October 29, 2008

Looks like canon might be shot to hell in this movie…

452. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#434 – “My kids laugh at TOS, even the remastered episodes I tune into at home. The only thing which has them sharing even a little bit of the excitement I have for STXI is the fact that Abrams is behind it with a huge budget and there is a cast they can identify. The production design needs to look as cool to them as the TOS design looked to me in the 70’s (when I started watching it). If that’s what it takes for them to receive Star Trek’s vision, I think it’s great.”

This is really why I think there needs to be a separation between “storytelling canon”, which must be preserved, period, and “visual canon”, which needs to be somewhat more mutable, if only to make a more modern audience receptive to the storytelling. Sure, even my instinct would be to preserve as much as possible, visually, too, within the bounds of the different media and funding levels we’re talking about, but a perfectly-faithful recreation that people won’t even bother to look at isn’t going to do much good, is it?

Figure it this way… Folks like the “Phase II” team are still creating material using faithful, yet modernized, reproductions of the original sets. Those designs have not been lost. :)

453. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#451—”Looks like canon might be shot to hell in this movie”

Not if any potential changes in the story we know occur as a result of a timeline incursion, since the possibility of alternate timelines within the Star Trek Universe is in itself “canon”.

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”—Roberto Orci.

The backstory presented in episodes like “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, “Court-Martial”, and “Obsession” may no longer play out as a result of timeline alterations, but the very existence of such a threat is ‘canon’ itself. Isn’t it?

454. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#452—I have never held asthetic production designs as any kind of canon, personally.

‘Canon’, to me, is a succession of events held together in continuity of story presented in live action Trek only (with the exception of TAS, “Yesteryear”, which has been referenced enough in subsequent ‘canon’ to be awarded that honor itself, IMO).

However, part of that continuity of story, or “canon”, is the potential for an alternate timeline to supercede known historical events if one alters the past. Therefore, the only changes to the existing backstory which would not constitute a violation of ‘canon’ would be those which might occur as a result of timeline interference.

455. RAMA - October 29, 2008

I would just hope people go and judge this movie on its own terms. Think of it as a familiar, parallel version of TOS instead of TOS….but go see it!

456. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#453-454- Yup. That’s one reason why, when being precise about it, one should speak of continuity, rather than canon. :)

It’s also why I keep asking Bob whether the Trekverse that this movie ends in is intended to be the same one as that of the 5 other series and ten films. Visuals aside, it’s the answer to that question that will determine whether I wholeheartedly embrace this film or keep it very much at arm’s length.

457. star trackie - October 29, 2008

#448 “Why wouldn’t you want another generation to embrace the Star Trek vision? Why wouldn’t you want them to embrace the idea that Humanity does not have to destroy itself, but instead, can unite to conquer the social ills of today and go on to explore the final frontier? ”

Because that is the “pie in the sky” bunk that has been peddled for years as being the “secret of Star Trek”. You have a very grandiose vision of Trek’s appeal, but for so many, it boils down to the fact that the series was nothing more than a fun, action/adventure series with great imagination, fun characters and cool effects, the likes of which, had not been seen before. That was the real mass appeal, not the hope for Americans and Russians to work together for the betterment of humanity….that is all post Trek spin from Roddenberry and fans who have heard that line so much over 40 years that they believe it.

And future depicted was not just from Trek but from the space program, the jetsons, 2001 and toys like Matt Mason. The future was supposed to be cool, and in the middle of the space age, we liked to think that we WOULD be flying to work with our personal jet packs attached to our backs. But it didn’t happen. It’s not the space age anymore and kids today don’t have the same desire or imagination to wonder “what if?” Their too busy texting to enjoy the movie much less get lost in the message of a possitive future. The eye candy they crave is delivered with every other blockbuster and imagination, along with originality, is hard to find in a seemingly creatively bankrupt hollywood where yesterday’s TV series are today’s motion pictures.

The “possitive” outlook for the future is nice. Roddenberry touted it. Many fans embraced it. You, yourself, adhere to it. And it’s a noble outlook and God knows we can use more of it. But, for the mainstream, it’s never been the secret appeal of Star Trek. Nor have the “morality plays” that so many like to go on about, been the secret to Trek’s success. In reality, these are just sidebars to a kick-ass action/adventure series, with fun characters, set in the wild unknowns of space. Can it capture the imaginations of a new audience in an age as removed from the “space age” as you can get? I hope so, but not for the sake of today’s kids and their hopes for a bright shining utopia….that goal is a bit lofty. I just want Trek to be fun again.

458. RD - October 29, 2008

(418. Jeffries Tuber – October 29, 2008
What do people have against primary colors as departmental coding?)

I can only speak for myself, but it’s the way it’s done. There was a reason for the primary color scheme – color TV. Not that this is a bad way to differentiate departments, but the design even the late Bill Theis decried, declaring: “what was I thinking?”. Space 1999 did it very effectively and kept it in check against their bright white sets. Stargate Atlantis still does it very well. Heck even the military branches are color coded in that sense. Green for Army, blue for AirForce and navy/white for Navy. But a movie in this day and age needs to balance ideological concepts with visual composition. TOS primary colored uniforms worked because the set was basically a garish colored scheme in which the brightly colored uniforms fit. Today’s movie aesthetic makes them look ridiculous. Abrams is on record saying he finds the classic TOS look “silly”, “ridiculous” and in need of being made “legitimate”, well I would say if that’s the case, he DID NOT SUCEED. The original Cage was much closer to an acceptable cinematic look than what Abrams has done. Even the much maligned STMP drew on the original Cage look, but suffered from that horrible pastel pajama look. Both of those were color coded uniforms that fit the film composition.

(420. Closettrekker – October 29, 2008
I spent many years in the US Marine Corps, and although skirts are now only optional for women, there are both long-sleeve versions (service and drass alpha) and short-sleeve versions (service and dress bravo). I never, ever, saw them as being in “party dress territory”. I am quite sure that none of the females I served with in my years did either. The mini-skirt uniforms were both empowering and sexy in the 1960’s. Now they are just sexy, something that, IMO, has been either altogether missing, or improperly done in Star Trek since TOS.)

With all due respect, those short-sleeved military uniforms were still very much UNIFORMS. Lt. Uhura is wearing a stretchy, form fitting cocktail dress. Also, men and women in the military have had short sleeved uniforms since at least WWII. At least in STMP everyone had optional short-sleeved uniforms and they seemed a perfectly natural fit alongside their more formal variations just as in today’s military. Further, the mini-skirts were absolutely NOT empowering. They were a blatantly sexist attempt at keeping women as 1950′s sex objects. The sexual revolution of which you speak was still a couple of years away. Much has been written about this. Most women are offended at the way women were depicted during this era. Even Roddenberry was against women being depicted this way. So what has Abrams done? He’s bitten right into the same sexist Apple the network was eating in 1965. Between the brightly colored primary uniforms made all the more garish against the stark white background and the cocktail dress variant of the uniforms the women wear, he’s succeeded only emphasizing the parody of TOS he attempted to avoid. Now that I think of it, I’m reminded of the bridge of the Heart of Gold from “Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy”, with Trillian slinking around in her tight short-shorts. At least he had the good taste to omit the plunging neck line of TOS. Sexy, is sexy, is sexy. But don’t be blatant about it. One of the few redeeming features of ST:Enterprise was that they had sexy in the form of the decon room where everyone sat around in their underwear. But for heaven’s sake, having the women walk around in a revealing uniform is not sexy, it’s pandering in the most overt way.

Again, I am NOT talking about canon here. I am talking about good film making and Abram’s has simply missed the boat.

459. Topaz172 - October 29, 2008

First posting here

Speaking as a Dr Who fan… I will be watching the movie in support of your show’s relaunch.

my impression… I haven’t really warmed to the new bridge yet. the viewscreen might work, but Uhura’s ‘waitress bar’ console just looks like a baaad idea

(on Shatner and Takai’s feud, their behavior recently strongly reminded me of GQ – Shatner’s lack of support for human rights is particularly saddening)

anyhow.. back to the point of why I’m posting do we know if the trailer will be on the UK release of Quantum of Solice? the latest 007 isn’t my taste of bond but I will see it if I am sure the trailer is tacked on.

(BTW I’m an award winning artist, check the url)

460. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#455—In the end, I cannot imagine that anyone who would take the time to read and post here wouldn’t see the movie, no matter what their preconceived notions are about it.

#456—”It’s also why I keep asking Bob whether the Trekverse that this movie ends in is intended to be the same one as that of the 5 other series and ten films”

What I like about you is that you are passionate enough to keep asking, despite being intelligent enough to recognize that you are unlikely to get an answer.

Assuming there is at least some degree of timeline interference in this story, as I see it, it can go one of four ways:

1) The threat is completely neutralized and everything (by the end of the film) is restored precisely to the way we knew it before;

2) The threat is partially neutralized, resulting in minor changes to the timeline we knew, yet the outcomes of major events within the previous timeline remain intact;

3) The backstory is not as we knew it due to the incursion, but in the end, the same characters begin the 5 year mission anyway and we may assume that the adventures depicted in TOS (aside from those involving the “pasts” of the major characters) unfold as before;

4) Or, the end result is a Trekverse which is open to completely different outcomes not before depicted—sending countless fans screaming to their deaths as they jump off the nearest cliff clutching their Okuda Chronolgy books to their chests.

“That’s one reason why, when being precise about it, one should speak of continuity, rather than canon.”

But again, the potential for alternate timelines is in keeping with the ‘continuity’ already established in Trek, which goes as far back as its very first season.

One could argue (and I am no fan of Rick Berman) that an alternate timeline already exists.

The events in FC resulted in borg drones remaining on Earth into the 22nd Century. These drones were discovered by the crew of the NX-01, were they not? Previously, the Borg had not discovered humans until the 24th Century (presumably, Anna and her parents), and Earth was not a target until “Q” introduced them to Picard and company.

I can’t remember if it was Berman or Braga, but one of them is on record as saying that an alternate timeline was already in play due to the discovery of the drones left over from FC in ENT. Instead of waiting to be introduced to the Enterprise-D, theoretically, couldn’t a Borg cube be on its way to Sol in the late 22nd Century?

I’m no expert in TNG-era chronology/continuity, of course. I’m a TOS guy…so you could say it’s more of a question than a point of contention.

461. eagle219406 - October 29, 2008

I can’t believe you people. You have done nothing but bash the TNG and beyond and have the nerve to call yourselves trekfans. A true trekfan would have like all of them. Maybe some less than others, but they wouldn’t flat out hate them enough to completely bash them or say that they never happened.

462. Mark - October 29, 2008

Bad things to people who don’t agree with me!

463. bgiles73 - October 29, 2008

I wonder how many Trek fans could not cope with the fact that we didn’t have the Eugenics Wars in the eary 90′s thus history didn’t happen according to Trek cannon. Or even better NASA never sent out a Voyager VI so no threat from V’Ger either! Maybe a full reboot would have been the way to go so that Star Trek doesn’t collapse in upon itself from the weight of all the details that the average movie goer won’t give a damn about anyway!

464. Kuvagh - October 29, 2008

458: Yeah, I agree about the skirts. Judging by the spy photos of hordes of extras, every single woman will be wearing a skirt. If there are going to be skirts, there should be a mix. It should be clear that Uhura chooses the skirt. When early TNG showed a few beskirted male extras, they were trying to fix this. A shot of some dude doing that in this movie could probably get a good laugh, followed by the realization that it makes sense.

I’m not sure when this movie takes place, but we already saw women in pants in the two pilot episodes, if you’ll forgive the canon. I view the skirt thing as a short-lived fad which exploded after some big liberalization of uniform code. Later on, we saw Uhura wearing a longer, more more military skirt, she being a bit of a holdover.

465. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#458—”Also, men and women in the military have had short sleeved uniforms since at least WWII.”

As a former military officer and a history major, I’m well aware of that. It was actually part of my point.

“Further, the mini-skirts were absolutely NOT empowering. They were a blatantly sexist attempt at keeping women as 1950’s sex objects”

Your history is a little hazy. 1950′s sex objects? Who taught your history class?

Call the registrar’s office, and tell them you want your money back…

The mini-skirt was a 1960′s statement of empowerment in women. It may look ‘objectifying’ now, but it was very much a rebellion of sorts among women of the time. In fact, it was a “rejection” of the 1950′s idea of a woman’s place.

“The sexual revolution of which you speak was still a couple of years away.”

Again, you need to brush up on your history. “The pill” was the major catalyst for the ‘Sexual Revolution’ you speak of, and it was very much in play in the mid-late 60′s (it was approved in 1959) as its popularity grew. The SR was in motion long before women were burning their bras in the 70′s.

“Most women are offended at the way women were depicted during this era”

It was a choice. It may be looked upon that way by women today, but the feeling then could not have been further from that.

And where are Liz, Denise, Iowagirl, and Spockanella on this one? :)

“Even Roddenberry was against women being depicted this way.”

Says who? That might be the funniest bit in your post!

In any case, there have been reports that the mini-skirts are not nearly as “mini” as they were in the 1960′s productions.

One thing TOS was lacking was the depiction of a practical utility uniform. I have a feeling that is something we might see in this film, and that the color-coded unis we know from the 60′s will be treated like service and dress uniforms are in today’s military.

466. ByGeorge - October 29, 2008

Perhaps the vision of Trek that occurred in the magical first 2 years of TOS was that mankind will still be mankind in that era, complete with the same warts we have now. But we will unite in spite of our human flaws because our of shared interest in exploration, adventure, curiosity, discovery, knowledge, having fun — interests we all share. That is the unifying trait and why they worked together in Trek. Not overcoming ourselves, but embracing ourselves because we all share certain interests and goals.

467. ВЯЧЕСЛАВ - October 29, 2008

Уважаемый AJ, конечно сообщим, если появится. У нас кажется премьера вместе с Вашей. :)) Мне пока все нравится в фильме, надееюсь он не разачарует!

468. Kuvagh - October 29, 2008

17:

Aren’t flashy, blue-laden LCD’s just a repeat of the 1988 digital clock and the notorious 60′s analog odometer-style clock? That’s what we have now as consumers.

At least the fake touchscreens were depicting something we didn’t have at the time. Perhaps they could use movie magic to show us seamless, curved displays. Displays which can operate by producing light or by just reflecting light, like advanced e-paper. I’m not sure what I think of the graphics ON the displays yet, but so far they look more like graphics from consumer electronics than businesslike information sources for highly trained professionals. White on blue is a good idea, at least, since it’s easy on the eyes. That’s why they used it so much in old-school word processors.

Just my two cents. We’ll see how it all comes together. :)

469. Closettrekker - October 29, 2008

#461—Who are you to determine who is or isn’t a “true fan”?

I was a fan long before there was ‘any’ spinoff series, and have every right to decide for myself what value each series has to me, and my opinion shouldn’t be at all threatening to you and yours.

You watch what you watch, and I’ll watch what I watch.

470. ByGeorge - October 29, 2008

#304

My thoughts exactly as to why Quinto looks strange on the Mag shots. They can give him a wig but they couldn’t shave his brows. Look so bad because those were some substantial eyebrows to have to eliminate and fix!!

471. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 29, 2008

468.

Brilliant! Thats definately the “wow” factor the new bridge is missing! Besides the window/viewscreen, nothing else is really new.

472. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 29, 2008

Errr…Im staring at a guy who looks exactly like Zac Quinto. Creepy….

473. Gary - October 29, 2008

Glorious debate, so, you like the view-space-screen or not?

WE NEED A POLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

474. DATA KILLED SPOT! - October 29, 2008

Love viewscreen
Hate glare.

475. Captain Scokirk - October 29, 2008

Closettrekker

“just as bad episodes do not hinder the overall worth of the series.”

“I don’t think any subsequent spinoff series is even in the class of TOS.”

I think for the most part we are on the same page, except I think there is more than 25 great original episodes, but fine, agree to disagree.

I do think though that the little moments add up collectively and redeem some lackluster stories for those with the patience to wade through it.

I am of the party that thinks the hate on Trek V is unjustified, it is an entertaining enough film, with granted lackluster efx but has some terrific character moments. Which goes to my original point in that after a while you dont just want to see a good adventure you want to see your favorite characters. Trek V really captures the triumverate, and even the “lesser”(no criticism implied) characters have strong connections in the film. The friendship theme, the brotherhood angle, it is a decent Trek film, it is just lacking in the efx department, and because it didnt make big box office after Trek IV (meaning it didnt cross over in a HEAVILY competitive summer)it became the orphan film.

It illustrates the point that you can only count on the base so much- at some point you have to use the universal elements that entice non Trekkers/Trekkies. And I think it is a lesson the new team understands and they are trying not to be less trek but to emphasize those common things that can capture the imagination of both Trekkies and the mainstream audience.

As for young people not “getting it”, well that certainly isnt limited to Trek being passed on to the “youts” ; Kids today grow up with 500+ channels, internet access to just about anything, and a hyper-sexualization that is pushing adolescence into single digit territory(remember when teens were when you started “growing up”, now we have “tweens”), this isnt a rant about how great the good old days were, what I am trying to illustrate is that every group that can be grouped is targeted for specialized programming, Disney Channel is for pre-teen girls, Spike is for 20 something guys, Lifetime is for women, etc. we are split up or targeted to the last possible group so that the opportunity to be exposed to programming outside our immediate age/interest is severely limited. I think you could make a case that “Kids” can watch up to date stuff whenever they want without leaving their comfort bubbles, and that does not serve a program like Star Trek well.

When you had fewer channels which appealed to wider audiences you were exposed to different programs which would develop fans across broad groups. And in the 70′s and 80′s when Trek was at it’s peak in terms of cross cultural relevance this was the situation. I picked up my Trek bug from my dad, who was a fan from the start, I got into the movies first, and then worked back to the original series, and was 10 when TNG came out and was fairly devoted through DS9 until college drew away my attention.

The larger point I am trying to make is that eventually a young person has to realize there is more to life then their immediate experience, that is how a civilization grows by the young embracing(and making them their own) the traditions and principles of what came before, it is part of growing up as you recognize in adults the things you aspire to be or to avoid becoming, and the problem now is we seem to allow youth to have such a narrow focus targeting them by miniaturizing the trappings of adulthood and offering it to them before they can appreciate the greater world around them.

So the producers have a real tough task, they are trying to introduce one of our modern mythologies into a format that targets a new(younger?) audience without alienating an existing(older?)fanbase, with the same medium(The new film) they are trying to send the same message in two different languages using the same vocabulary! I wish them good luck!

476. Enterprise - October 29, 2008

If you guys don’t like this movie, there’s plenty of fan made junk out there. Have a field day.

477. Jeffries Tuber - October 29, 2008

Closettrekker, you’re getting a lot of love on these boards recently, so I’m reluctant to praise you yet again, but this is a very significant point:

“The mini-skirt uniforms were both empowering and sexy in the 1960’s. Now they are just sexy, something that, IMO, has been either altogether missing, or improperly done in Star Trek since TOS.”

James T. Kirk is very much a part of the John F. Kennedy and James Bond cultural generation, when saving the world was directly connected to getting laid and looking sexy.

I love TNG and the occasional ‘feels good to be bad’ episode of VOY and ENT, but the sexuality on the Bermanverse shows was shot with vaseline on the lens, softly lit and extremely middle aged. I’m all for bringing back the sexy fun to Star Trek. Kirk, Spock and McCoy’s women were amazingly hot and, in a way, they’re more special now than they were at the time. You just don’t see women in elaborately woven hairstyles with flowing silk!

I hope Kirk has a ‘because I can’ shirt, like the green shirt in TOS.

478. Captain Scokirk - October 29, 2008

-Jeffries Tuber

You bring up good points re: sexuality in the TNG-etc. universe

When GR was still in charge(1st season?)
Sexy was in, let us not forget men in skirts, “fully functional?”the Naked Now was as sexy as TNG gets ;Beverly unzipping her uniform “not now Doctor..”, the Afro-Samurai planet of Code of Honor had beefcake for the ladies, The downright steamy “Justice” where even Worf had to admit “Nice planet.”, and again for the ladies(or the gentlemen so inclined) let us not forget (or do forget If so inclined) Jonathan Frakes hairy cleavage in “Angel One”, and then nothing for 13 years until vaseline rub downs in Enterprise “it’s been a long time gettin form there to here…”

479. eagle219406 - October 29, 2008

Some TOS purist don’t realize one thing. Star trek may been a big hit until recently but in the 60s it was pretty much considered a failure. Cancelled after 3 seasons. If it weren’t for the movies and those “Spin-offs” it would have remained a failure. It would not have become a 40 year hit.

480. Meteo - October 29, 2008

#170:
Reality is one thing, Star Trek is another. ‘Nuff said.

481. eagle219406 - October 29, 2008

I understand the whole need for a change with modern people. But they could have found a balance between the modern look and the original look. They kind of did that with the uniforms. But The bridge they completely changed. It didn’t have to be exact but they could have made it look like a cross between them. Does anybody know what I am talking about.

482. Kelinda - October 29, 2008

#477

“Kirk, Spock and McCoy’s women were amazingly hot ”

From the female perspective’ Kirk, Spock and Mcoy were amazingly hot too! I’m hoping that we explore a lot of Vulcan sexuality. Funny that without meaning to, Spock oozed sexuality, Kirk always had that look in his eye, and McCoy looked like he was always ready and willing.

483. TJ - October 29, 2008

Ok is it just me or does Zach Quinto look like a wax work with all the photoshop/airbrushing they’ve done??? I hope he doesn’t look like that in the film! With all the make-up he looks plastic, especially next to the original photo of Nimoy and Shatner who have a bit more character in their faces.

And I agree with giving it the sexy edginess. It’s like James Bond, all the guys want to be him and all the girls want to be womanised. If they changed the fundementals of his personality and made him PC they would destroy the character. Same goes for the original ST characters, it had a bit of a hippy appeal and was very much a product of its time. So I hope they keep the spirit alive and Kirk is still the ladies man etc. I’m really looking forward to seeing how it all pans out. The pics show an interesting balance between the recognisable and the shiny new updated elements..

Role on May 2009!

484. The Quickening - October 29, 2008

326. …When Trek was resurrected in the late 1970s, it was mainly because Star Wars was raking in huge amounts of cash…

This is not completely true. STAR TREK’s popularity was hugh before STAR WARS. TOS ratings in syndication were clobbering first run TV series on major networks; students on college campus’ were running to dorm rooms to watch the series; local TV stations were doing specials. This was the early and mid 70s. Paramount had already decided to resurrected STAR TREK. What they could not decide is whether to do a TV series or movie. They went back and forth on this for a while, and eventually decided on a TV series in 1977… Phase One. As it happened that same year STAR WARS became a huge success as a movie. Paramount then switched directions: the production became a movie project because they saw the potential of making a lot more money as a movie.

I wish this half truth would stop being spread. TREK would have been resurrected whether STAR WARS happened or not.

485. Franbro - October 29, 2008

#350 Alex

“Okay, to be clear, it always was a viewscreen. There was never any doubt of that…”

Well, many people ealier in this thread were calling it a “window” that’s why I just put my 2 cents in

486. Rhett Coates - October 29, 2008

WOW, these response pages are getting long!
#68 said:
I hate the uniforms. I thought we were updating this for modern audiences? Instead, we get the same, lame 60’s design of the uniforms. I’m excited for this movie – don’t get me wrong.
But … I wanted something that you could believe space explorers would wear. Not pajamas.
An all of the non-fans are just going to see ‘the same old Star Trek’ when they see these images that harken back to the TOS design.
Too nostalgic for my taste.

Okay, there have been other responses regarding the uniforms in the posts above, but I recall that within the last year or so (not long before ST XI began production) that I read, online I think, that a new type of garment is being developed that changes with the ambient temperature of the environment around the wearer, keeping that person either warm or cool, depending on their individual body temperature. Could that be why we always saw the Big E’s crew beaming down to almost any planet in the same style uniforms? Perhaps by the 23rd Century, space-travelers in vessels such as the USS Enterprise would have such clothes that work that way: changing with body temp. vs. environmental conditions just as easily as certain early-21st Century sunglasses can change with the amount of brightness…..?

Any thoughts on such matters? Maybe that’s what the WEAVE in the uniforms (as seen in the new photos) actually does – in the story-line as written by Bob and Alex….? Interesting to think about, isn’t it? Hey–we already have cell phones that flip up like the old ST communicators, and fast-opening automatic doors at places like grocery stores and WalMarts, and the like. Why not [automatic] temperature-changing clothes, too?

487. krikzil - October 29, 2008

Pretty interesting bunch of posts.

“And where are Liz, Denise, Iowagirl, and Spockanella on this one? :)”

Here I am. I was lecturing Closet on the whole miniskirt thing on another thread not too long ago. It WAS a thing of empowerment back then for women. Of course he and I disagreed on the current value of such things. Now, it is sexist in my opinion — eye candy for you lads much like idiotically sticking a Borg and Vulcan in catsuits were on the recent TV Treks.

488. RD - October 29, 2008

(#458—”Also, men and women in the military have had short sleeved uniforms since at least WWII.”
As a former military officer and a history major, I’m well aware of that. It was actually part of my point.
“Even Roddenberry was against women being depicted this way.”
Says who? That might be the funniest bit in your post!)

Again my point is the women are the only ones wearing short sleeves. You put the ST men in short sleeves and maybe I’ll let the short skirt slide.

Roddebberry is who said he was against the women depicted this way. It’s in David Gerrald’s book when discussing making the pilot. He wanted the women to be taken seriously and depicted as cheap sex objects. He wanted them in pants and he wanted them in positions of power. NBC denied him both.

History lesson aside, I understand women were rebelling against the 1950′s idea that the women you married should be an angel in public and a demon in the sack. Men were pigs during this era and judging from this
forum not a lot has changed. My point was, if all the women do it, then it is a statement of gender. But once the men learned they could not keep their daughters from misbehaving Madison avenue began to exploit it, as long as it wasn’t their daughters. Nothing has changed today. What Mr. Abrams has done is to put only women in the short skirts and thus make them sex objects in an otherwise long pants and long sleeved military organization for men. The contrast is ridiculous. Such a trend would never be tolerated in any of our military branches today. There is NOTHING professional about how Uhura is dressed and the absence of other crew equally casually dressed, paints the women as dressed merely for the pleasure of the men, the idea that was exploited in the 60s & 70s on television but otherwise frowned upon in polite social circles. That is hypocrisy and sexism at it’s best.

489. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 29, 2008

Ugh! Don’t get me started on the catsuits… and I’m a guy. I have nothing but disdain for whoever put 7 of 9 in that ridiculous unitard WITH HEELS! Someone call the fashion police! Jeri Ryan is an attractive woman; it is not necessary to squeeze her into a skintight metallic job to get her to turn heads.

490. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 29, 2008

484 — I just want to back you up on this, with one minor twist. ST:TMP, clearly, was not a response to SW:ANH. ST:TMP came out because ST was finally getting the comeback all the fans had been clamoring for since the cancellation of the TV show. However, unfortunately, ST:TMP did not do as well at the box office as it should have (I still hold to the assertion that it’s among the best of the ST movies). THEN, ST:TWOK was made (and talk about a reboot — it pretended that ST:TMP hadn’t happened), and THAT was a response to SW:ANH’s success. Thus, the story of ST:TWOK revolved around bloody revenge and space battles.

491. Xai - October 29, 2008

#487 Krikzil

and thank God they didn’t do stuff like rip Kirk’s shirt (every other episode) or have him barechested in TOS.

if it were that blatant, we’d have ALL female fleet officers in skin-tight uniforms in all eras.

492. Nomad - October 29, 2008

This isn’t about canon. This is about the legend of Star Trek told today. It is going to have contemporary embellishments. This has always been the case. The visual language gets rewritten with each successive real world generation, no matter when the story takes place. All Star Treks up to Enterprise progressed visually, which is why many fans wouldn’t consider it canon. This Star Trek progresses visually from Enterprise, and that makes perfect sense as ENT was this movie’s chronological successor. Mirror Darkly doen’t need to count because it took place in the ENT mirror universe which may even be different than the TOS mirrorverse and the DS9 mirrorverse. See how it gets tangled? Time to reboot!

493. Xai - October 29, 2008

488. RD – October 29, 2008

“History lesson aside, I understand women were rebelling against the 1950’s idea that the women you married should be an angel in public and a demon in the sack. Men were pigs during this era and judging from this forum not a lot has changed.”

-You owe many posters on this site an apology. That was a blanket statement with no basis in fact.

494. classictrek - October 29, 2008

lets have a picture of pine in his classic Gold Kirk tunic please.

Greg
UK

495. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#460 – “#456—’It’s also why I keep asking Bob whether the Trekverse that this movie ends in is intended to be the same one as that of the 5 other series and ten films’

What I like about you is that you are passionate enough to keep asking, despite being intelligent enough to recognize that you are unlikely to get an answer.”

{Grin}

“Assuming there is at least some degree of timeline interference in this story, as I see it, it can go one of four ways:

1) The threat is completely neutralized and everything (by the end of the film) is restored precisely to the way we knew it before;”

Obviously the most desirable outcome.

“2) The threat is partially neutralized, resulting in minor changes to the timeline we knew, yet the outcomes of major events within the previous timeline remain intact;”

Potentially acceptable, depending on the level of change. If this is used to suggest that the major change is that things look a little different, but otherwise what happened, happened, that can be okay, too.

“3) The backstory is not as we knew it due to the incursion, but in the end, the same characters begin the 5 year mission anyway and we may assume that the adventures depicted in TOS (aside from those involving the “pasts” of the major characters) unfold as before;”

This would be more iffy, but since so little backstory is really known, if the result ios that the changes moot a few novels and comic books, but not much else, that wouldn’t be too bad.

“4) Or, the end result is a Trekverse which is open to completely different outcomes not before depicted—sending countless fans screaming to their deaths as they jump off the nearest cliff clutching their Okuda Chronolgy books to their chests.”

Well, I dunno about the screaming to their deaths part, but it would be an unacceptable outcome, as far as I’m concerned. Speaking solely for myself, I’d end up cherrypicking whatever elements could be coopted into Trekverse Prime, and subsequently ignore this film. That might save me at least a couple of C-notes, considering what I’ve promised to do if they can pull off an in-continuity story. ;)

” ‘That’s one reason why, when being precise about it, one should speak of continuity, rather than canon.’

But again, the potential for alternate timelines is in keeping with the ‘continuity’ already established in Trek, which goes as far back as its very first season.”

That’s why I’ve specified, fairly directly, that what I am referring to is the overall Trekverse as a single continuity that has survived from TOS through ENT. Yeah, we’ve seen parallel and branching continuities, and even a few shifts so minor that one really couldn’t tell the difference if one didn’t know what to look for. But it’s still all held together enough that it could be considered one fictional world. If this film continues that, great! If not, well…

And just to be clear, I’m not counting differences in visualization to be indicators of alternate timelines. If we manage to get through the film without it explicitly saying, “This is a different reality now” (or the equivalent), whether in dialogue or in clearly contradicting stuff in an irreconcilable way, I’m willing to give them a pass and move on.

“One could argue (and I am no fan of Rick Berman) that an alternate timeline already exists.

The events in FC resulted in borg drones remaining on Earth into the 22nd Century. These drones were discovered by the crew of the NX-01, were they not? Previously, the Borg had not discovered humans until the 24th Century (presumably, Anna and her parents), and Earth was not a target until “Q” introduced them to Picard and company.

I can’t remember if it was Berman or Braga, but one of them is on record as saying that an alternate timeline was already in play due to the discovery of the drones left over from FC in ENT. Instead of waiting to be introduced to the Enterprise-D, theoretically, couldn’t a Borg cube be on its way to Sol in the late 22nd Century?”

I remember the interview in question with Braga, and he clearly had little idea of what he was talking about. The irony is, that whole chain of events actually fits together very well with the rest of Trek continuity, up to and including why the Enterprise-E and its crew apparently made no attempt to collect and dispose of the wreckage of the Borg ship. (Why not? Because once he realized what was going on, Picard also knew he *had to* leave it there, or else he’d potentially change history. Against all conventional wisdom, it actually works pretty well. Kudos to Mike Sussman for that! {That doesn’t address whether the producers were doing right by cramming a Borg story into ENT, but that’s a whole other discussion. >:) } )

#463 – “I wonder how many Trek fans could not cope with the fact that we didn’t have the Eugenics Wars in the eary 90’s thus history didn’t happen according to Trek cannon. Or even better NASA never sent out a Voyager VI so no threat from V’Ger either!”

heh. That’s simple. Star Trek’s world and our world are not the same thing, and never will be. Ergo, they don’t have to be reconciled. Of course, TOS’s producers probably never imagined that the show would still be getting this much attention 4 decades later. If they had, they might have set a lot of things much further into the future.

But unless one is specifically going to do a story that addresses those historical events, it really doesn’t matter.

#476 – “If you guys don’t like this movie, there’s plenty of fan made junk out there. Have a field day.”

I’m entirely with you, except for the “junk” part. :)

#479 – “Some TOS purist don’t realize one thing. Star trek may been a big hit until recently but in the 60s it was pretty much considered a failure. Cancelled after 3 seasons. If it weren’t for the movies and those “Spin-offs” it would have remained a failure. It would not have become a 40 year hit.”

Umm…. Not quite. ;) TOS was considered a failure on NBC, but it went on to find its niche in syndication, and exploded from there. The movies came partly from that, and partly from Paramount wanting to counter Star Wars. Believe me, if TOS hadn’t already been reliably popular, Paramount would not have made a big budget motion picture out of it. Heck, they probably wouldn’t have even tried a sequel TV series, like what almost happened before they changed their minds and switched to a feature.

#485 – ” ‘Okay, to be clear, it always was a viewscreen. There was never any doubt of that…’

Well, many people ealier in this thread were calling it a “window” that’s why I just put my 2 cents in”

Most of the window-vs.-viewer discussion seems to be focused on the new bridge set. I didn’t see anybody claiming that the main viewer was actually a window in TOS. A few folks have noticed that rectangle on the bridge dome on the pilot version of the Enterprise model, but even there, it wasn’t ever suggested that the screen was really a window.

#486 – Interesting thought regarding the uniforms. Ironically, it isn’t necessarily that new a concept, though, at least in the Trek context. I think I first saw that idea in a Diane Duane Trek book in the late ’80s. :) Very neat that they’re getting close to making it workable in reality!

496. krikzil - October 29, 2008

“and thank God they didn’t do stuff like rip Kirk’s shirt (every other episode) or have him barechested in TOS.”

Hah! Thanks for my grin of the day. They really did go to insane links to rip his shirt or have him shirtless, huh? This hormone-addled young woman loved it. Heck, we even got a shirtless Spock in one ep. (Denise are you out there?)

“if it were that blatant, we’d have ALL female fleet officers in skin-tight uniforms in all eras”

Oh I get the reasoning behind it. Fanboys need their fix. ;)

497. Xai - October 29, 2008

apparently fan-girls too

498. Gustavo - October 29, 2008

Wonderful photos……..

BUT I WANT A TRAILER!!!!!!!!!!!!

499. Xai - October 29, 2008

#498

Go see Quantum of Solace

500. krikzil - October 29, 2008

“apparently fan-girls too”

Oh yes. I was a teen in the 70s and while other young ladies had posters of the latest teen idol, I had Kirk and Spock adorning my walls.

Fan-girl of long standing.

501. John - October 29, 2008

awsome stuff is it me or does Zoe Saldana look a little like a vulcan

502. eagle219406 - October 29, 2008

#490 (I still hold to the assertion that it’s among the best of the ST movies). THEN, ST:TWOK was made (and talk about a reboot — it pretended that ST:TMP hadn’t happened), and THAT was a response to SW:ANH’s success. Thus, the story of ST:TWOK revolved around bloody revenge and space battles.

What gave you the Idea that TWOK pretended that TMP never happened. There was nothing that suggested that. It was a few years afterwards and they decided that the uniforms were an experiment that did not work.

503. P Technobabble - October 29, 2008

495 … “… would still be getting this much attention 4 decades later. If they had, they might have set a lot of things much further into the future.”

I don’t know if you had the same experience, but when I saw “2001″ in 1968 I truly believed that is how the future would be. And after the moon-landing in 69, I was even more certain and excited. There was something about mankind conquering space and technology that made me believe my future was going to be something bright and spectacular. I also remember watching programs like “The 21st Century w/ Walter Cronkite” where they would say things like “One day robots will do the work of man so that man may pursue greater dreams…”
So, fast-forward to 2008… humanity has, indeed, accomplished some great things, but IMO the human heart, the human spirit and the human vision has not grown, and has taken steps backward. Humanity is not the enlightened race I, as a kid, envisioned it would become. In fact, I am often ashamed to be a part of a humanity that enthusiastically embraces all kinds of conflict. I would give anything to live in a Star Trek-ian world. Whatever is bright and spectacular in my life has come about completely of my own doing, but certainly nothing bright enough or spectacular enough to have an impact on the world. And yet it seems there are so many forces in the world, full of self-glorifying motives, that do have an impact on the world… Funny, huh?
Sorry, I seem to have gone off on a tangent…. what was the question?

504. Alex Rosenzweig - October 29, 2008

#503 – I was a little too young to be able to appreciate 2001 in ’68, but when I did see it, in the mid’70s, it was already getting pretty obvious that the Space Program, and many other aspects of the future, were well off-track for reaching that world in ’01.

In comparing Star Trek’s world to our own, I tend to think that the divergence in continua actually happened in the Nixon Administration. I’ve never really tried to reconcile Trek’s world with our own; they’re just too different. The important thing to me was always a) that as a fictional world, Trek’s internal consistency be maintained as much as possible, and b) that the Star Trek world doesn’t have to be a prediction for our real-world future so much as an example of an idealized future that we might like to work toward in the real one.

As you say, though, lately the real world has seemed pretty grim. I think the world does need something like Star Trek, to maybe remind us that things can be better. The real challenge, though, is reaching the audience. In the ’60s, it seems like people really were looking for hope. 40 years later, we seem so mired in cynicism and frustration that I fear that Star Trek’s message won’t get through.

505. Buckaroohawk - October 29, 2008

The Quickening (#484),

Actually, Trek MIGHT have been brought back as a TV series, or maybe a TV movie (or series of movies), or maybe a lower budget theatrical film, or maybe this, or maybe that. Sets were being built, actors were hired, and scripts were being written, but no one was sure was it was going to be. Paramount was spinning its wheels with Star Trek until Star Wars came along. The success of that film ensured Trek’s return. Pre-production on the proposed series (called Phase II, not Phase One) didn’t even begin in earnest until after Star Wars premiered.

I was making a generalization that the success of Star Wars solidified the return of Star Trek. TOS was a hit in syndication and Paramount was attempting some kind of possible re-launch, but nothing of real substance happened until after Star Wars started breaking box office records. Hence, my original statement stands, and I wasn’t perpetuating some kind of “half-truth.” Thanks for that 50%, by the way. At least I know I’m not an out-and-out liar.

506. Jack - October 29, 2008

Clearly, JJ and ILM should make multiple versions for the DVD release to please everybody (“Version 783 – Kirk has hazel eyes, the film’s in Dutch, with alternate ending cobbled together from Shatner’s Conan spots).

This looks great – can’t wait for the trailer.

This entry has been photoshopped.

507. Databrain - October 30, 2008

‘Making it more asthetically appealing to a more youthful audience does not equate to dumbing it down.’

First of all, I am of that youthful audience. As a 22 year od I have a good grasp of what appeals and does not appeal to my generation in terms of aesthetics. And secondly we are not even talking about aesthetics man. We are talking about ideology.

‘Star Trek’s vision is this…

Mankind does not destroy itself. Instead, it unites to conquer the social ills which plaque us today and bands together to explore the final frontier. I have yet to see or hear a single thing which implies that vision has been compromised. If it adheres to that vision…’

If the characters become more action film oriented then that vision IS ruined. Sorry, but the bruce willis type is not going to inaugurate us into that peaceful future envisioned in star trek. By that time the action hero type will be obsolete and a more sensitive anti-hero will be appreciated. I am not talking about todays definition of anti-hero but a new premise based on male sensitivity, female equity and total humanistic unity.

‘‘do’ feel that vision was perverted (in part due to Roddenberry’s own revisionist view) into something more “utopian” and less character-driven’

Listen to your word associations man. “perverted’ and ‘utopian’ being knotted together so irresponsibly. What is wrong with a peaceful society even if that society does have some so called ‘utopian characteristics? It’s not ‘realistic’? Well was star trek suppose to be entirely realistic the way that you and I waking up and going to work every day is realistic to us? No. It was suppose to offer up and alternative possibility of what the future of humanity might be. Not to pat current humanity on the back and say ‘you’re great man’.

One of the things I always cherished about star trek is its ability to get under the average persons skin and make them think, or at the very least, piss them off enough to be disturbed by the lack of todays ‘realism’. Such people never understood that if you watch star trek from a future-log perspective, what you are basically seeing is a very real possibility of what out future holds. Yes there is human conflict, both inner and outer, but the resolution of said conflict is what makes it futuristic, not some action-drama movie meditation on how wonderful conflict is for character development.

Good characters don’t rely solely on their ability to beat you senseless with how arrogant they are. They aren’t that two dimensional. Star trek shows the possible ideological evolution of the human race. THAT has always been the single most important element of it.

508. Databrain - October 30, 2008

‘Enterprise failed because it started off with poor stories and it was on UPN’

Voyager was on UPN too. Yet it seemed to garner as many viewers as TNG.

509. HSIV - October 30, 2008

trolling? wtf? omg no…my point is why would starfleet put a huge window in the front of THE BRIDGE…which is the CENTRAL COMMAND CENTER FOR THE SHIP…

silly argument…w/e…remember, the bridge needs to be SAFE FOR USE…and whether made of glass or transparent aluminum, a window would have a much lower stress-tolerance than the hull of the ship…

btw…it says its transparent ALUMINUM, not transparent DURANIUM or TRITANIUM…

510. Databrain - October 30, 2008

‘For Trek to survive it must attempt to bring in and hold a much wider audience. And just to make my point crystal clear, that is something that it has ALWAYS TRIED TO DO, with varying levels of success over the years. The people who made the TV shows and movies were never out to just reach the core fans, they wanted as big an audience as they could grab. That’s what Star Trek was supposed to do from Day One.’

This statement is an internal contradiction for this reason. If writers and producers want only to make their product financially viable to as many people as they possibly can, they would continue to churn out nothing but action-drama films based on the Bruce willis/tom cruise model that existed since the 80s or whatever. The writers knew, as far as my study of the history of trek goes, that no matter what they did, they would not appeal to as wide an audience as those were were into mindless action films. At least not without compromising the integrity of the magic that made trek special and unique. Again, why enterprise FAILED miserably. The fact is the core audience and those who have financially supported this franchise have been die hard trekkies who adore the vision of a more prosperpous and ideologically sound humanity. Those who seek to meditate on the beauty of human conflict and two dimensional arrogant characters like john mclain in die hard, would never want to be exposed to star treks future-log character development.

‘Trek faltered as a franchise when it stopped being compelling to the general audience.’

No it didn’t. It’s most succesful era was the mid-late 90s when convention activity rose beyond all expectations and the ratings for the next generation far exceeded anything that proceeded. This was the so called ‘geeks only’ era of star trek, wherein the trekkies dominated the financial market where the franchise was concerned.

511. Databrain - October 30, 2008

‘The “possitive” outlook for the future is nice. Roddenberry touted it. Many fans embraced it. You, yourself, adhere to it. And it’s a noble outlook and God knows we can use more of it. But, for the mainstream, it’s never been the secret appeal of Star Trek. Nor have the “morality plays” that so many like to go on about, been the secret to Trek’s success. In reality, these are just sidebars to a kick-ass action/adventure series, with fun characters, set in the wild unknowns of space.’

This is total balogna. In the mid-90s, during the so called ‘geek era’ of star trek when the scene was dominated solely by die hard trekkies who embraced the future vision employed by trek writers and gene roddenberry, there was an assortment of other sci fi series that were basically just action adventure stories set in future/space enviroments. Programs that have mainly been forgotten, not because they had bad production, but because people who support ideas stand behind those ideas, and those who support junk don’t stand behind such junk, they move on to the next pile of junk right on cue. People who were watching ‘earth 2′ moved on to ‘firefly’ etc. In 200 years people will not remember these shows, they will however remember star trek, because of its ideas which have ALWAYS been the number 1 driving force.

512. Holger - October 30, 2008

424: As I see it, TOS is a timeless work of art, and that includes the production designs. Sure, these costumes look different and somewhat strange, but it’s exactly that which makes the kind of other-worldly charm of the series, and it’s much smarter than staying too close with contemporary design and technology. Just look at those near-future SF movies from the 80′s – pretend to be around 2050 with 80′s digital displays. This is completely outdated now, in a way that TOS isn’t.

I find it shortsighted and arrogant to judge past art by today’s standards. Shakespeare’s language may not be spoken in modern plays, but that doesn’t make it silly. (Yes, yes, I know, Shakespeare isn’t popular culture like TOS, but that doesn’t change anything.)
And so I find it shocking that JJ Abrams displays such an outright lack of respect for the production art of the 60′s. This makes me seriously doubt the man.

476: From what I have seen from STXI so far, Phase II seems definitely preferable to me. But let’s see the movie first.

513. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 30, 2008

502 – “What gave you the Idea that TWOK pretended that TMP never happened. There was nothing that suggested that. It was a few years afterwards and they decided that the uniforms were an experiment that did not work.”

There are a number of items I can cite from TMP having no resolution or reference in TWOK, though I admit many of these could be retconned (as you do in regards to the matters of the bridge and uniforms). However, the real clincher for me, the one that gets my goat the most, is the repetition of the glamor tour and send-off of the newly refit Enterprise from drydock, *as if we hadn’t already seen that in TMP* (it’s re-used footage).

514. Chris Pike - October 30, 2008

512 You have made a very valid point here that I have always found about the original series too. It always struck me about the look and production design that it had that otherworldy look, as if it wasn’t just something from the future, but something from a different era altogether. There was barely anything used from 20th century technology for props – even every button on the bridge was cast resin. And then there’s the famous story of the pains they went through trying to figure out what a salt shaker should look like 300 years hence.
In 2001, Kubrick drove the design people mad with his orders not to have screw heads showing, going to extreme lengths to find futuristic hinges, bolts etc. At the time seemingly too perfectionist and very hard work, but boy does it all work well now on viewing, genius!
When watching Enterprise for example, the LCD and plasma panel monitors stick out like a sore thumb – we know that 200 years from now technology won’t look like that. I find it very likely that the future 300 years on, if we saw it now, would indeed look strange to us rather than some cliche impression of it. It is a pity that some aspects of the new film’s design seem to have gone for the more obvious “extension of contempory design high tech store interior” look than something more “adventurous” maybe, which has prompted some of the disappointment. But then again maybe that’s more appealing and obvious to mainstream…?

515. Closettrekker - October 30, 2008

#479—-”Some TOS purist don’t realize one thing. Star trek may been a big hit until recently but in the 60s it was pretty much considered a failure. Cancelled after 3 seasons.”

For one thing, I seriously doubt there is even one TOS “purist” would doesn’t know that the show was cancelled after 3 seasons.
Second, the network’s view of the show as something with little value was not a failure of the series, but a failure of the network and its ratings system.
From 1966-69, the networks had yet to realize how to determine who (as in what demographic) was actually watching the show. By the 1970′s, as Star Trek raked in massive ratings in syndication, the network had realized its mistake. This was the justification for the planned “Phase II” series (which, after the release of Star Wars, evolved into TMP).

” If it weren’t for the movies and those “Spin-offs” it would have remained a failure. It would not have become a 40 year hit.”

If not for its massive success in syndication, there would have been no movies. The Star Trek film series was launched 8 years before TNG. Your reasoning makes no sense.

516. Alex Rosenzweig - October 30, 2008

#508 – “‘Enterprise failed because it started off with poor stories and it was on UPN’

Voyager was on UPN too. Yet it seemed to garner as many viewers as TNG”

Last I checked, VOY’s numbers were off significantly from TNG’s…and DS9′s, for that matter.

Over the years, with occasional up-ticks, usually for the premieres, viewership steadily, if gradually, declined. It really seems to have generally followed a pretty typical pattern for an ongoing series, though probably extended a bit because the trappings changed every 6-7 years.

If one looks at the more recent Treks as a single, ongoing series (and to the general audience, the visual and stylistic differences from TNG to DS9 to VOY to ENT really aren’t that major), the pattern isn’t atypical at all for television programming. It is, perhaps, significant that it took 18 years and 25 seasons to run out of steam among the mainstream audience, but all shows falter eventually, and Trek was no exception, in the end.

#513 – “502 – ‘What gave you the Idea that TWOK pretended that TMP never happened. There was nothing that suggested that. It was a few years afterwards and they decided that the uniforms were an experiment that did not work.’

There are a number of items I can cite from TMP having no resolution or reference in TWOK, though I admit many of these could be retconned (as you do in regards to the matters of the bridge and uniforms).”

Okay, I gotta admit, I’m not at all comprehending the logic here. The fact that TMP wasn’t mentioned explicitly is a suggestion that it never happened? I guess I’m just not seeing it that way. It was clearly a number of years later, and while set and uniform changes had taken place, they clearly weren’t reintroducing things like the refit and assorted character developments (notably Kirk’s admiralty).

“However, the real clincher for me, the one that gets my goat the most, is the repetition of the glamor tour and send-off of the newly refit Enterprise from drydock, *as if we hadn’t already seen that in TMP* (it’s re-used footage).”

Well, along with the footage being reused, it’s hugely edited down from the original pass in TMP. I think they just borrowed that to both bring the characters to the ship (and allow the exposition in the travel pod to take place) and thematically reintroduce the ship to the audience. I didn’t see it as any sort of outright rejection of the events of TMP, though clearly the intent was t downplay references to that film, considering the audience’s reaction to it.

517. fizzbin - October 30, 2008

I’m betting miniskirts and primary colors are going to be a new fashion fad after next summer.

518. commander K, USS Sovereign - October 30, 2008

I read this EW article in the mag yesterday. Nothngi really that exciting in it and stuff we already know. But good to have a 5 page spread for a change!

519. Closettrekker - October 30, 2008

#507—-”If the characters become more action film oriented then that vision IS ruined”

Have you even ‘watched’ TOS?

James T. Kirk, since the second pilot introduced him, was ‘always’ an action hero. Star Trek was essentially a “Western” in a science fiction setting. Getting back to the thrilling fight scenes in TOS hardly equates to giving up the vision for the progress of humanity.

“Listen to your word associations man. “perverted’ and ‘utopian’ being knotted together so irresponsibly. What is wrong with a peaceful society even if that society does have some so called ‘utopian characteristics?”

We are all striving to attain a peaceful society (even when we disagree upon the path). There is nothing inherently wrong about that goal. The problem I have with a so-called “utopia” is that it requires giving up a certain measure of individual ideals. Who is to determine what constitutes a utopia? Gene Roddenberry? As much as I love what became of his 1960′s vision for humanity (TOS), I don’t know that I would trust him, or any one man/woman to determine that for me. One man’s “utopia” is another man’s “prison”.

The vision in TOS (as I described it earlier) is quite different from the vision in TNG (a ‘somewhat’ utopian society). I would submit that the transition from one to the other ‘is’ a perversion, and I will not apologize for that.

“No. It was suppose to offer up and alternative possibility of what the future of humanity might be.”

That is exactly what that vision does. No interpretation of the morality plays GR produced from 1966-69 would ever be one which saw the 79 episodes of TOS as humanity being patted on the back. I don’t know where you even get that.

“…the action hero type will be obsolete and a more sensitive anti-hero will be appreciated. I am not talking about todays definition of anti-hero but a new premise based on male sensitivity, female equity and total humanistic unity. ”

There are so many things wrong with that statement, IMO. We would need another entire thread and 500+ posts to discuss it thoroughly…About the only thing I can agree with is the notion of what you describe as “female equity”.

I think you are speaking of your own vision of the future…not Star Trek’s.

Mankind uniting to conquer the social ills which plague us today and joining forces “to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before” is not the same as conforming to some frightening state of “total humanistic unity”.

I’ll forgive you for being naive…as I was 22 once as well.

520. Closettrekker - October 30, 2008

#516—”It was clearly a number of years later, and while set and uniform changes had taken place, they clearly weren’t reintroducing things like the refit and assorted character developments (notably Kirk’s admiralty).”

Yes. It was clearly a number of years later.

TMP is set 2.5 years after the end of the 5 year mission, according to the dialogue. That means that TWOK is actually up to 7.5 years later (given that TWOK is 15 years after “Space Seed”).

There is certainly no reason to believe that changes in Starfleet uniform dress code could not or would not have been made in that time, especially since the uniforms in TMP are dramatically different from what was seen in TOS (only a few years before).

The notion that TWOK even remotely suggests that TMP never happened is absolutely absurd. The two stories merely take place over a long period of time, as indicated in the dialogue of both films.

521. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 30, 2008

I do not accept the figure of 7.5 years later for TWOK. The ages of the characters don’t fit. I’m not doubting your age reconciliation in itself, but the writers may have screwed this up.

Bottom line: It has always bothered me that TWOK recycles footage and the ‘spirit’ of “wow, brand new Enterprise” from TMP. Also, with respect to Spock pausing the Kolinahr and returning to the Enterprise, there is no real resolution to that theme. Bones is pulled from retirement in TMP, but is merrily serving in TWOK. Overall, there’s just no sense of continuity from the one to the other. It’s just sort of “Never mind, we’re starting over”.

522. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 30, 2008

^ Sorry I mean “time reconciliation”

523. Closettrekker - October 30, 2008

#521—”The ages of the characters don’t fit.”

How so? The only thing (canonically) we know about the characters’ ages is this:

Kirk was 34 during the events of “The Deadly Years”, which takes place in the second season of TOS.

Spock was 37 during the events of TAS, “Yesteryear”.

I’m not sure how Gene Roddenberry (TMP) and Nick Meyer (TWOK) screwed that up.

“with respect to Spock pausing the Kolinahr and returning to the Enterprise, there is no real resolution to that theme.”

V’Ger, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are all searching for some form of answer as to their place in the universe.

Spock is participating in that ritual purging of emotions because he, at the time, believes it holds his answers. His “emotional” experience with V’Ger causes him to realize that, not only is his place in Starfleet, but “logic” is not all there is to him. The V’Ger incident is the catalyst to Spock becoming the Spock we know from that point on. He is an even wiser Spock from that point forward. He no longer needs the Kohlinar discipline. It is ‘absolutely’ resolved.

Kirk realizes that his decision to give up the Captain’s chair was a mistake. His place is in command of the Enterprise, and he is willing to do anything to get it back..

“Bones is pulled from retirement in TMP, but is merrily serving in TWOK.”

I have always assumed that he realizes his place in the Universe as well, which is at the side of James T. Kirk. I think that is the intended resolution for McCoy.

V’Ger’s question (or Spock’s interpretation of it), “Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?”, is on some level addressed and reconciled by all of the “Big Three” characters, as well as the antagonist in the film.

“Overall, there’s just no sense of continuity from the one to the other.”

I disagree.
Kirk is still struggling with his decision, years earlier, to accept promotion. He is even reminded of that by his two closest friends (who have both already embraced their destinies). The leftover storyline from TMP is incorporated into TWOK’s theme of aging, life, and death.

524. Mark Lynch - October 30, 2008

#521
It is definitely stated by Khan that he was marooned 15 years ago by Kirk in TWOK.
Space Seed was a first season episode and TMP takes place 2.5 years after the end of the 5 year mission. These are all canon figures as they have been uttered on film, yes?

So by my reckoning, that makes just over +4 years which takes us to the end of the five year mission, +2.5 years to get us to TMP, so 6.5 years in total here, which we subtract from 15 to give 8.5 years between TMP and TWOK.

This is plenty enough time to go out on another 5 year mission after the events depicted in TMP and for Kirk to accept promotion (again, Duh!) He gets unhappy for a few years, Spock, who I assume becomes a teacher at Starfleet, is content to command the Enterprise while it is being used as a training vessel (never could understand why one of the most advanced ships in Starfleet would be doing this, but who am I to question?)
Because Kirk accepted the promotion of his own free will (my assumption) McCoy did not feel the need to resign this time. As for the remaining characters, they did their own thing. Most notably Chekov gets a promotion and ends up on the Reliant.

Oh yeah, and in that time they changed the bridge a bit and replaced the uniforms. Humanity started smoking again… :-)

Kirk was what, 35 when he went out on the 5 year mission (to tally with Shatners age)?
This would make him about 50 in TWOK, which makes sense as he has a birthday, in the film, which depresses him. It is of course never stated how old he is on that particular birthday.

So with a little maths and imagination, it is quite probable to be able to make the leap that there is continuity of a sort between TMP and TWOK. Also it gives novelists and JJ Abrams(?) a ‘grey area’ to use for original stories between these two movies.

Not saying this is how it is, but it does fit quite well.

525. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 30, 2008

To me, Kirk and crew only appear to have aged a few years between TMP and TWOK, but I admit this is a minor issue. I suppose you’re starting to convince me that my position is more of a subjective one, and it is clearly possible to see it otherwise. More than once, I have started TWOK right after TMP, and as I say, the reused footage and the changes in the look of the uniform and bridge, and the difference in the characterization of Spock, have rubbed me the wrong way. However, clearly there is a way of reconciling it all to make it hang all together nicely in your mind, and far be it from me to prevent you from doing so.

526. Closettrekker - October 30, 2008

#524—-It is actually simpler than that.

5 years +2.5 years=7.5 years

TWOK – “Space Seed”=15 years

15 years – 7.5 years= 7.5 years

The only invariable in that is the chronological placement of “Space Seed”.

The one thing that we can be certain of (even if “Space Seed” is indeed in the first year of that 5 year mission, something which is only speculated, rather than canonically established) is that there can be no more than 7.5 years between TMP and TWOK.

That is still a considerable amount of time.

#525—”…the reused footage and the changes in the look of the uniform and bridge…”

The reused footage is obviously a budget issue, as TWOK’s budget was far less than the budget awarded to TMP.

The changes in the look of the uniforms and the bridge can easily be the result of the 7.5 years in time between the stories. The uniforms, for example, seen in “The Cage” are not the same uniforms seen in “The Man Trap”.

“…and the difference in the characterization of Spock, have rubbed me the wrong way. ”

Once again, the experience Spock has with V’Ger is a ‘life-changing’ one for my favorite character. It is this experience which, more than any other, causes him to become a man who is once and for all comfortable in his own skin.
Quite simply put, Spock is never the same again. He isn’t supposed to be.

“…clearly there is a way of reconciling it all…”

We do not have to. All of this is in the dialogue and behavior of the characters, the theme of TMP, and the development of the characters between the films is exactly on point, IMO.

Spock and McCoy resolve their respective issues within themselves and with their places in the Universe. Kirk, on the other hand, does not resolve his completely until his demotion to Captain at the end of TVH.

In many ways, his promotion to the Admiralty haunts him for 4 films (an estimated 8 years or so in ST chronology from TMP-TVH).

527. Closettrekker - October 30, 2008

That’s “variable”, not “invariable”…sorry.

528. Jeffries Tuber - October 30, 2008

The short running time that JJ’s promised is getting more annoying with every passing day. I seriously think this movie is designed like the dance of seven veils–it’s going to imply, suggest, foreshadow, remind, titilate, explain and tease us up for less than two hours… in exchange for a slender glimpse of the Trek we’re already obsessed with. It’s almost like they’re trying to force us to buy books, toys and comics… and actually make money off of this. The gall!

529. Captain Scokirk - October 30, 2008

It is implied that there was a second 5 year mission between TMP & TWOK, and probably a second retirement by Jim Kirk because Generations implies that was when he was involved with “Antonia” in his cabin in Iowa, Idaho, Lone Pine?

TWOK reuses efx shots as is the convention in Trek going back through the original series and forward to beyond, it does shuffle them around a bit , and edits them down to more managable lengths, but they made up for it with the space battles, that were hinted at but never shown up to that point. At the time those space battles were legendary, after having to “imagine” it in TOS where you had at times almost a radio show efx wise, wed see stock footage of the enterprise firing phasers, cut away to explosions in space, maybe an enemy ship but more often than not a blob of lights or “just out of visual range”, how convenient! and then cut back to our heroes bouncing around on the bridge. TWOK gave us phasers cutting through starships! Actual battle dammage! It was at the time mind blowing, you forgot the spacedock rehash scenes(which they would make up for in TSFS anyway. Ah Treks 2-3-4 (viewed collectively)were the best!

530. Captain Scokirk - October 30, 2008

More importantly to the difference in “time” between movies, for whatever reason they decided to set TMP around 2 years after TOS, when in fact in real time 10 years had passed, so when they made TWOK 3 years after TMP with everyone noticably older including Khan they had to make up the time somewhere. Hence the missing 7.5 years!

I often have felt you have to pretty much ignore numbers in the Trek Universe, otherwise you’ll end up feeling like Riker in that episode where Beverly has a straw in his temple and he shouts “arent you going to answer that!” which is to say with a headache and liable to be shouting at everyone.

Although you could always use the human error excuse, lots of people round up , “i havent seen him in 20 years!” and its been 16, that sort of thing. Besides Khan clearly says “On Earth, 200 years ago, I was a prince..” Khan is already 100 years off and we are trying to account for a 7.5-15 year difference?

The real lesson is to be sceptical with figures and Star Trek.

531. Xai - October 30, 2008

508. Databrain – October 30, 2008
‘Enterprise failed because it started off with poor stories and it was on UPN’

“Voyager was on UPN too. Yet it seemed to garner as many viewers as TNG.”

Ummm…no.

532. Xai - October 30, 2008

509. HSIV – October 30, 2008
“trolling? wtf? omg no…my point is why would starfleet put a huge window in the front of THE BRIDGE…which is the CENTRAL COMMAND CENTER FOR THE SHIP…

silly argument…w/e…remember, the bridge needs to be SAFE FOR USE…and whether made of glass or transparent aluminum, a window would have a much lower stress-tolerance than the hull of the ship…

btw…it says its transparent ALUMINUM, not transparent DURANIUM or TRITANIUM…”

Think outside the box.
Who said it was a window? A screen can show many things, including the local view. True? Just another video input from a sensor source.

533. Jeffries Tuber - October 30, 2008

HSIV and Xai: Regarding the possible window/screen…

Isn’t applying the logic of a secure bridge kind of silly, when the bridge is on a raised ‘platter’ in the middle of a bullseye? If Starfleet were designing the ship to be secure by our standards, the bridge would be buried in the middle of the saucer or near one of the triangular joints between the two hulls. [Triangles are strongest architectural form.] Clearly the bridge is placed where it is for some reasons that our science can’t understand.

The notion that the bridge is safe on the surface of a bullseye in the least defensible area of the entire ship, but would be unacceptably endangered by a 150sqft window is illogical.

534. Jeffries Tuber - October 30, 2008

Moreover, the notion that a Starship [Klingon, Romulan, etc.] would ever “miss” its target is absolute dramatic license and sheer fantasy. In a logical Trekverse, faster than light phase weapons would always target the bridge and would always make a direct hit.

535. CaptainRickover - October 30, 2008

It seems to me, that it’s one of the windows of the saucer section’s front (perhaps the observation lounge) with incorporated head-ups. Cool idea. The very first thing I’lll like about all the new pictures (beside the uniforms of course; they’re great) – if it is so. We only will knew when the movie is released.

536. TK - October 30, 2008

Everything looks too clean for my taste……just my 2 cents, or pennys. :)

537. subatoi - October 30, 2008

So… What’s up the European release of the trailer? Any news about that? Will it be with Bond or not?

538. Buckaroohawk - October 30, 2008

Databrain (#510),

“No it didn’t. It’s most succesful era was the mid-late 90s when convention activity rose beyond all expectations and the ratings for the next generation far exceeded anything that proceeded. This was the so called ‘geeks only’ era of star trek, wherein the trekkies dominated the financial market where the franchise was concerned.”

Your quoted statement above actually provides some proof of my argument, as outlined below…

1. First, Trek was at its highest point (on TV anyway) during the EARLY 1990s, not the mid-to-late 1990s. TNG ended its original run on TV in 1994, so it wasn’t even airing new episodes during the late 1990s, as your quote supposes. Anyway, starting with the 4th season of TNG, the show caught fire with THE GENERAL AUDIENCE, not just the core Trek fan base. It turned from a cult show into a cultural phenomenon, and it was pulling in the equivalent of network TV ratings. All of a sudden, being a Star Trek fan was considered cool and more typical TV watchers were embracing the show. They were also going to the conventions and buying a lot of Trek merchandise. TNG became a mainstream hit, or to use a term oft repeated in this debate, it found a way to reach beyond the core Trek fan base and appeal to a larger audience. This was not, as you called it, the “geeks only” era of Trek, but rather the “Mainstream Era.” If there was a “geeks only” era (and I don’t know any self-respecting Trek fan who would honestly call it that), it would be from the 1970s (when TOS was in syndication) to 1991 (when the 4th season of TNG premiered).

2. This spike in TNG’s popularity did not translate to the TOS-era film series. In fact, the general audience that embraced TNG and made it so popular weren’t really all that interested in TOS, and the box office numbers for films V and VI bear this out. The “Mainstream Era” for the films was the mid-1980s, Star Trek IV captured the attention of the general movie-going audience. Star Trek V lost that audience a few years later.

3. The mainstream success of TNG prompted Paramount to expand the franchise, leading to the development of DS9 (which was also likely a response to the development of Babylon 5, another sci-fi series that was to air in syndication, like TNG and DS9). Since TNG was nearing the end of its run, the studio hoped to capitalize on its success (in other words, make more money), by moving the TNG cast to feature films and continue on TV with DS9 in syndication. Unfortunately, this didn’t quite have the results I’m sure they anticipated. DS9 wasn’t as warmly accepted by the general audience as TNG had been, and the first TNG film, “Generations” didn’t bring in the huge numbers the TNG series had. Both were sucessful, but nowhere near as big as TNG had been in its heyday on TV.

4. Paramount decided to launch a 4th TV network (UPN) in the late 1990s, and developed Star Trek Voyager to be the network’s flagship show. There were now two separate Trek TV shows in production, and the TNG film series was still in production as well. The audience, though, was becoming too diluted to support all of these different incarnations. Except for the film Star Trek First Contact, which still managed to reach something of a broader audience, the Trek franchise was beginning to show serious signs of stress. DS9 ended its run with many questions about the fates of several characters basically unanswered, and VOY’s last episode was so disappointing that it’s disliked by even the most ardent fan of that show. If this really is the “geeks only” era you were referring to, then you’re right because at this point, the core fan base, fractured as it was, was the only thing keeping Trek afloat.

5. Paramount tried to recapture that wider audience that had made TNG so popular and gain new, younger fans, with Enterprise. But, after a huge TV premiere that saw the highest ratings of any UPN show up to that point, the audience quickly lost interest, and the show basically limped though its four season run. Likewise, the TNG features Insurrection and Nemesis failed to capture a big audience. By this time, even most of the core Trek fan base had distanced themselves from the franchise. They found solace in buying the DVDs of their favorite series or watching reruns on Spike or Sci Fi.

So, as I said, your quote actually proves my point. Trek was at its most successful and popular when it was reaching a wider audience, not just the core fans. The time you remember as the “geeks only” era (despite the fact that you got the years wrong), was actually the total opposite. it was a time when the general audience, for a brief moment, embraced Trek as willingly and enthusiastically as the core fans always had. Some of them stayed true to the franchise as it was stretched nearly to the breaking point; that’s why you see posts from TNG, DS9, and VOY fans here. Most of them, though, were unwilling or unable to follow it through all of its permutations. They left for greener sci-fi pastures, and Trek has suffered for that.

Now, though, with this new movie, Trek has the potential to rise up and (for lack of a better term) be cool again. Trek doesn’t have to be dumbed down to reach this broader audience; TNG proved that. And Trek being cool doesn’t have to be a bad thing either. I for one would love to hear the typical man-or-woman-on-the-street talk about how much they love Star Trek again. Yeah, there’s something special about liking something that few others seem to have an interest in (as Trek fans have learned well over the years), but I’d much rather see Trek thrive as something that can inspire everyone, not just the core fan base.

I know that all of this long-winded back-and-forth between us likely won’t change your opinions, but I hope that it will at least see that the attempt to make Trek appealing to a wider audience doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It’s happened before (however briefly) with stunning results.

539. RD - October 30, 2008

My apologies. What I meant to say was “judging from SOME POSTS on this forum” supported by those which heartily champion the scantily clad female attire, to up the sexiness of the film and comparing it to Bond, one of the most flagrant sexist misogynistic depictions of women in any film franchise.

(493. Xai – October 29, 2008
488. RD – October 29, 2008
“History lesson aside, I understand women were rebelling against the 1950’s idea that the women you married should be an angel in public and a demon in the sack. Men were pigs during this era and judging from this forum not a lot has changed.”
-You owe many posters on this site an apology. That was a blanket statement with no basis in fact.)

540. Xai - October 30, 2008

539,
Funny, I don’t recall being a pig THEN either, but I’ll let it go

541. ARGTREK - October 30, 2008

guys, the timeline has already changed, as established in FC and ENT. that’s canon you know. what they’ve learned from the borg changed for ever the look of the TOS timeframe. THIS MOVIE GONNA ROCK. LONG AND PROSPER LIVE TO THE TREK!

542. Captain Scokirk - October 30, 2008

538-
You have a pretty good analysis their but I think you put too much weight on TNG establishing Trek as a crossover phenomena. I think TNG was the peak of a wave that started in the 70′s, dont forget the legendary SNL spoof w/ John Belushi, the “Get a life” skit, TMP made good money it was just over budget, Treks 2-3-4 built on each other and paved the way for TNG to become the standard bearer in the early 90′s like you said. But in terms of cross-cultural appeal I think TOS and the TOS films had more of staying power in the public imagination. Even Seinfeld has an episode that quotes liberally from Star Trek III of all movies. And Trek V did poorly because of intense competition from Batman and Indy 3, that combined with lackluster efx doomed that film. But Trek VI did much better box office. A case could be made that it flew along fine until 1996- First Contact did good money, but it went downhill from there, and by that point with two T.V. series and a film series they might have over saturated the market.

TNG was a big hit, I am always suprised how many non-trekkies are fans of the show, but you rarely find DS9-VOY-ENT laymen.

543. montreal paul - October 30, 2008

I think DS9 was one of the better spin offs.. and ENT was very good too. VOY had a great premise, but I found it could have been a little grittier. Had some great episodes though. LOVED the one with Capt Sulu.

544. gooser - October 30, 2008

355:

Черная рубашка в этом кино значит что он новобранец

545. Databrain - October 31, 2008

‘We are all striving to attain a peaceful society (even when we disagree upon the path). There is nothing inherently wrong about that goal. The problem I have with a so-called “utopia” is that it requires giving up a certain measure of individual ideals.’

No it doesn’t dude. You are listening to someone elses ideas about what an Utopian society would evolve into. The people who stand to lose from peace always make prospective utopian visions seem degenerative of human will and spirit. This is a bogus claim with no foot grounded in reality.

‘One man’s “utopia” is another man’s “prison”.’

You could say the same thing to the millions of people who live in absolute poverty in america today. Your capitalistic utopia is their brutal nightmare. I mean, I know what direction you were headed with this, politics as usual. So I went there.

‘The vision in TOS (as I described it earlier) is quite different from the vision in TNG (a ’somewhat’ utopian society). I would submit that the transition from one to the other ‘is’ a perversion, and I will not apologize for that.’

It’s not a perversion so much as an evolution. Tell me point for point what’a the character development in the next generation that makes it appear as if people live in a prison society instead of a free system. There is still many violations of the prime directive that do not come with a death sentence. People have everything they could ever possibly dream up with a replicator. Scarcity is definitely not an issue then. Starfleet is not limiting peoples choices, it is giving a choice. And those who choose not to partake of starfleet are not left homeless and in poverty. They have the same societal amenities everyone else does. The same basic rights. There is no starfleet limit to space flight. People can travel wherever they want by whatever available means is at their disposal. I don’t get why some people say there is a limitation. I think it’s political conservative semantics to even suggest this. Because the real prison is todays world and todays politics. Everyone knows that deep down.

‘Mankind uniting to conquer the social ills which plague us today and joining forces “to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before” is not the same as conforming to some frightening state of “total humanistic unity”.’

You are twisting my meaning to your own desired definition. The word unity speaks for itself. There is no coercion in it. There is no implied need for ultimate social conformity in it. You made that part up yourself.

546. Databrain - October 31, 2008

‘To me, Kirk and crew only appear to have aged a few years between TMP and TWOK’

Don’t you think medical science, by that time, can somewhat slow down the aging process, so that it is conceivable people still look relatively the same age between the passage of 10 years? Throughout the run of the next generation and the first 3 next generation films Picard looks almost exactly the same. In hollywood this might be attributed to make up, but in star trek canon, it could be attributed to the slowing down of cellular aging process by advanced medical techniques.

547. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 31, 2008

Databrain, that particular retcon doesn’t sit well with me, given that TWOK has as a major theme precisely the issue of aging… just think of the whole schtick with Kirk needing glasses….

Anyway, look, I am not out to argue this anymore. Closettrekker and others have shown me that certain fans find nothing particularly jarring in the whole set of changes between TMP and TWOK. Personally, I cannot help the subjective feeling that there is a discontinuity there, whereas most ST movies have a far greater sense of “passing the torch”. Initially, I was likening this to TWOK “rebooting” the refit Constitution class Enterprise era (if I can call that an era) that properly speaking TMP “booted”. However, I am willing to acknowledge that this is a personal, subjective feeling, and all the retconning in the world isn’t going to make me happier with it, but if other fans are okay with it, so be it (not that it really matters anymore, I just find it illuminating at this time, when we’re seeing a lot of really vehement opinions about a “reboot” before the new film has even aired).

548. Holger - October 31, 2008

The Enterprise model used in TOS: Where No Man Has Gone Before featured a forward window on the bridge dome – well, at least there was a glowing rectangle which looked exactly like the other glowing rectangles which actually were representing windows. Therefore, I find the window on the movie bridge is a cool idea – if it should turn out to be one.

549. Holger - October 31, 2008

ahm… I mean if it should turn out to be a w i n d o w.

550. Closettrekker - October 31, 2008

#545—-”You are listening to someone elses ideas about what an Utopian society would evolve into. ”

No, the fact remains that any “utopia” is dependant upon the premise that the whole of that society would agree upon what makes it so. That is something inherently wrong about the concept to begin with.

“Your capitalistic utopia is their brutal nightmare”

You’re putting words in my mouth. I do not pretend that our society is any kind of utopia. That’s the difference.

“I think it’s political conservative semantics to even suggest this”

Leave the politics at home. This is not a political question. It is a philosophical one.

I do not believe that a ‘utopia’ can be obtained for the population of an entire planet, much less a Federation of Planets. Uniting towards a common goal (which absolutely ‘can’ be achieved)is not the same thing.

It is only the perception among some of a ‘utopia’ which can be obtained. It will always be the ldeals of ‘some’ imposed upon the whole.

That is “imaginary” utopia.

The original Star Trek vision is what remains realistically attainable and thus has far more value. I do not have the same appreciation for TNG’s “utopia”.

That isn’t what Star Trek was in the 1960′s. ‘That’ is the vision I still cling to.

551. Holger - October 31, 2008

550: I don’t think TNG is that utopian. People in the 24th century are simply well-educated, well-mannered, open-minded, and they respect their fellow human and alien beings. I don’t think this is unattainable in principle. In fact I know many people who behave that way even today.

552. Charlie Jade 2070 - October 31, 2008

- IMHO this new movie is destroying all the modernity from STAR TREK…this new uniforms are so … kinky..and the designs of the ships are so weird for the present time…DS-9 is so much cooler than this movie…i saw the same mistakes with the ships in ENTERPRISE…but i might be wrong..offcourse….

553. Jeffries Tuber - October 31, 2008

I didn’t see any Trekking in DS9. It was a starbase, for crying out loud. It’s the exact opposite of Star Trek, with the brand slapped on and taking place in the same universe.

554. Closettrekker - October 31, 2008

#551—-TNG is definitely more harmonic in intent. That’s one of the things which gives it far less entertainment value, IMO.

It took several seasons until there was even any “conflict” amongst the characters and/or Federation citizens which wasn’t a result of some sort of sickness or other external factor. This “Roddenberry Box” was a product of GR’s later ‘revisionist” look at what he wanted the TOS Universe to be seen as having evolved into.

I found it utterly boring.

It wasn’t until after GR was no longer involved with the series that elements like The Maquis (and Ensign Ro) or Jean Simmons character in “The Drumhead” were introduced. Unfortunately, that was just about the extent of real human conflict portrayed in TNG.

TOS, by contrast, did a memorable job in depicting humans as being simply a little bit wiser versions of the same flawed species. It was still humanity.
Bones was always willing to tell Spock, or even his captain, what to go do with himself.
The TOS Universe was full of people like Harry Mudd, Cyrano Jones, rogue men (even within Starfleet) like Garth of Izar, R.M Merik, or the brilliant (yet twisted) teacher John Gill. Human beings were still very recognizable to me.
Scotty was never above pulling out a bottle of scotch from his quarters, Kirk was very vulnerable to—shall we say—Earthly pleasures?
And there were always those whose ideas and philosophies sometimes did not mesh with the current state of society, like Mr. Stiles, for example. Kirk did not even seem surprised that he would have to call him out on his bigotry
. People still had breakdowns, like Commodore Decker.
There were still heroes.

And even ‘Spock’ was willing to break the rules at times…

These were people we could identify with, yet that had managed to achieve so much which is really achievable. I couldn’t identify with the TNG characters. Who were those guys?

In my estimation, they were people who spent far too much time on the “holodeck” (so did the writers).

555. JWM - October 31, 2008

#554 – Well said. And as much as anyone must acknowledge Roddenberry for bringing ST to the world, one must also acknowledge not only what you said in the context of TNG, but the fact that the films improved specifically as soon as he was removed from direct involvement in them.

ST:TMP got him booted to a back office and we got TWOK, the strength of which was specifically that it tied into the humanity that you mention as making TOS so memorable. As I recall, he later went on to being more of an impediment to the franchise by doing petulant things designed to ‘get back’ at Paramount for handing the reins to others. (Legend is that the Kobayashi Maru sequence came out of him leaking the plot point of Spock’s death at the end while they were still in production. I read that in a very unofficial book, but it sounded like the guy knew what he was talking about.)

556. karanadon - November 1, 2008

I can confirm, having seen QoS in the UK, that there is indeed NO Trek trailer with it. Sadly =’(

557. karanadon - November 1, 2008

Well, at least, not YET…

558. Holger - November 1, 2008

554: I agree that a harmonious bunch is not as thrilling. But I also like it to see people as they could behave if they just put themselves together a little bit, and that’s what the TNG crew showed us. But yes, in the long run it tends to become somewhat boring. The conflict always had to come from outside.
But the TOS crew didn’t have many internal issues as well, did they? The little bickering between Spock and Bones wasn’t really serious. And as for all those Federation dignitaries who were either incompetent and stubborn, or went insane – well, wasn’t that a little bit too much? One wonders how Starfleet and the Federation could function properly with all those weirdos in charge.
And then again there was some of it in TNG, too. You already mentioned some good examples. But even before those, there was The Offspring, where a stubborn admiral wanted to take Data’s daughter Lal, and already in the second season there was The Measure of a Man, where Starfleet scientist Maddox wanted to take Data apart against his will, and in Too Short a Season (1st season!) there was this admiral who wanted to cover up some gray-shaded decisions he’d made. Also in the 1st season we learned that Tasha Yar (why did she have to leave? Sigh!) came from a failed Federation colony planet, where everything went completely down the drain until there was raging civil war and anarchy. And then we saw this human physician (forgot the name of the woman and of the episode) who applied high-risk experimental treatments on patients in order to advance her research. And let’s not forget Captain Ben Maxwell who went berserk against the Cardassians, Admiral Pressman in The Pegasus, or Captain Jellico (Chain of Command), who didn’t share Picard’s philosophical command style – I have to admit that I absolutely loved it to see the 1701-D crew stirred up by this Gung Ho style captain.
Looking at all these examples, TNG isn’t so much behind TOS in Starfleet-internal conflicts. Funny, I hadn’t even realized that until I collected all those examples answering your post ;-) Maybe one doesn’t notice because in TNG those conflicts are spread out over seven seasons, not just three (why did they have to cancel Star Trek? Sigh!)

559. JWM - November 1, 2008

“Looking at all these examples, TNG isn’t so much behind TOS in Starfleet-internal conflicts.”

But the conflicts within the crew, the tensions and camaraderie, were much more…sterile. I think that for me, and I am stating this for me alone, TNG was too diffused with the number of characters. With TOS, you had a classic triad and then the other characters were there, but not really the focus. I prefer the classic triad, because it provides better drama and better interplay for themes. With TNG, you had one main character and then everyone else took a turn as the secondary focal point. As a result, you get much more a feeling of things being done by committee.

TNG was the first inkling of the PC insanity that would go on to create the inanity that was Voyager.

560. DesiluTrek - November 1, 2008

I’m starting to get pissed about Abrams’ attitude toward Trek. Go back and watch crappy, grossly overrated Star Wars if you like that better and leave my Trek alone. “Silly?” Don’t get me started on the silliness of Star Wars, especially vis a vis Trek.

The more I see of this movie, and the more I hear from Abrams, the less I like. I’ve tried to keep an open mind, but apparently I was being more open-minded about Abrams and his effort than he’s been toward Trek itself. Abrams reeks of “I know better” arrogance.

“Phase II,” “Exeter” and those efforts are and apparently will be real Trek for me from here on, not this bastardization. And it hurts to say that given Leonard Nimoy’s participation.

561. Holger - November 2, 2008

559: What’s “PC”?

562. HSIV - November 3, 2008

#337—LMAO…Chris Pike as kirk? LOL BRAVO on the joke there…the actors name is chris PINE, although the comedic irony there is in his natural everyday look chris pine looks more like jeff hunter than like shatner :)

#561–have you been living in a cave with zarabeth for the past 30 years? wtf? PC= POLITICALLY CORRECT

563. Holger - November 4, 2008

562: Well, thanks for the information, at least. You know, in the cave you suppose I’ve been living, we may not know what PC stands for, but at least we know some manners. Maybe you should spend some time in such a cave, too.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.