Star Trek Trailer Hits The Net [UPDATED] November 15, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
The trailer for the new Star Trek movie is in theaters and will be online at the official site in HD on Monday morning. However that is just not good enough for some folks who just can’t seem to wait. As noted in the TrekMovie.com review of the trailer, it is meant to seen on the big screen for the first time, or at least on the small screen in HD on Monday. UPDATE: Official trailer online.
Here is the official link:
The official site is directing viewers to the Apple Trailers site, who have the first exclusive on the trailer.
comments for the trailer moved to latest article
Loading ...
Comments
Someone get JJ a red shirt
this is the one i posted on my forum! man, i can’t wait to go back to work, so i can see the trailer on the big screen!
Well had it been announced when it would be available on the big screen for anyone but American’s, then I might have been content to wait. As it is, I’ll just watch it online.
PDI, Pretty dam impressive.
it still strikes me as a bit silly to build a ship of that size on the earth instead of in orbit.
Thanks to all for all your perseverance to bring this to the group that can’t get out this weekend to see the trailer!
I’m very excited now! And somewhat relieved that the Enterprise looks more Enterprise-y than it did in that photo we got last week.
very impressed by the badassery going on in this. it looks like our baby is going to be accepted by a much larger audience. its gonna be a good thing. also, i know the music is from the composer’s other film, but those last 3 notes when the “star trek” font comes up…very similar to the opening title on the TOS, no?
Second!
I like it!!
Uhmmm – hey, already noticed a glitch:
Young Kirk is SO OBVIOUSLY tied to the ledge by the waist! – that’s BADLY done…
meh…
i mean, build the components on earth and then fly them up individually – sure! .. but i don’t understand the rationale for having the assembly stage on the surface.
JVC GY-HD100U ProHD 3ccd High Definition Camcorder
It looks awesome on the big screen.
This really does look so good; the sfx even in this slightly grainy version look top class
#5 the super structrue can be built on the ground to facilitate gravitational stress, but the interiors and minor systems would be easier to install in space. It’s probably taken up by transporter or tractor beam, one of the two.
@ #9
Erm, no. Not second. Ninth!
What is it with the obsession with shouting out what you think is your post number? All the time I see “First!” etc, and it’s annoying… especially when they’re not the first and they just made a fool of themselves.
@ 5,
That’s cause they’ll beam bits and pieces out in space… that took them 17 years extra!! ;p
Kidding, yeah I know what you mean.
Aside from a kid who looks nothing like Kirk, with a dumb line “I’m JAMES Tiberius KIRK” was a bit too lame. And what was that, death wish scene?
Though the Spock’s birth was pretty damn amazing… all in all, having seen these and a few other shots a week ago, I’m still impressed… But still a bit hesitant that the story might not be as solid as the scenes them selves… I’ve heard snippets of the score and put those together with the scenes you’ve seen… and TADA!!!! Most Trek fans will get emotional. You can bet your boots on that!
I watched the trailer 10 times. I really really hope they did not dumb down the movie with pointless action scenes.
The other version you see commonly (like on trailerspy.com) was from a curved screen. That was taken by a FujiFilm FinePix S2000 HD
If anyone is interested, I have taken 72 screencaps from that version and they’re up at http://aqua.mysfdb.com > Official Images > Second Trailer
Um, isn’t Trek known for action scenes?
As you can see, the Enterprise isn’t finished on earth.
It could still get the finishing touches in orbit.
I believe it’s being partially assembled in Iowa, out of secrecy.
For the same reasons we hide missile silos in the Midwest.
Hopefully the Earth doesn’t crash into the sun before this film comes out
or stand still?
@16 .. “#5 the super structrue can be built on the ground to facilitate gravitational stress, but the interiors and minor systems would be easier to install in space. It’s probably taken up by transporter or tractor beam, one of the two”
right, but by doing all the assembly in space, you can skip wasting your time with a superstructure.
the ship just looks awkward sitting on the earth like that. the genius of the original enterprise design that it was clearly a vehicle born of and for outer space. this construction conceit it fundamentally at odds with the design philosophy of the vehicle itself.
Ok, I’m sold. Even though I’ve bashed the new Enterprise and the guy who designed it, I’m willing to give it a shot.
21. Enterprise
No.
The Enterprise looks GREAT in this film surrounded by that shaking blue stream (I assume that’s the new Warp Speed?)
Lots of colors in that fire fight and the uni’s look good. From an aesthetic POV, it’s going to look GREAT on the big screen. The difference in this film and the Star Wars prequels is that no matter how MUCH you ‘wondered’ what would happen, you still KNEW what would happen. The fact that OLD Spock is in this film means we don’t for sure know ANYTHING about this film’s direction and that alone gives you hope that…you……..never……….know! :)
When Pine says Buckle up and gives that expression with the pat – THAT is Kirk.
I for one am PUMPED!
Excited to see this in better quality on Monday — but i’m left with one question from this … is young Kirk wearing the Self Drying Jacket from Back to the Future or what?
Was that Star Trek?
For many years, I have watched and enjoyed the original star trek series and even became obsessed with it. I took a break for several years and recently decided to watch a few episodes. I still enjoy them. To be honest, however, I would be embarrassed to show any of my friends the series. People must realize that once TOS lovers are gone, very few would enjoy the series and TOS would die as a parody. After seeing this trailer and reading about this new movie, I firmly believe that this is an answer to my prayers. If done successfully, it will be quite a long time before Star Trek is forgotten. Too many people seem to look at TOS as some sort of bible engraved in stone. To be honest, it is just a cheap TV show with crappy effects and cheesy music. Sorry, that’s reality not just to me, but to a majority of this generation.
Grr…now I’ve spoiled it for myself and the HD version won’t be as cool…oh well. I like Scotty’s line…”It’s exciting!” And I wonder who’s kissing who. And I for one don’t care how where or when they built the Enterprise, just as long as they built it.
P.S. Did I forget to mention that this looks awesome?!!!
I loved the bones they threw the original fans: the original red alert klaxon, the notes from the original theme music, the original logo. Everything else — we’ll have to wait and see. Could be great, could be a long music video in space. You can’t tell from a trailer.
31 that ’s funny, i showed some of my non-trek friends the old show, and they were impressed by the interesting concepts and stories.
I’m very pro this movie, by the way.
striatic from flickr?
#25
I’m not saying constructing the entire ship in space is not a bad idea or that it isn’t done. I’m saying its easier to create a superstructure that can withstand gravitational stress on a planet because there are those stresses rather than in space where those stresses are weak. Better make it so it can handle 1 G on the surface rather than 1 G in space. In space, the ship can handle as many G’s as it likes but if it can;t handle 1 G on the surface, the ship is toast, especially from enemy fire. It has to be a strong superstructure How could you explain how the Enterprise-D saucer could withstand gravitational stresses when it crash landed on Veridian 3 in Generations? It has to be able to withstand those forces even with inertial dampening and gravitational systems offline. As for the design being awkward, I would conlcude that the shipyards in the surfaces of the planets have a tractor field to keep the more awkward bits in place. Think of the technology and you can come up with an explanation. That’s just how I can reconcile it. You don’t even have to agree with me. I’m just stating my interpretation via my observations.
25: Build a lot of starships, do you?
The footage of Spock at 1:31 is flipped. I hope they fix that. ;*)
greets voyager, from deck-one? This is two articles in a row where they have messed up the credits. On the about fan-modding they got me but not the others I worked with, and on this one they got the others I worked with but not me. lol
@31 “To be honest, it is just a cheap TV show with crappy effects and cheesy music. Sorry, that’s reality not just to me, but to a majority of this generation.”
i think most people understand that.
it’s just that this new film seems to be throwing out some of the good ideas that show did have, along with the many problems.
it is an issue of the baby to bathwater ratio.
Aragorn, your argument makes no sense from an engineering point of view, sorry.
Brad, it’s a psychological thing, but they deliberately flipped it so as to not break the left to right flow of the trailer.
NEWS? Nikki at deadlinehollywooddaily.com says “On Wednesday afternoon, the studio is unveiling this same 25 minutes of the movie at a private screening on the lot for selected opinion-makers,” referring to the clips shown in Europe last week.
this is really positive,cast looks like they can hold their own,original choices with production design and yet in keeping with what has gone before,love the epic feel of it too
RE: credits
look it all confuses me so i removed them
RE: 44
not news. I will be there and reported that already
Look if they can figure out artificial gravity on the ship, figure out warp drive and figure out transporter technology then getting a ship that size off the planet should be cake. It needs to be in the earth’s gravity well to tune the artificial gravity on the ship to match that of earths..like calibrating. I am sure it is finished in space.
i’m glad that the klingons have bumpy foreheads :D
but the enterprise looks even worse from the front :( because of the curved pylons.
and why is the spock attack scene mirror-inverted? ;)
Needs more Kenny Loggins and Tom Cruise. Meeesa think this Ship’s Exciting! Looking forward to this Star Wars sequel. : )
Ps: 41 – if the show was so crappy, why was the first space shuttle named Enterprise?
Are you really sure you want to have this on your site?
Considering Paramount invited you to the lot to see it, and they chose you (among others) to release first-look stills.
I know you have an obligation to the fans, but you also don’t want to rub the studio up the wrong way.
Or should I just go f*** myself?
#42
I’ll try to be more concise. Superstructure built in Earth Gravity can withstand stresses within that environment. Thus it makes it withstand greater forces in an environment with less gravity. If that isn’t concise enough then, oh well I tried. Again, this is just my imperfect logic trying to make sense of the new info. And plus it is science fiction, so it doesn’t have to fit exactly.
@25: “Build a lot of starships, do you?”
no. never.
i wouldn’t care about the earth based construction if someone could explain why it makes sense to do it that way.
note that kirk has captain’s stripes in one scene (from cadet to captain??)
The only thing I don’t like about the trailer is that the music sucks goat beans!! The teaser trailer was kick a$$ because something in the music kind of brought a sense of pride and excitement to the trailer, but this new one, the music seems like canned “action flick” musak! Everything else is awesome though!
#1 Mazz
LOL!
As far as the Enterprise being built on the ground in this ‘alternative’-looking Movie…. If this remains the case, and we eventually see an inaugural ‘take-off’ (!!!) from an Earth-bound assembly point….then I reckon J.J. and co. just deliberately decided to have a very different -looking ‘Enterprise launch’ sequence, compared to the brilliantly-executed one of the original Motion Picture….just for the SAKE of looking as different to that one as possible….
….which CAN be explained away as being this way, due to it coming after whatever ‘alternative timeline’ meddling has been instigated, if it DOES come AFTER….but which I don’t think was a necessary change in the first place, as an ‘alternative timeline’ build / launch from space would have been better than this. It will just be one of many things that have been changed just for the SAKE of change though, so it doesn’t really matter if it pans out this way now, at the end of the day.
The trailer is looking good. It’s interesting to see some things about the TOS characters that we’ve never seen before. While the pic of the new Enterprise is alright, it looks great in action. It’s also great to hear and see Captain Pike in action. This is definitely an origin story TOS never had.
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!222@@@222
*drools*
stiatic, I don’t remember the book title, but they probably got the idea and its justification from the lost era novel (not the new lost eras, the old ones) where Kirk gets the enterprise refitted in san francisco under the justification that it is more efficient to do many things in a gravity field than construct the frame and decking of the ship and then turn on gravity to complete the fine detail work.
Aragorn, what you say just makes no sense from an engineering perspective, sorry.
I was hoping to see this trailer (along with Watchmen) at Quantum of Solace, but as I anticipated; They didn’t have it attatched as reported. Knowing I would see it Monday: I already knew I wouldn’t wait that long. So for posting this video…
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! Thank You
edited by admin…please don’t spam the site, even when saying thank you
“I’ll try to be more concise. Superstructure built in Earth Gravity can withstand stresses within that environment. Thus it makes it withstand greater forces in an environment with less gravity.”
the forces are entirely different though, and at any rate you can easily model those forces in a computer. there’s no need to build the thing on the surface to test against stresses that the ship would never encounter in operation.
i actually think it does make a lot of sense to build the components on earth, where you wouldn’t have to deal with vacuum and could inspect all the components much more easily than when in orbit .. it’s just the assembly that strikes me as odd.
Needs more cowbell…
RE: 50
it was not an easy decision. But once it appeared on Entertainment Weekly’s site (and Paramount have given them more exclusives than anyone), that tipped it for me.
that being said. I really am glad I saw it on the big screen and I think people should see it there too for the first time. IT was truly an emotional experience I dont think you get from the shaky cam on your computer.
There is also the issue that many Trek fans went to see QoS (as we reported they should) and didn’t get to see the trailer. To be honest, I felt kind of bad about that.
can someone edit the thank yous down to a single line please?
O my god, O MY GOD!!! *faints*
i realize it’s very hard being used to a certian ship design for years and years, , that said, I definately will give this a chance,, because if abrams didn’t take it over,, there may be nothing at all on the big screen with trek. very good clip! forgive me though,,i did see a glitch,,,,just before kirk says “buckle up”, just after that spocks patch is on the wrong side of his shirt. it’s all fine though. can’t wait to see it!
39. Brad
Great eye man
Even if you do assemble it in orbit prior to launch / operational status, you will put the pieces together on the ground to make sure they do, in fact, connect properly in terms of structural and systems connections.
Tip Tallone of NASA added this step in the processing of the International Space Station, and by doing so, identified problems in fitting the modules together (structural and systems) that were solvable on the ground that would not be solvable on orbit.
If it makes you happier, imagine that after the ground fit check, they disassembled major components for reassembly in space dock.
Also, the ship usually operates in a one G field (supplied by artificial gravity) as standard operating practice, so assembly planet side would actually more closely match the up and down axis gravitational conditions it would usually experience than assembly in a zero G environment.
That’s the best copy I’ve seen today.
Thanks!
Wait, why’d you take out my credit? It was right before, I liked the way you did my name with the link back to deck-one where the link originally came from.
Good enough me me Anthony! I was only concerned for you guys. You do such a wonderful job.
Did you get my email re: this?
Now you have it right, but can I have my hyperlink back? :-P
Great job!! Saw it today on the BIG screen. Truly fantastic!!
Congrats to the whole Trek team. C
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense that a organization such as the Federation would build a ship on land if at all possible. I mean, think about the problems that would occur if something went wrong. Ever hear of a Ablation Cascade? It’s a theory of what would happen if a satellite or group of satellites were blown up. The debris would spread out, destroy other SATs, and soon the Earth would be so surrounded by Space Junk that the only way to launch a ship, a missile, a satellite or space station would require either heavy, heavy shielding, basically making Human use of the Orbit logistically impossible for a century or two. Now, think about how bad it would be if a large ship were to break apart or blow up in orbit? Now, in Trek they’d have shielding, phasers and such to clean it up… but I still think it would be a better idea to make most of the ship on the ground, putting the finishing touches in space. And building the structure in the middle of nowhere in Kansas makes sense too, since it is far away from any major civilian settlements that could be harmed by something going wrong.
Oh, and if real cops wore Helmets like the one talking to Lil Kirk did, the crime rate would plummet.
Jesus, you guys are retards. They can build the damned ship anywhere they please. They um seem to have solved the problem of anti gravity, dampening fields and tractor beams. they can build it on the bottom of the ocean if they want.
I’m not one given to hyperbole . . . but I almost felt like crying watching that trailer!
Oh my God! They’ve nailed Star Trek so perfectly. For the first time since 1979, we’ve got Star Trek shorn of the self-righteous pomposity. The actors look dead on. The design is perfect! I’d swear they’d reached into my childhood vision of what a Star Trek movie should be like and put it on screen.
This is Star Trek stripped of years of psychobabble and pretension and taken back to its roots as big, fun, action-packed entertainment.
It’ll annoy a bunch of people who order fillet-au-fish, but I love it! I’m finishing the night a happy man!
I believe I got 100 emails RE: this
I appreciate the tips, but part of the reason is to stop the links emails
if anyone is curious; when i saw the trailer in New York, there were cheers and applause in the theater when the title appeared
You know all of you can Shut the @$@ up about the Trailer come on This is Transformers all over again look at it. Transformers was one of the highest growsing pictures off 2007. the Trailer is just like the Transformers Trailer show us stuff from the movie but wanting more and for the Orginal Trekkies get a grip will yea come on I know alot of Trekkies that are going to see it Look The guy who started Star Trek New Voyages aka Phase II is in the film as an exstra or even has a line in the picture. come on here the Trialer is great the Enterprise is cool and it shows both past and future and REMEBER ITS BEFORE THE ORGINAL SERIES OK if it makes any more seince for you so called Trekkeis or should I sa fakeies you can see it as an altertnet universe all right. SO STOP #@$! The movie when we only seen 2 minites of the acutal Fiilm it SELF ALL RIGHT God #!!@$ you guys that are constantly Bad Mouthing SHould not say anything just Shut up ok you pissing everyone OFF
I’m surprised you guys put the bootleg up.
Hope nobody gets in trouble for it.
Anthony, your reasoning for posting the trailer here is flawless.
The first part with Kirk as a small kid in the car was really off-putting to me, but the rest of the trailer was AWESOME. As long as they don’t spend too much time on Kirk as a kid I think this movie will be GREAT.
@67 – that makes a lot more sense, thank you.
i still think that it would make the most sense to build the individual components on earth, test them under 1 g individually, fit test them in pairs, then launch the individual components and assemble them in orbit .. which i guess is similar to the ISS procedure you described, minus the 1G testing.
but what you say does make sense.
Also, the only problem I have with Little Kirk going for a joy-ride in a ancient muscle car: Where’d he get the gas? I mean, I can totally seeing him be a rabble-rouser from the day he was born, but where could he possible find gas!
#50 – technically it’s not on this site. It’s hosted on legit video site and linked using legit embed player. Legality or illegality of above-shown content is the concern of vimeo staff, not any of us.
Upon being linked, and thus, publicly explosed like this, it -may- be gone from vimeo soon. But well, it’s sunday, I doubt any of those fat-assed corporate moneypushers will notice it sooner than tomorrow morning. We’ll know soon.
I think the trailer looks great and I’m looking forward to the picture. Even if we don’t like all the changes that have been or will be made as long as it stays true to Gene Roddenberry’s vison I will be in the theater watching and know at the very least we still have Star Trek after 43 years I for one am happy about that.
Sorry Anthony, I was being obtuse. I what I meant was my email re: The trailer playing in the UK.
A Stingray is a terrible thing to waste…
Space…… the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship enterprise. Her mission, to seak out strange new worlds and new civilizations and to boldly go where no one has gone before.
Star Trek has finaly gone where no one has gone before. A revision of the show that will forever etch a dieing franchise into history once again.
or perhaps that was a “mirror” universe Spock attacking Kirk….LMAO…it’s the wittiest thing I’ve come up with all day…..thank you.
Futality is Resistable
I always thought the Enterprise was built in San Francisco. To be fair though, I just assumed that because of the big E’s dedication plaque.
I caught lots of details in Aqua’s stills gallery. Klingons for example! Nero is working with Klingons. I think Sulu is fighting a Klingon on that drilling rig after all :)
Good of you to post those, Aqua.
This film is a dream come true. I can’t wait.
Anthony, would you please be so kind as to swing the banhammer in #78’s direction?
I’m sure I’m not the only one that feels such blatant trolling is an insult to everyone who posts here legitimately.
The owner of my theater just gave me the trailer spool. He wasn’t showing it because “Star Trek doesn’t play well.” I was dissapointed that I didn’t get to see it, but I am thrilled to have an original copy of the trailer film spool!
WOW!!! This movie is going to dilate your pupils!!! =O
I just need to get my mind past the Enterprise interior, which IMHO is a little too Sci-FANTASY (but it sure sparkles!), and I think this movie will be A HELL OF A RIDE.
^31
I hear ya man. That’s just what I think about that crappy old “star wars” thing with with disco hairdos, the junkyard props and that longhair music thing in the background. I mean, Who listens to or cares about neo-romatic revival music as used to underscore motion pictures? Lol!
And don’t even get me started about that live performance of Henry V I saw at People’s Light & Theatre Company. Man, the sets were made of CHEESCLOTH and WATERCOLORS and some of the actors even played TWO AND THREE ROLES!
And the language?! What kind of old fart geek talks like this?
“This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day”
Seriously, Star Trek is for Losers.
Haha just kidding.
Can’t wait to see it.
#92
I hate to be the kill-joy on this thread, but keep that quiet. The trailer is the property of Paramount Pictures. They may come knocking for it.
Having said that…you lucky bugger!
I will be seeing this fine motion picture!
Did I miss Nimoy?
Leaving him out would speak volumes, I think. Hopefully, I just missed him.
This is for all the technogeeks who got a copy of this trailer online for the rest of us poor slobs…
*genuflects repeatedly*
Finally Trek found a director that understands roller coaster pacing. Can’t wait for the movie.
Glad to hear people are liking it.
So they pull it so what we glimpse of the movie, this will tide me over till may of 09, But that said i still can’t wait to see it. It looks like J.J Abrams got it right.
“i wouldn’t care about the earth based construction if someone could explain why it makes sense to do it that way.”
Even in the future, it would take a lot more in terms of energy and time to build a ship in space because of the environment suits and care and feeding of the construction workers which would be far more expensive in space than on earth. I think it’s that simple.
Awesome trailer. New Enterprise looks great. Kudos to Church. I really like Enterprise interiors design.
Where does that information come from that the Enterprise was built in space? On screen??? Or just from those infamous Star Trek encyclopedias of the 90s? I remember those dedication plates but where they ever shown upclose on screen?
EVERYONE needs to read comment #31. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Good job!
STILL AMAZING. I was unsure at first, but I LOVE that blue oscillating warp field effect, especially. (Kiddie Kirk is mildly annoying, tho. I want to smack him and/or give him detention. Let’s hope that sequence is super-brief.)
But what’s with the complaints about too much action? You guys, come one — we can all spot a brainless action CGI movie a mile away. This isn’t one of them! Just because it’s got physicality and exploding things doesn’t mean it’s automatically dumber and/or meant for a dumb audience.
Anyway, what’s wrong with action? I know the TNG movies tried to do it, and they did it fairly badly. (No offense to Picard & co, but… no! Stay seated!) Good, epic, visceral action is still difficult to do. This appears to be good, epic, visceral action.
But perhaps some people preferred a dialogue-heavy one-room play? That would be the more ~intellectually superior~ way to do a Trek movie, of course, especially as it would alienate the plebeians and allow only true fans in.
It looks so amazing but there is still over 5 months to go! Damnit!
People are STILL whinging about the Enterprise being constructed on Earth? Geez, get over it already, how does that matter in the slightest? When was the last time you saw an ocean going vessel constructed on the waves?
Why is Kid Kirk a blonde? And why does he shout his name in a very un-Kirklike manner? That struck me as silly. The rest was all good, if fleeting. Almost like a trailer for a trailer. Let’s hope the next one shows enough to actually see something!
One of our local theaters is closing on Nov 23rd. Having stayed in good with the folks there since leaving the job I had for nine years, when I saw the promotions guy the other night he gave me what can only be described as a slew of posters and one of the trailers.
The trailer was dropped into my safe deposit box… the posters are being museum mounted at a local frame shop and will be adorning my walls by Wednesday. :D
… My apologies for post #59.
Great-looking trailer … saw it earlier today in front of “Quantum of Solace.”
Love the kid playing “James Tiberius Kirk.” Ballsy boy … hope he gets more than a few frames of exposure in this flick.
Looks like “motorcycle Kirk” sees Enterprise under construction and decides to enter the Academy … to find his “place” in life. The voiceover during this sequence sounds like Bruce Greenwood … Pike counseling Kirk?
Brief glimpses of exterior Enterprise actually look nice … that preview pic was a tricky test, by George (Kirk)!
Kirk and Spock fighting on the Bridge? “I will not be lectured by you”? Maybe “Cadet” Kirk conducted a brief tour of duty on Enterprise, under Pike, during which time he and “Lieutenant” Spock (still not quite in control of his emotions) nearly came to blows.
This is all fun to think about, piece together, and it actually may be very close to original canon. I think I can live with that. Looking forward to more footage …
109 – He might be shouting his name from the adrenneline rush of just having escaped death and making it back over the edge of a cliff…. not un-Kirk like… just human.
Lots of children who are somewhat blonde in their younger years end up having their hair darken over time naturally. Again, its a human thing and not unusual.
What I don’t understand is why Paramount hasn’t released it online yet. The new Watchmen trailer is on that’s official website, so why can’t Trek’s be up?
And I very much enjoyed that trailer: it looks like Star Trek might be fun for the first time since First Contact.
#108 don’t worry the time will pass quick. as for the complainers most of that will go away when the movie hits the theaters.
Trailer looks awesome. From just one line of dialogue, and one look at his face, I can tell that Karl Urban is McCoy… it looked like he was channeling Mr. Kelley. Which is not a bad thing. Of all of the TOS characters, McCoy was always my favorite and that was because he seemed real.
If they actually are building the Enterprise in Iowa, I can only approve of that, as I am an Iowan (currently in Wisconsin).
Stop going on about where the Enterprise is built you crazy geeks!! Honestly! Do you realise how daft you sound? The film looks superb, I can’t wait to see it!
i love it, i love it, i love it!!
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
Geek questions:
1. What’s the chasm? Iowa’s flat.
2.. Why can’t a 23rd century robotic cop on a hovercycle catch a child driving a 1967 Corvette?
3. What are those large vertical blobs on the horizon during the subsequent motorbike scene?
4. Does JTK have command stripes in the “buckle up” scene?
It’s stupendous at any rate, and the new Spockboy version is even better.
I have never felt more pity for J.J. Abrams and his team than I do right now. For frak’s sake, his decision to take on Star Trek was like walking into a pen of wild dogs while wrapped in bacon. I wonder if the man had any TRUE idea how merciless the hardcore continuity-loving Trek fans would be should he dare to do anything that was not unwaveringly faithful to canon.
Looks AWESOME! From the description of the Trailer it sounded pretty cool but I was hanging out to see it.
The Enterprise is not built in Iowa.
OH….MY…..GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!From a faithfull and super suspicious TREKKIE about everything so far,i believe that it’s going to be a SUPER reignition of our favourite franchise.Oh,and by the way…Greece here,not the most loyal Trek country.Can’t wait!!!
Leave Kiddie Kirk alone!
Did anybody else watch a television show where the central character would declare himself Captain James T. Kirk?
That sort of presumption and arrogance came from somewhere… probably from having a bad ass name like Tiberious and declaring it when someone in a uniform asks him to ID himself…
Of course Tiberious is a mouthful so I can see why he shortened it to “T.”
Then again, I will wait for the Supreme Court to rule on that assumption.
So… ah…. why don’t they go ahead and release the HD version already. At this point, there aren’t many folks left who are going to go to the QoS for the sole purpose of viewing the trailer. Why let the crappy version linger on the internet when releasing the quicktime version won’t affect anyone’s bottom line?
Juvenile writing it seems like. This movie just doesn’t feel right. This seriously is like a star wars movie.
“The wait is truly over!” and it looks great!!
I think that Karl Urban’s McCoy, Pegg’s Scotty, and Quinto’s Spock are going to be PERFECT. I don’t think Pine’s Kirk is going to be that great, same goes for Saldana’s Uhura or Yelchin’s Chekov. Cho’s Sulu is a toss-up, and I think the sword fighting scene will be the deciding factor for me.
The Corvette plunges in to an excavated mine, not off a natural cliff. Look carefully at the stone–it’s cut. I believe Orci tipped us on this point last week.
… and Eric Bana sounds like he’s ‘Chopper’ playing Nero.
Karl Urban is cool, ’cause he’s a Kiwi! Go Karl, mate! ;-)
Cheers …
@58 Aqua: “Aragorn, what you say just makes no sense from an engineering perspective, sorry.”
Look, I’m sorry I have to say this.
Explain then Aqua how two crystallized lithium atoms facilitate warp drive?
All I know is that in every source material I’ve seen the plaque for the Enterprise has always said :
“USS Enterprise
Starship Class
San Francisco, Calif. ”
Now unless they’ve name parts of Earth orbit after cities then it was built on the ground in San Francisco California for whatever reason. Those who would try to come up with wild theories saying it’s built in space directly above California… why go to the trouble? Let a space station orbit where ever it likes. The simplest explanation is often the correct one. If Gene wanted people to know the E was built in orbit he would’ve said so.
Just because people have *assumed* the E was built in orbit doesn’t mean that it was.
This is a non-issue.
Oh, and loved the trailer… Scotty and Bones are my favs!
Also, was that the Cloverfield monster on the ice planet?
What’s next, Oceanic Lunar Flight 815?
Kidding of course, loved every minute!
just out of curiousity anyone know of any good IRC channels for good trek talk?
Hey, am I the only one who’s uncomfortable with a Kirk vs. Spock physical confrontation? I can’t put my finger on why, but I just never wanted to ever think about that (i.e. who could kick whose ass). I guess that I’ve always assumed that Spock is so physically superior to humans that there is no one who could woop him one-on-one. Because of this, any fight with Kirk would expose Kirk too much to the fact that he is only human – which I never want to happen!
Agree with the complaints about building the ship planet-side. Done for purely cinematic reasons; it’s like an astronaut riding his Harley to the launchpad when they’re prepping a shuttle. Sadly, the whole thing is feeling a bit too much like Apollo 11, right down the futurefied 60s Vette that baby Kirk crashes over the cliff for no frigging reason. Enjoyed the effects, and seeing that the nacelles do in fact clear the saucer; hope that quells Spartabach’s little rebellion.
Oh, and was the Jennifer Morrison I saw at 1:35 popping out JTK? What’s that got to do with a space battle I’d like to know?
The more I watch the trailer the more I like it. Looking forward to seeing the “official” version Monday.
And yes, I know that they “fought” in several episodes, but never to the point that Kirk was embarassed. Even in Amok Time he was doing well enough, given the climate.
to #119:
Okay, if you accept that the chasm is in Iowa, and the fact that it looks man-made, I wonder if it is from coal mining? Southeastern Iowa has a lot of coal (in the ground). Of course, this is beyond geeky to even think about. But hey, we are Star Trek fans.
to #122.
Says a plaque. Unless of course Kirk drove his motorcycle to San Francisco, which would be one helluva uncomfortable trip. I once drove from Cedar Falls (90 miles north of Riverside) to San Diego in 27 hours straight in a Ford Escort. It was not pleasant.
Why build the Enterprise on land? Because ever since we saw how cool the spacedock looked in TMP every movie and the television shows, too, have thrown in a spacedock whenever they could. My bet is that Abrams’s thinking is: Put the sucker on land, break a cliche, make people see this as new again. And then write whatever line the script needs to make it seem like a reasonable thing to do.
Btw by “in the ground”, referring to the coal, I meant to say that the majority of it has not been mined. Yet.
Interesting; I, too, first saw this online — THANK YOU everyone for posting, as repeating the above, many theaters are NOT showing this trailer. One near me didn’t even receive it with Quantum of Solace, either – not attached OR included. (What’s up with that?) MANY OTHER THEATERS ARE SIMPLY NOT SHOWING IT AT ALL. I wonder what Paramount will say about that? With much of the world in turmoil, THIS movie may be what the Earth needs to hear, and the sooner, the better. So, BUCKLE UP, folks: THE WAIT IS OVER.
PARAMOUNT: Please do not be upset at those who posted; most of us would likely NOT have had the chance to see this astonishing work: your place in sci-fi movie history is assured, if this work is any indication. Instead, we hope you accept this as positive, free advertising for a thrilling motion picture with the name PARAMOUNT PICTURES all over it! Hey – why not have ILM or those who craft the end-credits have the Paramount logo itself come across the screen at the end of the movie in a WARP-SPEED STAR-BOW effect? (Feel free to accept that idea for the May 8, 2009 release.)
#28: RE: Kirk’s line “BUCKLE UP.”
Honestly, upon replaying the above trailer several times, one time (the third viewing, I think), I seem to have been hearing things: that Kirk’s line was, instead, “I like to laugh.” (Perhaps to Spock, to push a plot point on Vulcan non-emotional responses vs. human emotionalism – the beginnings of what we saw in many episodes of TOS, Kirk teasing Spock repeatedly. Even in TOS: WNMHGB [second pilot], we saw Kirk teasing Spock upon winning the 3D chess game in the teaser sequence, Spock’s obvious annoyance, and Kirk’s line about “…terrible, having bad blood like that.”) Yeah, Bob and Alex have evidently hit the right emotional buttons with those two, and McCoy’s intermixing his Southern tradition of human emotionalism just stirs the pot. As always. Excellent!
WOW, WHAT A TRAILER!
Everyone connected with this film (–and I note HUGE letters in the final teaser credits for INDUSTRIAL LIGHT & MAGIC – for their special effects for ST XI, which I am really liking here–) deserves praise for a job well done: and we have only the images from this trailer and the one that came out in January showing the construction of the Big E at night, so far! I am looking forward to hearing what George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg will say about the opening premier….
…. I hope JJ & Co. get to invite ALL FIVE SERIES CAST MEMBERS, Majel and Rod, and everyone included in crafting what we have all come to know and love as “STAR TREK” …..
In the trailer, the huge ground-rift that young Jimmy Kirk is heading for in the car, with what might indicate as “DANGER: END OF ROAD – NO BRIDGE,” looks oddly similar to the Xindi rift left by their attack on Earth in Capt. Archer’s era, as shown in one episode of ST:ENT (….but I do realize that that swath was cut in a southerly direction across Georgia, Florida, across the Gulf of Mexico, and the upper portion of the South American continent – quite a distance from the flat-lands outside of Riverside, Iowa.) And did I see CHRIS PIKE ordering the ship’s weapons to fire? (Could the woman that Kirk is shown – in the 1 second clip not far from the end of this trailer – apparently bedding – be Carol Marcus? Oh, my….)
Like everyone else is saying upon seeing this trailer, May 8, 2009 can’t come soon enough! BEAM US UP, QUICK!
Cooooooooool…
#122
Yes, it’s Iowa. This has been confirmed.
About the “Enterprise being built on earth v. space” thing — Who cares?
okay every once and a while I would post telling skeptics not to judge and give it a chance…… i dont care if in this movie the enterprise was built on the moon and i dont care if this movie shows james kirk growing up swimming around in the gases of the crab nebula…..
what i do care about is a good star trek movie and this looks not only bad but also very stupid not even good scifi, I don’t think I am even going to see it at theaters. if this is star trek than I am the tsar of russia
The only thing that has struck me as odd in the trailer so far has been that Vulcan’s atmosphere is blue like Earth instead of red like it’s always been. For some reason, that stood out to me more than anything else.
Awesome, nothing but awesome!
Anybody notice the Klingons with Nero?
Can’t wait til May.
Assuming it’s true, as suggested in the trailer, that Pike played a major mentoring role in Kirk’s life … I think that makes the moment that Kirk first sees the maimed Pike in “The Menagerie” all the more powerful. In that episode, when Mendez is describing the accident that crippled Pike, Kirk acts as if the former Enterprise captain is little more than a name to him. But moments later, he’s standing before Pike and says with emotion and sincerity, “Chris … is there anything I can do?” That always struck me as reflecting something a lot deeper than “Poor guy, he used to have my job.” I’m speculating here, of course … but if I’m right, it’s a very nice nod to canon.
The more I watch this trailer, the more I want more.
————
As to the space/surface question, it only makes sense that pushing a 1000 foot starship out of a 1G gravity well wouldn’t pose a problem to a civilization that has the capabilities to create artificial gravity, nullify gravity, control/reduce the effects of inertia, push/pull matter using energy, and dematerialize/materialize matter. It really is a non-issue.
I just finished watching Spock’s Brain for a laugh and I noticied that I could see the new actors playing our heroes in this episode so I have no problem there. I saw the Enterprise and it looked good. Now I just have one problem. It’s not May yet. When is next trailer coming out?
144. zan
I think I’m seeing a slight difference in the way age groups are judging this trailer. It seems that older people are scratching their heads while young people are thrilled.
I’m still pretty ambivalent about this movie, especially after the trailer. If you’re going to make a new story off of an already known property, then that new story should at least have the spirit of what came before. This, so far, seems to really be missing the spirit of Trek. But I’ll wait and see, and hope my fears prove wrong.
I feel better now that I’ve figured out that Scotty is saying “This is exciting” and not “This is satan.”
Wasn’t Nimoy reported to be in the trailer? I have not spotted him.
Awesome trailer, everything looks good, and yes, the ship looks a lot better in the trailer than the previously released still.
I don’t care where the Enterprise was built.
Going to see a movie just to see a preview…..wow, just wow…..
I thought the commission plaque on the original NCC-1701 said: San Francisco
Not Iowa
or outer space.
Wow, Star Trek hasn’t looked this EXCITING in years!
me thinks there be real nudity in that there film…lol
Anyone from NYC out there who can tell me which theater is showing the trailer. Just found out that 23rd St. is not showing it and I can’t get any other theaters on the phone! Anyone know about Union Square or 34th St.? So frustrating!
question for b’orci: (and we know your listening)
lots of folk seem to think young jimmy in the ‘vette somehow counters the driving scene in “a piece of the action” (TOS).
i couldn’t help but notice that in the trailer, we see jimmy clearly struggling with “gears” in a really bad way, just before he nearly thelma-and-louises’ his ass off the cliff.
as it’s a trailer, and screen time is so important, i was wondering if in fact it wasn’t a DIRECT reference to APOTA/TOS. as if the childhood trauma of wasting the ‘vette led to his fear of gears in the first place.
what a wanky question, i know. still. it seemed kind of obvious to me. funny nobody mentions it.
142. Daniel Broadway – November 15, 2008
“Yes, it’s Iowa. This has been confirmed.”
No it hasn’t. anywhere. What’s to say that Kirk isn’t already attending Starfleet at the time? Why ASSUME that it’s Iowa or why ASSUME that he rode from Iowa to San Fran? He could already be in San Fran and just goes to see it? Geez.. some people over think things.
Can’t wait to see it in HD!
31 – That’s a very sad perspective on a great TV show that started ALL of this. Watch it again in a few years’ time and see if you don’t feel differently. Look past the lack of special effects budget. Look at the acting, characterization and stories, and then see how well it holds up. Don’t let eye-candy special effects fool you that today’s sci-fi shows and movies are things of substance. Truly great science-fiction feeds the mind and soul and not just the optic nerves. Today’s sci-fi shows and films owe an incalculable debt to this “cheesy” 1960’s TV show.
151…nimoy WAS in the trailer…he at the end spoke ’space, the final frontier…’
#144—-Shall we call you Nicholas, Ivan, Peter, or what?
151 – he’s in there, kneeling over a woman (presumably his mom). Pause the trailer right after you see the boy spock.
Maybe that big hole-in-the-ground in Iowa is where the Enterprise is eventually built. Like, maybe they needed room for facilities and such, so they blew a big hole/canyon/thing in the ground. Kirk, quite the explorer, wanted to check it out, probably believing, as kids do, that buildings can be built over night. Of course, he had to be a idiot about it.
deleted by admin
Nimoy is visible in this trailer as well.
IS IT MY IMAGINATION OR WAS THAT COP WHO STOPPED YOUNG KIRK SEEMING VERY ORWELLIAN? POSSIBLY A LIL ROBOCOP AS WELL???
166
where?! Ive been dying to see him! Could you please point him out?
163–thank you! My significant other was saying that’s Nimoy too, but I was saying “No, he’s supposed to be old in this movie, with white hair.” I thought I heard that on this site or elswhere. The kneeling figure with the black hair was much younger looking than I expected Nimoy to look in this movie.
I think I was expecting Nimoy to be almost as aged-looking as Deforest Kelly was in the premiere of TNG.
143. Apparently everyone who is posting about it.
Saw the trailer right before QoS as promised and listened to the audience say to each other that they knew it was coming (but no applause). I remember sitting through the marathon in New York prior to TUC and seeing that trailer. How come all the ST trailers (prior to this, at least?) were action oriented, promised a lot, excited me, and failed to deliver that excitement? Notwithstanding, I feel like I’ve waited all too long for this. (Then again, I felt that way about every one of the movies, without exception.)
SYLAR IS TRYING TO KILL KIRKSON. YATAA!!
not Star Trek reminds me of Thunderbirds
163. Baroner
I’m pretty sure that’s Sarek, not spock kneeling over Winona…er, Amanda.
65 – Mr. Singer, I’m honored you liked my humble post. I have enjoyed the films of yours that I have seen. Please keep bringing on the cheese — especially if it makes us think as well as entertains us.
I hope you might have further involvement in Star Trek sometime soon.
#158:
It is not assumption. It is speculation.
The figure kneeling over the woman is Sarek, not Spock. So it’s not Nimoy.
This makes me sooo angey I wanna break something
Vulcan gets destroyed? If that is true, this is going to be much worse than I thought. Very pessimistic.
I nearly lept off my chair at work and told a travel agent to hold whilst I watched the trailer. I can’t belive I have followed this movie every step of the way. Many thanks goes to Anthony Pascale and his team for runin the show here.
When Enterprise was cancelled and I’d just watched the pilot for Lost I thought to mysself “wouldn’t it be cool if these guys who made a fantastic show did something with Star Trek”. Low and behold I clink onto Trekweb.com in early 2006 and the announcement was there “JJ Abrams to produce Trek XI”. I was over joyed.
I just wish people on these website who bitch about this that and the other, would just keep calm and wait for the movie to come out in may and let the franchise take it’s new course.
Ps: Does anyone know if anyone thought that the refitted Enterprise in TMP had raped anyones child hood??
the person kneeling by the woman is Sarek kneeling by Amanda. If old Spock is supposed to have white hair, he is not in this trailer. If he still has black hair, it could be him in the frame where it seems like him but his back turned, looks like he is talking to some sort of council.
And for the last time.. the Enterprise is NOT built in Iowa… where are you guys getting that anyway?
170…remember that Vulcans age very slowly compared to humans.
Sure looks like Iowa to me. Don’t remember flat land and farming fields in San Francisco.
I seriously I am HATE filled I want all evidence of this STUPID idea to be detestroyed
The scenes of the trailer depict rolling hills in the background in the scene right before it shifts to Kirk seeing the Enterprise, so from that it looks like Iowa.
So a friend of mine who is not into Trek LOVED the trailer. Then he read some of the story that has leaked about Spock going back in time, and now he thinks it’s stupid. I think this Trek is going to be a hard sell. Not impossible, just hard.
Did anyone else get a “Dr. Who” vibe when Kirk said “Buckle Up!”. Maybe it’s just the way he said it. Pine for the American Doctor! (hey, we remade “The Office” and “Life on Mars”. Why not really piss the British off?)
158. Montreal Paul
175. Justin
I’m pretty sure that Bob Orci has confirmed that it is indeed Iowa on one of these threads, saying that post-nuclear war Iowa might have some quarries or chasms. I think.
Nobody has explained to me how erasing Kirk’s past history makes Star Trek relevant again.
deleted by admin
#157—You’re overlooking the timeline incursion which takes place 4 days before the birth of young Jim Kirk. Obviously, something happens to his father, altering the course of his upbringing. It is more than reasonable to conclude that, while in the other timeline, he had no reason to learn to operate a manual transmission, a convirgence of circumstances results in the young boy learning to do so in this altered timeline.
It also apparently results in a very different relationship with Chris Pike (who serves aboard the USS Kelvin with the elder Kirk during the Romulan attack), as well as delays his entry into Starfleet Academy.
I would imagine that he never lives on Tarsus (”The Conscience Of The King”), serves aboard the USS Republic (”Court-Martial”), or aboard the USS Farragut (”Obsession”).
He probably never meets a cadet named Finnegan either (”Shore Leave”).
Basically, anything that takes place 4 days prior to Kirk’s birth or afterwards, is subject to change due to ripple effects from the timeline incursion.
Orci and Kurtzman have handed JJ Abrams a very large canon loophole, particularly since the possibility of alternate timelines created due to interference with the past is in itself canon.
I’m not saying that was the reason for time travel being made an element in the story, but it certainly would be one of its practical benefits for the writers and the director.
Almost anything seemingly contradictory can be attributed to the altered timeline effect.
I wish people would stop being so pessimistic about this movie…if you don’t like it then don’t watch it.
186. ShawnP
Yes, Kirk was born in Iowa, etc, … but the Enterprise was not built in Iowa.. that is not what Bob Orci said.
# 150
I’m 46, been watching Trek since I was 11, and I LOVE IT! I am so pumped for this movie words can’t describe it. Don’t lump all of us old farts together – that’s not in the spirit of Trek tolerance…
STAR TREK
The Briefing Room. 2:16AM
Spock and McCoy come in to see a dour James T. Kirk.
Kirk: “Sit down, gentlemen. Watch this.”
Kirk flips in a cartridge as his colleagues sit at the table.
Audio: “ChuggaChuggaChuggaChugga WooWooWooWoo! What is your name? James Tiberius Kirk!” A car falls off a cliff.
They watch the rest of the video.
Spock: “Fascinating.”
McCoy: “Dear Lord…”
Kirk: They’ve re-booted us, gentlemen! I need answers, fast! Spock?”
Spock: “Evidently, Captain, someone with an advanced knowledge of temporal mechanics has found a way to replace us in the past…”
McCoy: “But Jim..the ships, and us..We’re different people!”
Kirk: “That’s me, Bones. I beat that ticket by altering the programming of that…Robocop. Got me six months in juvie.”
McCoy: “Not surprising.”
Kirk: “But the man on the motorcycle…He doesn’t look anything like me.”
Spock: “Indeed, Captain. “Spock” looks exactly like me at that age.”
Silence.
McCoy: “Look, I don’t know where this is going, but I’m goin’ back to bed..
Kirk: “Gentlemen! Tomorrow at 0900. Full senior staff. I want answers.”
McCoy leaves.
Kirk: “Spock?”
Spock: “It’s been my honor to know you, Bill Shatner as James T. Kirk. I will take my leave of you. And watch out for the bridge.”
Kirk: “The Bridge?”
Spock: “No, Jim. Live Long and Prosper.”
Spock fades out in a circular patterm of blue light.
FIN
To those who are complaining about Timeline:
Hey, at least it won’t be explained by having an AlternateUniverse Superman pounding at the walls of a alternate dimension.
Yes exactly, but I think that people are afraid that this might end up being a movie that ends with the temporal reset button…and that would make the movie a giant flop to them, since nothing really happened in it.
The joy of New Star Trek is gone with this SHIT, FFS its just WRONG on so many levels I keep having visions of myself slashing the screen if I went to see this pap
deleted by admin
#187—Has anyone actually suggested that?
191. Montreal Paul
Sorry, not pulling this stuff out of nowhere. It actually says it in the Den of Geek description of the scenes previewed by Abrams. Of course, this presumes their description is accurate, but it would seem odd to qualify the location as Iowa if there was no reason to. You can find the link in the first article about the previews, the one in the UK.
189. Closettrekker
As long as they don’t screw with the canon of Enterprise, then I’m fine with whatever they do.
Ah good, better quality video.
Still looks like “Wing Commander.” I want a trailer with some plot.
200. Jax Maxton
The Enterprise has phase cannons? Awesome!
150. Jax Maxton
actually I’m 20, I grew on more on TNG but also I grew up with TOS like you guys with reruns and rentals at the video store (I remember being 5 and always picking out the TOS vhs tapes at the video store) maybe that is why I dont like this
Well I hope I am wrong about this Star Trek but…..
(I also hated the Star Wars prequels because with all the CGI not to mention absolutely horrible acting it wasn’t Star Wars, and I HATED the new Indiana Jones movie because… it wasn’t Indiana Jones!)
Craig, chill man.. forget to take your meds? If you don’t like it, don’t go see it. Simple.
The first actual trailer isn’t supposed to have any plot in it. Look at Nemesis’s…the only plot that they showed was that Shinzon was a clone of Picard.
195 I’m more affraid of no Reset Aparantly JJ has hire these imposters for 3 movies at least
#191—I never got that impression either.
dont get me wrong change is alright, but lets keep it at least recognizable (sp dont care)
192. Lil’ black dog
I was, admittedly, making a gross generalization based on my own perceptions. I do realize that there are old farts that are liking the trailer, but it just seems like there’s a general split. I could be totally wrong.
@200:
I think Enterprise is safe. The Admiral’s Space Beagle may not be.
Or.. wait a second. Oh my god, what will happen to the best Enterprise Episode of all: In a Mirror Darkly!?! After all, the Defiant can’t look like that anymore? And would the Defiant even have left our dimension with these new changes? And the uniforms! AHHH.
(actually, technically there would be nothing wrong with “In a Mirror Darkly”, since they never explicitly state that the Defiant comes from the regular timeline. It could just be from a Timeline that is VERY, VERY, close to ours.)
The trailer was not part of the 007 showing in my town. I suppose I will just have to wait until Monday, but after seeing the mess that was Quantum of Silence, I am praying that JJ and his team go no where near that style of Bourne-ness editing that the Bond franchise was just subjected to. I can only hope that Mr. Abrams got that out of his system with Cloverfield.
A little off-topic, but that’s my take on it.
160
I agree.
People of the day thought highly of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series#Awards
206. I think I may have to take something because the way I’m feeling at the moment is very unhealthy
Everything looks great and yet the thing that still holds the most promise for me is Lenny’s involvement. I wish we could have gotten a brief glimpse of the venerable one.
ALTERNATE TIMELINE BND: It’s a jolly good idea to keep things bright aboard ship. I never understood why we turn down the lights during red alert just when we need to see what we are doing.
TOS BND: I’m sooooo confused… am I book wit’ legs? Am I a xenosexual only attracted ta’ alien booty adn so not ta’ hit on Uhuru? And Kodos really scarred me fur life, right?
ALTERNATE TIMELINE BND: Bones is suffering from depression with all of his talk of disease and darkness.
TOS BND: Hey Bones- gimmee one o’ yer cocktails thar’! Can I use this here salt-shaker ta’ see Yoeman Rand’s panties?
ALTERNATE TIMELINE BND: What a rush it is to cruise on this motorcycle! Like James Dean more than James Kirk…
TOS BND: What? Ye’ say it’s a clutch, Mr. Spock? Computer- engage clutch… wait a tic… that’s tha’ bloke from Mel’s diner…
Oh, it lookee like a grand film… as Scotty said “It’s excitin’!”
Arrrrrrrr…
My #212 was actually meant to speak to #202
189 – ??? Loophole indeed.
198.
We’ve discussed the possibilites this new movie poses. From the plot points on this web site to the trailer, it is obvious to long time Trek fans that Kirk’s history is getting messed with. We’ve also discussed this could get fixed in the end. If it DOESN’T, I will be left leaving the theater asking why? That doesn’t make me a canonista nazi or not wanting the franchise to move forward or have newfound success. It just means, to re-boot the franchise, why weren’t the special effects, new cast, new uniforms not enough? Why does erasing Kirk’s past necessary to make Star Trek relevant again? Does the supreme court think Kirk’s original past was lacking? Did they feel they needed to give him a 21st century background so the kids today could relate? That’s all.
I meant, 191 – ???? Loophole indeed….
212. LostonNCC1701
The problem is that the Defiant came from the alternate universe timeline of the original ST timeline, not the ultimate universe of this new timeline.
Wait, I just went cross-eyed. Remember the days before the internet when you went to a movie knowing nothing about it? I miss those days.
Well, that gives Abrahms 2 more chances to fix canon if nobody likes what they do in this movie.
Oh my gosh, this trailer is fantastic. I think this movie is going to be epic.
@222
Yeah. I remember reading somewhere that if “Empire Strikes Back” were to have been released in the Internet Age, it would have totally been ruined. Same goes for the original “Planet of the Apes” (although I guess the people who read the book would have some idea as to the ending) and “Citizen Kane”. It was his sled, by the way.
Oh, and Soylent Green? It is made out of people.
#208—Imposters?
I don’t think Chris Pine is portaying William Shatner, nor is Zachary Quinto portraying Leonard Nimoy.
Karl Urban has not been cast as DeForest Kelley, nor has Simon Pegg been cast as James Doohan.
I’m quite sure that John Cho is not being asked to play George Takei, Anton Yelchin is not getting paid to act as Walter Koenig, and I’m fairly certain that Zoe Saldana isn’t pretending to be Nichelle Nichols.
You do realize that these are actors portraying fictional characters who do not actually exist, don’t you?
226. LostonNCC1701
The problem is that even TRYNG to avoid spoilers is next to impossible. The internet carries over to so many other mediums that a spoiler on the internet spreads like wildfire in the real world.
First of all I take offense to people calling other people ‘haters’ just because they are voicing concerns. I don’t recall anybody saying they hate the new trailer or hope the movie fails. Stop trying to act so high and mighty simply because you drank the Kool Aid and are willing to be force fed anything and everything Abrams dishes out.
227. LostonNCC1701
Also, Bruce Willis is ACTUALLY dead. And Snape kills Dumbledore.
I saw the trailer on the big screen today (Trek Trailer = Good, Quantum of Solace = Not so much) and granted it was only a few seconds of screen time, but to me the area with Kirk’s ‘vette and the canyon in no way resembled Iowa. But the Enterprise under construction seen did seem to have cornfields or something in the foreground.
There were a lot of poorly-faked locales in previews today. The “Fast and Furious 4″ preview came on stating “Dominican Republic”, but that long action sequence just SCREAMED “Southern California”.
Other trailers ahead of “Quantum”
“Knowing” starring Nicholas Cage looked good.
Will Smith’s “Seven Pounds” had a bad trailer that didn’t give much clue as to what the movie is about.
“Angels and Demons”, Trek’s Week 2 competition, didn’t look so good and someone behind me was saying “they’re making THAT? the first one stunk!”
Steve Martin’s “Pink Panther 2″, a movie I was saying “they’re making THAT? the first one stunk!” about.
“Spirit” another ugly CGI run amok movie.
Disappointed in no “Valkyrie” trailer.
231. John from Cincinnati
Haters is an overused word that people to instantly discount an opinion contrary to the person using the word. I know I can sound like a hater, but the truth is, I WANT to love new Trek. I just haven’t seen anything that has won me over, except for the look of Quinto as Spock.
RE: 156. Art•Rob – November 15, 2008 :
Anyone from NYC out there who can tell me which theater is showing the trailer. Just found out that 23rd St. is not showing it and I can’t get any other theaters on the phone! Anyone know about Union Square or 34th St.? So frustrating!
I saw it in Chelsea at 23rd Street, Bond with the ST trailer. I read somewhere it is only in the 35mm print, not the higher quality Bond print. That’s my guess, because I did see it Fri night at 23rd St. Hope this helps.
@229:
However, If any person will be able to hold the spoilers, it’ll be J.J. Abrams. Of course, this may just be because I avoid every part of the LOST and Fringe communities that are even the slightest bit spoilery. Nothing more involved than a wiki there, since it gives me some plausible deniability (”Oh, some jackass just put that there, it probably is fake”).
231. John from Cincinnati
Haters is an overused term that people use to instantly discount an opinion that is contrary to the person using the word. I know I can sound like a hater, but the truth is, I WANT to love new Trek. I just haven’t seen anything that has won me over, except for the look of Quinto as Spock.
(stupid English language)
It is a good thing Quinto and Nimoy have been photographed together…..
First reaction (as an admitted skeptic): this is BIG!
I only hope that the pace of the trailer is reflective of a desire to cram as much as possible into the time allotted, not that the film will pander to the short-attention span theatre crowd whose idea of visual narrative was formed by the pap on MTV.
Abrams had repeatedly said this is a film for people who love movies first and those who love Star Trek second. But what kind of movies? Something literate and thought provoking or just 90 minutes of biff, bang, boom?
Cause I’ve had enough of that kind of crap – the best episodes of ST of whatever flavor have always balanced ideas AND action. One of the things that kept MI3 from being a GREAT movie was too much action for the sake of action and too little elegance in plotting, like the Vatican break-in.
230.
I just think it is a very condescending, disrespectul and waaaaaay overused word.
Looks like canon is totally out the window. That opening scene looks nothing like Iowa, unless Iowa has a 3-mile crater in it I’m not aware of. Also, why is young kirk on a motorcyle? Why didn’t they put him on horseback? To me, that would have been a more interesting contrast as he’s staring at the E being built, plus we know that Jim Kirk is a farmboy at heart, and a cowboy in spirit. I’m just baffled that the writers miss amazing opportunities like this. Do they know nothing about this character?
I also can’t understand the concept of building the E in a shipyard in the desert. Was there any thought at all behind this script? I’m concerned. And was’t the 1701 in service for a dozen years prior to Kirk taking command? I want to like this movie, and am all for updating it, but the characters themselves shouldn’t be messed with. I want to see the characters explored and expanded, not RE-WRITTEN. Otherwise, just call this movie something else other than Star Trek, and I’ll likely enjoy it more.
163 and 166—that manbkneeling over spocks mother isnt nimoy…its ben cross as sarek
I’m so happy! It brings a little tear to me eye =)..
I think we’re about to see what Gene’s “TRUE” vision really was!
TREK is here… all others may bow.
What Hapend whit the cannon and the klingon on the trailer???
YO…228…VERY LOW-BALLING USING A WILDFIRE ANALOGY WHEN THERES A DEVESTATING WILDFIRE BURNING IN SO CAL RIGHT NOW
Showed the trailer to the target audience, my 14 & 16 YO sons.
Both thought it was cool and looked exciting, BUT both think that Star Trek has such a bad reputation for appealing to weirdos and nerds only, that it might be a hard sell no matter what.
Trailer looks good to me. I want a reboot and it looks like I got what I wanted. Could this possibly be taking place earlier than I thought? Rumors that the movie ends with the Enterprise leaving for its 5 year mission did not say which 5 year mission. This could be a mission that occurred 5 years before TOS began. Formerly this would have been with Pike, Spock, Number One etc. But the new time line might be putting Kirk in the drivers seat for an earlier 5 year mission – no Farragut for him.
I’ll certainly be there in May. Hopefully my kids and there peers will see the film and overcome their prejudice about Trek, and see just how good it can be.
Scott you do realize that in all of Star Trek, we have NEVER seen anything outside of San Francisco in the future? How do you know Iowa doesn’t look like that?
Beam my happy ass up!
I was at the theater tonight for QoS and saw the trailer (Indianapolis). A pair of people behind me were stunned. The lady began with a groan when Kirk’s name was mentioned, together with a “Great, here we go from a fat guy in spandex to kids in space.” Her companion agreed and they sounded like they were going to keep on going, but the rest of the trailer shut them up. When it was over, he said, “Star Trek? Sure doesn’t look like it, but I’ve got to see that!”
I suppose that’s positive.
Rob+
#5 The dedication plaque of the Enterprise in TOS said it was built in the San Francisco Fleet yards on Earth, so while people argue whether or not it should be built in space, canon has that it was built on land before it made its way into space.
People are arguing too many creative and technical details and I don’t believe that anyone knows absolutely everything about canon, nor do a lot of these people know anything about making a movie. Get over yourselves! And I really mean that, get over yourselves…GOD. I’m a die hard fan, especially of TOS and even I’m getting tired of yearing from those who don’t want to see this movie simply because it was made and not giving it the chance it deserves. Don’t judge a book by its cover.
Wait until you watch the whole move and then provide constructive criticism! The key word is constructive!
#239 – Spock served with Pike on the Enterprise at least a decade before Kirk came along.
Too me, it seems that a lot of questions the “true Star Trek fans” are asking are ones that would be answered if they would actually watch the show and pay attention…
#119 AJ, it looks like that chasm is a quarry. If you can stop the vid just as L’il JTK ditches the ‘Vette, you’ll notice the very linear cuts to the cliff face. BTW, who’s got the link to the still shots? I missed it completely.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:- |
So, it’s a musical?
#248 – “San Francisco Fleet yards”
Technically, but still to your point, it says “San Francisco, Calif.”
Could someone rip that version of the trailer above for download?
I wish we had seen Leonard Nimoy as Spock. When they announced his involvement in this movie, that basically erased any big doubts I had. I don’t think he would be involved in a movie that “destroys” his legacy. If he’s confident in it, I’m confident in it.
But back to my original point. I’m looking forward to seeing what he’s going to look like. I wonder, with all the potential timeline changes, where he’ll stand by the end of the movie.
239.
There is no such thing as Star Trek Canon. Repeat. NO such thing as Canon.
All the Trekkies take a few great snippets of TOS and say it;’s CANON, and seem to put aside all the crappy stuff that most of the 79 episodes threw in as well. singing hippies, measurements in miles, contradictions in continuity, the list is endless. It’s Trek. We love it despite it’s flaws.
Lighten up, sit back, eat some popcorn, and enjoy the ride.
Canon Schmanon.
It’s probably gonna be great.
I hope.
243. hs
Uptight much?
“Spreading like a wildfire” is a pretty common expression and was in no way or form meant as a slight to the people of California, and I don’t think anybody besides yourself took it as any more than an expression from the context I used it in. The fact that you picked up on it as a negative statement about real wildfires says to me that your wound up a little tight. Chill a little.
255 Jax
Way too PC. Take a tranquilizer
“Also, why is young kirk on a motorcyle? ”
Why not? He has to get somewhere.
“Why didn’t they put him on horseback?”
You know, I ride horses too actually… but that doesn’t mean I’m going use it as my means for transportation especially in potentially long distances.
“I’m just baffled that the writers miss amazing opportunities like this. Do they know nothing about this character?”
I’m sure they do, but I think it’s more amazing how you’re thinking it than what it would play out to be on screen. Again, I ride horses, but they aren’t my MAIN means of transportation.
“I also can’t understand the concept of building the E in a shipyard in the desert.”
Too bad.
“Was there any thought at all behind this script?”
I would imagine so.
“I’m concerned. And was’t the 1701 in service for a dozen years prior to Kirk taking command?”
Oh boy.
But if you are going to get that technical…. in “The Search For Spock,” the Enterprise was barely 20 years old. So, Star Trek contradicted itself there.
Sorry Jax. I meant HS.
You are right on target.
@164. There are 20th Century buildings in that ravin /canyon / hole-in-the-ground. I mentioned this last night. :)
I love you.
I know.
#239—The attack upon the USS Kelvin by Romulans from the future takes place 4 days prior to the birth of James Kirk. That is a dozen years before any canonical interpretation of the Enterprise’s first voyage.
Anything which took place in the original timeline after that point is subject to change due to the timeline incursion.
Kirk will likely never live on Taursus.
Since Kirk’s entry into the Academy is apparently delayed, he will probably not meet an upperclassmen named Finney.
He may never serve aboard the USS Republic.
He will not likely teach a class at the Academy, and may therefore never meet Gary Mitchell or a young blonde lab technician.
He probably will not serve aboard the USS Farragut.
The existence and possibility of alternate timelines resulting from interference with the past is very much ‘canon’ in itself, so no, ‘canon’ is not “totally out the window”.
Moreover, Nero and his cohorts come from the timeline with which we are all so thoroughly familiar.
Everything you knew as the previous “backstory”, as well as the events depicted in 5 series and 10 films, still takes place—albeit in another timeline.
#67 and #73
You put what I was trying to say quite eloquently. I’m glad someone agrees with me to some degree.
First rule of trying to make sense of time travel: Don’t.
-Janeway
They are building the Enterprise on the ground for cinematic purposes. Can’t you see that? That way Kirk can drive up and look at it wistfully and think “Some day I’ll be that ship’s captain.” It’s the beginning of his one true love affair.
It’s not unbelievable to build the ships on land. Space construction is slow and cumbersome. But just the fact that anybody would quibble this detail is pretty telling to me. There’s no way you guys are going to like this movie. Not if you pick on minor details. Why don’t you just decide now that you hate it, because you know you’re doing to.
10. treksceptic – November 15, 2008
“Uhmmm – hey, already noticed a glitch:
Young Kirk is SO OBVIOUSLY tied to the ledge by the waist! – that’s BADLY done…”
Actually, it looked more to me like he was laying on the floor and through camera trickery (or a rotating floor), seemed to be dangling off a cliff.
By the way Janeway’s quote is CANNON, so you better listen to it.
Yep… I’ve already watched the shitty version of this trailer three times… I can’t wait to get it on HD 1080p from Apple.com!!!
Watch it on my 50 screen!!!
Everyone here should go to the chat side of the site. It’s cool, and everyone there will embrace your pure Trek views. Go there now and say hi to the regulars.
biff
I was thinking that perhaps the ‘ravine’ is meant to be the location for the new construction yards where they will build the Enterprise. They dug out a huge pit to house the yards…? Its only a guess, but it may explain why there appears to be a chain link fence around the area.
Also, notice that the ship near the end appears to be the Kelvin-A, but the same design?
Anyway, I think the trailer was very good. The shot of Kirk and Spock standing together on the bridge looking at the camera was the best bit.
@ 267
It goes “boom”? ;)
You know…
…STAR TREK, in one form or another, has been written by dozens of different writers over a 40+ year period, and even the man himself, Gene Roddenberry, didn’t even write every single piece of TREK between 1965-91.
On that basis ALONE, we were NEVER going to get a consistent version/universe of STAR TREK, at least in regards to how closely it adheres to this “canon” nonsense.
Abrams, Orci & Co. claim to have reasons to explain any deviations… and quite frankly, even if they didn’t, I wouldn’t care. The only people who get their Vulcan panties in a bunch are those who have already memorized the “Star Trek Chronology” book backwards and forwards, and are now pissed that, supposedly, these things “never really happened” they way they “were supposed to.”
Give it up already. It’s been a losing battle since STAR TREK II, where Walter Koening should have spoken up and said, “Hey, waitaminute… I’ve never even MET this Montalban guy before today!”
157. corvette canon – November 15, 2008
Could be…
Anthony can you or anyone else tell me when the trailer will be in cinemas in the UK thanks.
Why is Kirk wearing Marty McFly’s clothes?
Old News already.
*sigh* I am still bloody PISSED that 6 hours ago, when I visited my local theater, and even made sure to see it on the UltraScreen, I was lucky enough to catch that bloody 25% chance that I wouldn’t get the trailer. Every time that green screen came up my heart raced… and then I blinked several times as “Columbia” came up on screen.
At least Bond was decent, although fell short of Casino Royale.
From what I just saw I am scared out of my wits that we are going to get a movie that although has all the visuals of a Star Trek movie, will be nothing of the sort. I maintain hope, and I’m not going to bash the movie based upon a trailer, but I have my doubts of J.J.
And I’m still mad I didn’t get to see the trailer.
I’d like to create an alternate timeline in which this movie did not exist. :)
You know, it’s hardly apt to call this version “shaky cam” – it’s one of the best in-theater bootleg recordings I’ve seen on the Internet. That includes the sound.
Pikes History probably changes as well, he get promoted to fleet captain sooner in this time line, He doesn’t end up getting crippled by the delta wave exposure, Thats one bit history I won’t miss. But it also means he never went to Talos 4 or met Venna.. Also This means that the Federation learns about the Romulans and their Vulcan heritage alot sooner, that could have some interesting story ramifications in the sequel.
I am sad.
Just saw Bond (good movie, not great IMHO)… no trailer. I’m going to wait until Monday so I can see it in glorious HD and not taint my enjoyment by watching a pseudo-bootleg.
FYI for the Montreal fans… at least for my showing, the Star Trek trailer was not showing with Bond at the Banque Scotia theater (formerly Paramount).
*sniff*
Check out 1:11 on the video above. It’s DENISE CROSBY being led by Spock!! There’s a Trek cameo for you!!
And if it isn’t her, it’s one heck of a look-a-like!
@276
DEAR GOD! You are RIGHT! How did I miss that?
279. Stanky McFibberich – November 15, 2008
I’d like to create an alternate timeline in which this movie did not exist. :)
you can… just don’t go see the movie.. continue to watch the old TOS and the other 10 movies.. and in your world, Star Trek ended at Nemesis. Problem solved. :)
looks cool so far the trailer but unofficial yet.
hopefully see more images but right now, its doing good for now on.
i can’t wait until monday.
What does Scotty say?………”This is Satan!”…………….did I hear that correctly?………………….WTF?
holy crap it just dawned on me, kirk’s car must be a stick right? well I remember explicitly in one of the time travel or alternate earth nazi episodes kirk had NO idea how to drive a stick (or a car as I recall) this is more amusing (none of it bothers me) to me than anything else canon wise
I’ve been skeptical from the very start. I couldn’t imagine another Kirk, Spock or Enterprise. But this looks great!
Stanky.
Go home and stay there. We all know you hate the new movie. You hate everything about it. Most of us left our basement years ago, and can accept a new perspective.
Waaah Waaaah Waaaah.
Just watch TOS over and over and repeat “theres no place like home” and ask your mom for some hot chocolate and a teddy bear.
276. Enterprise – November 15, 2008
“Why is Kirk wearing Marty McFly’s clothes?”
maybe he wants to send Spock BACK TO THE FUTURE?
sorry
Just returned from my local Marcus Ultrascreen showing. No Star Trek trailer attached. Thanks for posting the bootleg here!
I did enjoy the new Bond movie though, but I was so disappointed they didn’t show either the Wathcmen or Trek trailers. They did however show Will Smith’s trailer for his new movie (TWICE NO LESS). I think Marcus stil hates Paramount Pictures.
boborci
Is Huey Lewis singing the theme song for Trek?
Saw it in the theater tonight, and it was pretty awesome. I had a frisson. But I can actually see more detail here, up close on my computer screen. can’t wait for the HD version on Monday!
Xplodin’ – he said, “This’s excitin’!”
Forgot to add – a lot of the frisson was from Ben Cross’s Sarek narration. That was a brilliant, brilliant piece of casting there.
290…
Back off dude. Stanky has been a brother here since day one. He’s entitled to his opinion as are you. No one has a monoply on thought in this forum (Except Bailey maybe)
Star trek isn’t Stalinist Russia. It’s good to bitch about things and we don’t all have to blindly follow like sycophants. In fact a large group of us bitching right here over a year ago got CBS to improve the inital crappy effort they put out for the remastered project.
@281
And we haven’t heard anything yet that directly kills the Talos incident. I mean, the reports are saying it is the ship’s “Maiden Voyage”, but that could just mean a crew or even a refitted ship. And it seems as if Kirk and Spock will be for the most part unfamiliar with each other when the action moves to the Enterprise, suggesting that Spock was already there.
And we don’t know if Pike survives the movie, then could later get those burns (my bet: He survives the movie but gets those debilitating burns in the final fight against the Romulan Cthulhu-ship… thus showing that no matter what timeline, it sucks to be Christopher Pike).
279 – Aww, jealous much poor thing?
Speaking as one of those discouraged by the trailer, I find it interesting on the sheer variety of problems other people have with it. My own concerns are pretty simple, based only on the blatant display of trite/cheesy/lightweight elements.
But man o man, look at the variety of other concerns (that I don’t personally get, but I find interesting). There are canon concerns (I don’t care about canon, myself); there are lots of concerns about where the ship is built and whether it makes sense (I don’t consider Star Trek “science fiction” in any serious sense and don’t expect it to make sense and don’t mind if it does, either); there are complaints about the music (fortunately, the music in the trailer isn’t the music from the film, though I agree the music in the trailer is wretched and simpleminded); there are complaints about sex (I love sex and the higher sexiness of TOS is one of the things I love about it); there are complaints about action (I like a bit of action mixed in, especially if they want to make lightweight prettyboy there convince me he’s Kirk); there are complaints about the ship (I think she’s a bit ugly, too, but I’m more concerned by far about the crew inside than the shape encasing them); there are complaints about the lack of emotional/moral issues on display (I’m beginning to hope they steer clear of anything serious less they just trivialize it in a flood of melted cheese).
So, put me down as being down on the trailer, just not for those reasons :)
Love the trailer! Saw it last night at QoS in Las Vegas and about 10 times today, Looks exciting and visually stunning. I can’t wait till May. Very happy with what I have seen and heard so far. I sincerely hope it is successful and brings old and new fans together. Trek Lives!!!
@ 296,
Well said….
#158. montreal paul
I know someone who works on the film, it is indeed Iowa where the Enterprise is being built. He confirmed this after the trailer was released.
291:
Boborci.
Please don’t do that.
Since we’re all nuts here, and you co-wrote the film, we’ll all speculate on it.
Though if Chris Lloyd shows up in a cameo, I’ll buy you a drink.
274
if so, nice one, sweet touch.
Finally: Anybody know if Regal Cinemas have been showing the trailer with Bond? Just wondering, since I was curious if “Chains” seemed to have policies.
Mr. Orci – Lol! Great Scott!
re:285
“Star Trek ended at Nemesis”
way before that, buddy :)
FWIW
I liked how Nero seems sort of working-class Everyman (EveryRomulan?), instead of the usual TOS or TNG aristocratic asshole. Silly, I know, but it makes him seem tougher. I know, hard to judge that from one line in one or two seconds of film, but that’s my take…
Oh Lord Garth. Are you the master of all you survey here? I have been part of this stupid site since the first month of it’s existence. I don’t post regularly, but when I do I mean what I say. Stanky is in my opinion a big whinerm, and he whines about a product he hasn’t even seen. It’s like a little kid that says they hate a certain type of food yet hasn’t even tasted it. You are trying to be Ward Cleaver imposing your authority ( which you don’t have). I am Eddy Haskell, and I will express my opinion just as you and Stinkey or Stankey or Stunkey do.
262…likely carol marcus will meet jim kirk, as a plot device thats still a brilliant thing to include…its more likely that she’ll be a scientist on the enterprise now or something like that…or maybe she and he will conceive david in film 2…idk…i just hope there IS a david in this new timeline…it’d be a great way to illustrate and mirror the britney/k-fed ordeal
fascinating
re: 290
“Stanky.
Go home and stay there. We all know you hate the new movie. You hate everything about it.”
1. I am home right now.
2. I mentioned that I like the shirts in another post.
You guys who want to like it so much and call the rest of us “haters” sure seem to hate us haters!!!!
whinerm?
sorry for the typo, but not the post.
299. S. John Ross
I agree with everything you said, except one thing:
“I don’t consider Star Trek “science fiction” in any serious sense and don’t expect it to make sense and don’t mind if it does, either”
I am always amazed at how truly brilliant some of the science fiction of TOS is. Some of it is on par with some of the best SciFi ever written. There really hasn’t been any pure science fiction on TV as good since. TNG came close at times, but never really got there(IMHO).
In reality, I don’t really envy the creators who took this project on. If George Lucas thought “Star Wars” fans were tough, “Trek” fans are the most hyper-obsessive, crazed genre fans in the history of fandom. I don’t know any book/show/movie where people actually learn the language of a race of characters like the Klingons, or could riff off the corridor locations and their corresponding levels and numbers in exact detail like Trek fans can. And on top of, there is 40 YEARS of stories and minutiae to obsess over.
Too… many… flashy… cuts… … having… seizure…
Love it though. ;p
oh and PLEASE tell me this new enterprise has bathrooms XDXDXD
308 – Stanky…
Well it can end wherever you want it in your world. I’m guessing for you it was the end of Season 3 and all the other series and movies don’t exist in your world either. That’s fine. I can respect that.
I happen to like what I saw.. and am looking forward to the movie. My Trek universe includes this movie… all the movies before it.. all the series.. including Enterprise… and the animated series. Sorry, i guess I am more oopen minded about these things.
Holy CRAP!!! Ok, I just couldn’t wait. I got goosebumps watching this…if this crappy camera version already gives me goosebumps, imagine what the HD one is going to do when I watch it on Monday on my HD 125″ Projector Screen!!!
316. hs – November 15, 2008
“oh and PLEASE tell me this new enterprise has bathrooms XDXDXD”
No need. They just beam it out of you.
They recycle the poop into boots and stuff.
Stinky,
I don’t love or hate the movie – yet. I want it to be good, but I will wait until I see it to make a judgement on it. You like so many other “fans” have trashed this movie since the day it was announced that it was being filmed. So much for an open mind.
Glad you liked the shirts though.
ORCI
Shouldn’t you be at Mr. Chow’s about now???
Ok. I am going to do my canon speech again for those of you who haven’t read it. How do I reconcile the stuff from the old series and canon with the new movie. Remeber what Starfleet Academy is at its heart. It’s a college like West Point, the Naval Academy, or the Air Force Academy. As such the programs offered would be similar. You say that Kirk never was on the USS Republic or the USS Farragut. Canon doesn’t reveal when or for how long he was aboard those ships. All it says is that it was during his Academy days. The way I see it, Kirk did Study aboard programs (training missions if you will) on active duty ships. Which would explain how Spock is on the Enterprise with Pike during The Cage. Also, it is possible to be a cadet and have field promotion to the rank of up to Lieutenant. Look at Saavik or Valeris. They were cadets yet held officer’s rank. With this in mind one has to assume that Captain April commanded the first Enterprise training missions early on (maybe Kirk’s plebe year). Pike then took over later heading up the missions and such. I’m assuming that the starships came back to Earth or to Starbases every few months or so to pick up cadets and new crewmembers. So that explains how there can be a 5 year mission and cadet trainees aboard at the same time. This would explain how Kirk could serve aboard multiple ships in the brief span of 4 years. As for the situatuion with Kodos on Tarsus IV, Kirk could have been there during the summer on a school trip or visiting relatives at the colony. I’ve already covered my theories on ship construction and klingon forehead ridges in previous posts (post a reply and ask about them and I’ll explain them again). Finally, the whole debacle as to whether this is a alternate timeline or not. I see this as predestination paradox. Spock is the impetus to change Kirk’s destiny. Kirk (as portrayed in the film) doesn’t look like Captain material, but Spock and Nero’s interference unleash the greatest captain Starfleet ever saw (not to mention the youngest). This in turn would allow the timeline to occur naturally, and when Spock and Nero leave the 24th century, nothing changes. That’s how I reconcile the new movie into Star Trek Canon. Any questions, just reply and I’ll do my best to clarify.
Two things about the Enterprise being built on earth:
1) On the practicality of doing it in 1G… It actually makes more sense than you think….. Since the ship has artificial gravity while it’s in space, it wouldn’t make any sense to install inner components in 0G… otherwise, when you turned on the gravity everything would change position. Further, as far as the exterior, that will obviously have to deal with greater gravitational strains than the 1G environment of earth. Also, think about building in space; you either need to do it in airtight compartments or segments, or do it wearing spacesuits which don’t seem that much less cumbersome even in the future (See First Contact). Also, we already build the space shuttle on earth, and that flies and operates in space.
2) Even if it isn’t practical, sometimes you just gotta suspend belief or accept things as they are. One good example of this is transporters ; Think about how many dangerous situations people could have just beamed out of over the years, but didn’t in order to have suspense or move the plot forward.
Also, one thing I’ve always wondered is why transporter technology is never used as a weapon; instead of using phasers, why not just beam a section of a ship into space before it raises it’s shields, or beam out a section in the bulhead of the bridge in order to cause it to decompress?
Seriously, to sum up, the “Made on Earth” thing kind of makes sense anyway… and even if it doesn’t, well, just deal with it.
I have a great feeling about this movie; and if canon needs to be tweaked a little bit in order to make a fresh start, so be it. Great trailer JJ!
#287 -
Took me awhile to make out, but I’m pretty sure Scotty says:
“This is excitin’!”
Nimoy is in the movie at 59 seconds, he is standing trial most likely caught by the romulans.
Re: # 294
Thanks.
I still can’t hear it myself, but it makes alot more sense w/ your interpretation.
I guess the “citin” part was what I heard as “Satan” . I’m gonna try really hard to hear “citin” when I watch the HD trailer on Monday.
326
Nope not Nimoy thats Quinto
My website has a really nice chatroom if anyone would like to have a full discussion there…not sure if Anthony would approve but not sure how to directly contact him about it…anyways for now I’ll just give the link to the website (first one who had the trailer…hehe had to mention it) and see if anyone goes there and chats.
RE: Marty McFly
When I saw the trailer, I knew that jacket reminded me of something but I couldn’t remember what…and that was it. BOTF II! I recently saw it on cable.
So Bob, how does Trek fit into the BOTF continuity. Which timeline are we in? The one where Biff goes back with the Almanac? Or after The Doc flies off with his spaceship train?
Of course the theater in this half-assed excuse for a town didn’t show it. I guess I’m waiting for Monday. >:(
330. Anthony Pascale – November 15, 2008
Prequel. Goes back to how Biff and Marty met.
Anthony
Since you are lurking. Do you know if the new trailer will also be up on either the Playstation network or Xbox live. I wanna see it on my 73″ DLP in HD
Anybody notice Jennifer Morrison (Kirk’s mom) crying out, circa 1:34? I did. :-P
We also have our first glimpses of Winona Ryder as Amanda, Jacob Kogan as young Spock, and Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike.
Also, is anyone else wondering who voices the robo-cop? Greg Grunberg, perhaps? Doesn’t really sound like him. Anyone care to make a guess on that?
Lastly, anybody else notice Level 1 Entertainment is no longer listed as a production partner?
In Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WNPb8R-40
<>
It was “A piece of the action”, the episode where a planet was “contaminated” by a book on Earth gangsters… :)
The video just went down.
#208 and CRAIG in general:
please keep suffering and raging, as each time you post it increases my pleasure tenfold. your anger is my bliss, and watching you writhe so aimlessly validates my expectations of this fine effort, this noble film.
Video will be back up soon.
Anthony is there a way I can contact you other than the website’s contact us form…I sent something in yesterday but I don’t know if you got it.
Charles,
You are the only person who would notice that there was no Level 1 logo, OK I noticed, but you are the only other one.
RE: lurking
i am headed out door to see QoS and the Trek trailer, so no more lurking. I did update the video above with a version from Kelvington (almost as good as Spockboy). we will see about a Spockboy version later.
I have no idea when it will be on the Playstation network. Do they even list trailers for Paramount? if so, probably the normal time. The trailer will likely only be at apple.com and maybe the official site on Monday.
For all the haters and all the nit-pickers, get over it. This is better than no Trek at all. I wouldn’t trade this for 20 years of DS9, Voyager, what have you….
NOTHING ELSE is Kirk and Spock & crew.
Regardless, you will see this movie. You have to. It’s all that’s left for us to digest.
And my guess is, it’ll be worth it.
Love,
Big *ss Trek Fan
I see this trailer, and I think: Perhaps Kirk was sent to a Starfleet boarding school as a kid. He seemed to be more than just a risk-taker. I saw his stating his name as pure obstanance. He may have been a trouble maker, and stealing and crashing the ‘Vette may have been what got him into Starfleet in the first place.
Now, I have to ask: Is Kirk going to still be from Iowa? As one who was born and raised in Iowa, I can tell you: There are not canyons like that.
One of the things I liked about this trailer is that we really get to see the Enterprise’s size scale for the first time. In the trailer, when we see it constructed, we see it is clearly on earth. Did you see how massive it looked? We finally got to see just how big a 600ish ft. long 25ish story buliding fling through space is. And yes, even though the bridge is changed, in the trailer, we get that head-on center view, with the navigation on the left and the helm on the right.
I personally thought the trailer was aweome. It is going to be action packed, suspenseful and looks to be a great story. I was wowed. I eagerly away May 8. As for audience reaction to the trailer: except for one guy who muttered “Oh geez, Trekkies” there wasn’t any more or less reaction to this than there was any of the other movies.
So now I wonder: Did JJ perhaps understimate the negative connotaion that the name Star Trek carries? Is the name “Star Trek” powerful enough to drive people away?
I’m perfectly willing to admit that perhaps I am overreacting to one person…
#328 Look at the shoulders there are wide like Nimoys
I’ve determined that we’re all nuts.
YEah mon
They have the teaser in HD as does XBOX live.
sorry #314 but ST has NEVER been hard SF – always been space opera – two very different genres. Hard SF is the likes of A.C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, et al.
“Lost in Space”, “Time Tunnel”, etc are Sci-Fi; “Star Trek” is space opera and “2001: A Space Odessey” is SF of the hardest variety.
Some great reading whilst you wait for the film:
startrekdom.blogspot.com/search/label/History of Trek
Let’s hope the film engages with contentious issues the way that TOS did, as these articles demonstrates.
This movie will revolutionize STAR TREK!!! It definitely has captured the heart of what Star Trek is all about. Remember, the ending credits of the earlier movies… it is all about the human ADVENTURE!!! Also, I do not see any break with canon. Remember, the Captain of the Enterprise is Chris Pike and not James Kirk. And according to canon, the Enterprise was about 40 years old, I believe, when she self-destruct. For a starship to live that long, the Enterprise had to undergone several refits. My understanding is that this is Pike’s Enterprise, not Kirk’s Enterprise, so the changes with the nacalles and the secondary hull are fine with me. Does anyone agree with my statements?
Bob. LOL…, but back to when Biff and Marty met? I want to see how the Doc and Marty met. I always thought that was kind of a weird thing. Why was this teenage kid hanging out with this mad scientist?
I have to say, BOTF II had probably the best explanation of how time travel worked in that scene with the black board. I should post that sometime.
The cop at the begging of the movie is N.O.M.A.D
Nooo!!!!
The Spockboy version was soooo much better than the new one posted above! (With apologies to Voyager and Kelvington, but this has waaaaaaaaaay too much constrast!)
Is this when Biff was George’s supervisor, or when Biff had the auto detail company?
http://vimeo.com/2254797
Meg
It’s Quinto. The initial spy photos of Quinto first leaked a year ago showed him in the same outfit on that assembly-temple set
Unless you are seeing something I am not. You are talking about 59 seconds and we see Spocks back before the elders??
Night all. Time to go drink copius amounts of cold Sake and hopefully find some honeys
I, being a fan of John Cho, Simon Pegg, and Star Trek, will be seing this film. I just hope that it retains the soul that Star Trek had. Sure, everyone wants action. Sure, sex sells. Sure, interest is waning, and it needs new life. However, don’t rob Peter to pay Paul.
Die hard fans will ALWAYS buy 58755648545648574567845348734563476 tickets, compared to the average movie goers one or two. However, taking Nemesis as an example, if you alienate your primary audience of fans, only ten of them will actually watch the movie, which is why only a few million sold. (remember, 1 diehard fan = 58755648545648574567845348734563476 tickets) My math may be a bit wrong, however, the principle isn’t.
I just wait as a child on the night before Christmas, hoping to see Santa before I fall asleep.
I remember reading somewhere where Mary started to work for Doc because Doc had a great record collection, and Marty went to catalog Doc’s records. Marty and Doc then became friends and Marty took care of Einstein.
So far, the whiners outnumber the non-whiners by a ration of 15-1.
So, my feeling is, if you don’t like, don’t watch it.
Pretty simple.
#338 sez: “validates my expectations of this fine effort, this noble film.”
Awesome. Where did you get to see an early screening? Are there more?
#349 sez: “This movie will revolutionize STAR TREK!!! It definitely has captured the heart of what Star Trek is all about.”
Awesome. Where did you get to see an early screening? Are there more?
#342: “Regardless, you will see this movie.”
Possibly not. I still haven’t seen the last two, not even on video. Simply slapping a Star Trek logo on a movie isn’t nearly enough to get me to shell out the prices they’re charging for theater tickets these days. :(
#314 sez: ” I am always amazed at how truly brilliant some of the science fiction of TOS is.”
Oh, I agree. Don’t misunderstand me: I love it when Star Trek succeeds as science fiction, and don’t think I haven’t noticed that it has, on occasion, done so brilliantly (most especially in TOS). I just meant to say that I can take it that way or any other way … as long as it’s optimistic space-adventure with a social conscience and an interesting cast, I simply don’t mind one way or another if they _also_ pay attention to the science (and that goes triple for the “hard” sciences). I certainly enjoy it when they do; I just don’t mind/care when they don’t and don’t judge the Star Trekkishness of a given piece by that standard.
#314 also sez: ” I don’t know any book/show/movie where people actually learn the language of a race of characters like the Klingons, or could riff off the corridor locations and their corresponding levels and numbers in exact detail like Trek fans can.”
In fairness, I do think Tolkien fanatics are similarly frightening … many of them also learn the fictional languages involved, can recite obscure details gleaned or deduced from the appendices and supporting works, rattle off entire family trees of kings, elves and hobbits, and so on.
I’m an odd duck because I consider myself a serious and lifelong Star Trek fan, but I don’t sweat the details or consider them worth sweating. I’ve done Star Trek licensed material professionally, too, and it was then — when I got to feel the heat of fannish obsession from the other side, so to speak — that a lot of things really fell into perspective for me re how much of a “fan” I am in that sense. I’m just a guy who loves a certain TV show and sometimes enjoys its spinoff material, is what it boils down to :)
Anthony and others- Isn’t anyone bothered by the fact this post is supporting breaking the copyright law by showing illegally a theatrical trailer which no one at this time has rights to show?
It doesn’t bother me…then again I’m the one who uploaded it…soooo
uh bob orci…isnt that well a) excessive use of the transporter and b) awfully advanced beaming tech for 23rd century? plus trip explained that everything gets recycled, including waste, and put thru the biomatter resequencer…for conversion into cargo containers, hull plating…gasp…food…
so that would imply that thered still be a device akin to a toilet…
true this film is over a hundred years further along than archers time but still…
Just to put the whole Nimoy/Quinto debate to rest: Leonard Nimoy does not appear in the trailer, at all. The Spock standing in front of that court or whatever is Quinto. It was already reported that Quinto was involved in such a scene, and Quinto himself was spotted on set while wearing that costume.
re:360
Why would it bother anyone? It’s free publicity for the studio and its “product”
#364- There is a reason things have copyright. And there is a reason the studio has not released this trailer online yet. Its also the reason why illegal downloads have had lawsuits against the offenders.
#364: I think the only real argument against it (legalities aside) is that by showing a shakycam trailer (instead of a high-quality copy of it) it might degrade a potential viewer’s first impression.
But folks can always choose not to hit Play, I figure.
#362. hs — you take things too serious, my friend. I think Mr. Orci was being facetious. :)
Yes indeed, #367. While Mr. Orci hasn’t yet won my confidence as a screenwriter (though I sincerely HOPE he does with Trek), he’s certainly won my admiration for consistently showing a playful sense of humor in the face of mercury-vaporizing fannish heat.
That trailer quality is crap. Stopped it. I’ll wait until I see the Bond flick tomorrow.
Why even have it up – it looks like crap!?
Big, Loud, Stupid.
This will be commercially successful. Hell, I’ll probably see it too. But i’m pretty disappointed now. I really hate the way Kirk looks and acts.
#305 – “Finally: Anybody know if Regal Cinemas have been showing the trailer with Bond?”
LostonNCC1701 – I saw QoS and the trailer in a Regal cinema tonight.
I’m just curious to everyone who doesn’t like how the actors in the new movie are different. What would you have been happy with? Someone who had no artistic acting ability because they had to mimic everything that Kirk did in the original series? I’m just not understanding how you envisioned things to turn out.
I am sorry I don’t know if Star Trek can be saved. As a teacher I know first hand of the stigma Star Trek holds in today’s youth and indeed my own generation (I am 25).
It is definitely not cool to like Star Trek in a generation that idolizes songs that have lyrics like “My humps, my humps… my lovely lady lumps…” and such. I think of it as an entertainment STD of sorts. No one wants to touch it because they don’t get it and don’t want to get the ostracized for even a hint of being connected to it. Very tall and thick brick wall JJ and team are up against and I am not sure he can break through. I am not sure anyone could.
“What is it with the obsession with shouting out what you think is your post number? All the time I see “First!” etc, and it’s annoying… especially when they’re not the first and they just made a fool of themselves.”
…It’s a sexless teenager thing. Akin to losing one’s virginity while still living in their parents’ basement. My personal view is that any post that begins like that should automatically be purged. Do it enough times and the punks will learn.
not at my regal in henderson nv today and i talked to the manager 1st she said “yah I am pretty sure we have that one on there…”
nope
Why does Kirk look like Zack from Save by the Bell?????
“It is definitely not cool to like Star Trek in a generation that idolizes songs that have lyrics like “My humps, my humps… my lovely lady lumps…” and such. I think of it as an entertainment STD of sorts. ”
You can’t judge an entire generation by that. Not everyone is like that at all.
Mr. Orci — do you and Mr. Kurtzman have an official site, either for yourselves or for your production company? If not, is one on its way?
Speaking of production companies, any idea what happened with Level 1? did a deal with them fall through? Or was their money just not needed, after all? LOL
no just the majority of the kids I teach and by majority I mean 80%
I saw the trailer on youtube last night. Went to see Quantum of Solace today and I have to agree with Antony you have to see this on the big screen! Even though I enjoyed online and watched it over 2 dozens time. I held my breath the whole time the trailer was playing on the big screen. I didn’t realize that happened till after the trailer was over with. Thing I will remember about this trailer everytime I see it. Is the little boy that was behind me who came with his father and mother to see Quantum of Solace, the kid had to be at least 4 or 5. But I just remember him saying “Wow,” when the shot of Kirk looking at the Enterprise came up. The second that kid did that, all the memories of me being a kid that age and watching TOS for the first time came back. That childhood wanting of adventure and wanthing to be on the Enterprise with Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the whole crew. Thats the one hope I have for this movie is that it not only bring back Star Trek but also the feeling of wonder that we don’t really see that much anymore in film.
come to think if we can judge the desire of a nation (for political leadership for example) by a majority rules why can’t we describe a generation by a majority in similar fashion?
380. Can’t Wait for May 2009 – November 15, 2008
That is so awesome to hear. Thanks for sharing that!
Wait… so why did the version of the trailer change here? I liked the old one better… *blank stare*
372. voyager – November 15, 2008
“I’m just curious to everyone who doesn’t like how the actors in the new movie are different. What would you have been happy with? Someone who had no artistic acting ability because they had to mimic everything that Kirk did in the original series? I’m just not understanding how you envisioned things to turn out.”
Not looking for mimics. I am against the very idea of recasting at all.
re: 373
“Very tall and thick brick wall JJ and team are up against and I am not sure he can break through. I am not sure anyone could.”
And they should not try. Leave it alone.
373.
Ha! You just described what it’s been like to be a Trekker for the last 40 years. Nothing has changed, that’s how Star Trek has always been viewed. Either you get it or you don’t. The only difference between being a Trekker in the 70’s and 80’s and now is that now there hasn’t been a movie or a series out for a few years.
Neeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooo!
btw i knew bob was being facetious…lol…i was clarifying for those who drank too many romulan ales to know, and judging by some of the more idiotic posts here, id say those would number greater than the borg collective lol
380: If only everyone would realize THAT’S what Star Trek is all about.
You may be right stanky… If it nails the coffin shut on Trek by the movie flopping it will be a huge financial blow to paramount and they will be piling the dirt atop the coffin in the hole.
I highly highly highly doubt this movie is going to flop.
I am a trek fan from the beginning, watched it as a child in first run. I am skeptical as many fans are: is what JJ is doing going to perpetuate or kill the Star Trek we have all come to know and love? What amazes me is that the biggest bitch of the first few posts was whether or not it was accurate to build the Enterprise on earth. It’s not relevant to the story, it’s never been established in canon how it was done/built. For you physicists who comment on how it should have been done, call Warner brothers and complain about the Road Runner cartoons.
Please, all of you who want to complain about the most niggling detail, find another hobby, let’s see what the movie is all about before you condemn it.
Sooo many of you “fans” remind me of termites. Termites kill the very tree they live in, in order to survive. Don’t kill the very thing that you claim sustains you.
Star Trek is both a business and entertainment, if you lose one, you lose both. Don’t kill what you claim sustains you.
We shall see John I hope it does well but if it doesn’t then the money dumped into it will be a serious factor that hurts the franchise in paramounts eyes.
#373
Those Trekkies/Trekkers who are in “hiding” as it were need to break through the ridicule and actually show the mainstream audience what Star Trek is about. JJ will give the impetus, but it is up to the fans to help those around them come to terms with Star Trek. Now not everyone is going to like it., but if the fans were less jerkish, a little less nerdy (I’m talking about the ones who think its real. Role playing is not bad but treating Trek as reality is and letting it dominate your every waking moment is bad and unhealthy), then they can help by showing them the better parts of Star Trek. Explain it to them in terms they can understand. I have learned how to do that and people accept the fact that I’m enjoy Star Trek. The stigmatism comes from those obsessed few who believe Trek is life. To quote Shatner “Get a life, its just a TV show.” Trek is something that we can enjoy and let influence our life. But as long as some people let it dominate their lives, the stigmatism will remain. You see this with Tolkien Fans and Star Wars fans as well. Some take it too far. One of the reasons these franchises survive is because people are so enamoured with these univereses that they will get or see anything that is a part of the universe. The companies know this and will try tomake money off of it. Why do you think most action movies have sex and violence? Because they appeal to basic instincts of man (not the case for everyone but you get the idea). Star Trek can be saved. But it is up to the fans to stand up and say “Hey how can you talk when you haven’t even seen 1 hour of Star Trek in your life?” And if the answer is that they had a bad experience, point them to a part of Trek that they might enjoy. There are plenty of genres that are covered by the realm that is Star Trek.
It’s going to be crap. But I bet it’ll make a bundle of cash, and lots of people will like it, so – best of luck to you people! I’ll still go and see it; the general rule of thumb is that a crap trailer doesn’t always mean a crap film.
Some of the dialogue does worry me though. That line near the start about Kirk having a hard time finding a place in life…. it actually makes *no* sense. It’s terribly written, and I can’t believe no one’s picked up on that yet. They have six months or so to tweak things, and I hope to God that someone wakes up at Paramount and says ‘hey this line was written in crayon’.
The other lines shit me, too. All of that pseudo-Tolkien nonsense about ‘choosing your path’. I’m getting the increasing feeling that this movie is aimed at 13 year olds.
As I said though, I literally can’t be against something that gives a good time to so many people, so – bon voyage to you folks. !
I saw Bond, I saw the trailer.
Oh, yes, this is the Star Trek I’ve been waiting for. The Star Trek that feels earthy, more real. Oh, it was great. Am I a fan of the Kirk getting chased down by a cop? Meh, but it was there for the purpose of making it feel different.
Of course, it fits Kirk’s character, when you come right down to it. He admired old technology, so when he was a kid, he was driving something that a kid of 14 years old might have considering the cop was on a hoverbike.
As for Enterprise being built on Earth, it makes sense to me. Enterprise is an older Constitution-class ship. There’s no reason why the Enterprise could be the last ship that was ever built on Earth.
Take this into consideration that perhaps that’s what makes Enterprise so important in-universe. It’s popular because it’s the last vestiges of the old Earth-based Starfleet. Even though Starfleet is in San Fransisco, it’s ships are not from Earth, they’re from Earth’s orbit.
I think this would have significance in our society should that happen today. Like the idea that we merge with England, and because they have better technology for building, we adapt to that (complete hypothetical situation, of course), we start building ships in English ports that are now American.
As for Aaron R. (post #373), I am 23, and while I’m not a teacher, I, too, know the stigma that Star Trek has. Unfortunately, you’re impeaching this generation, and it down-right pisses me off. It’s like anything that’s made in this day and age, like Batman, Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond, Marvel films, shouldn’t be made because of this generation.
Come on! Lyrics are just lyrics, and there is plenty of other music out there that people do listen to. I, for example, listen to Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Yes, Dave Matthews Band, Phish, and many others. Many of my friends also enjoy this same music, my age and younger. I may not like some of the stuff that’s going on now, but just because that’s going on doesn’t mean that Star Trek can’t make it. Just look at Batman or James Bond. After Die Another Day, with Daniel Craig taking the role, a lot of people thought the series would die. But it didn’t, and it won’t, and there’s at least one more film to go. Because, James Bond will return.
Look at the success of The Dark Knight. Star Trek can have that success, if it’s reinvented right. From watching this preview, I think it may have. Because what has hurt Star Trek is it’s campy-ness you see in Voyager and it’s repeated storyline in Enterprise, Season 3. And the writing (and as a result, the acting) wasn’t very good either.
After seeing the “new-old” NCC-1701, I am still not impressed with the trailer.
As Orci or someone else said, “This is not your father’s Star Trek.”
Well, I was there from the beginning. I remember watching that first episode of Star Trek when it debuted WAY back in September of 1966.
NEWS FLASH!
This steaming pile of crap is NOT my Star Trek either!
I hope it fails miserably! Then, and only then, will Paramount see there folly of a “re-boot”!
This is 40 + years of continuity blown out the airlock!
I, for one, will not be seeing this film!
People are so paranoid here. They think by Trekkers talking about their beloved franchise they are somehow killing it. You know what, the only thing that’ll kill it is if the non-Trek audience doesn’t come out to see the movie and those people don’t come to these fan sites and listen to what we have to say to begin in.
Another note, people who criticize others for having opinions, positive or negative, get a life! This is a diverse world we live in and I celebrate everyone’s opinions about the movie, just don’t petition others to not have opinions or try to convince others to believe the same way you do.
I know no one will ever read this cause its so far down but oh well. I’m losing hope for this being a “star trek” film. I am very confident that this will be a GREAT movie. Having said that, i’m not a “purist” but i do understand that you have to respect the canon of the show. Now for my 15 seconds of personal opinion.
— I Hate:
-The Robo-cop at the beginning of the trailer.
-”My name is James Tiberius Kirk.” *One way to make it sound better. “My
name is James T. Kirk.”
-The Enterprise being assembled on Earth. This doesnt make any sense to me. Build the thing in space lol. That’s where the Enterprise belongs.
— I’m ok with:
-The Bridge. Simply put its growing on me.
-The Ship over all. It looks MUCH more like the Enterprise on the screen than it does in the picture.
— I love:
- Seeing Spock as a child and how he grows up.
- The new transporter effect. Its great
- I can finally see Spock and Kirk, instead of Pine and Quinto
- The Corridors
I hope i’m very suprised and this movie becomes a Trek legend. And if not then i will wish Peace and Long Life to an Epic series and move on to a new Epic Series.
Meh. Screw waiting for Monday, I watched it on youtube. Wish I was feeling as enthusiastic right now as I was when I watched it. Someone or something always manages to f*** up everything that might possibly be pleasant for me.
But from what I can see through the pixels it looks amazing. I LOVE the shots of the ship.
Too bad Kirk kills the Corvette though.
This movie is going to be a huge success. Congrats to Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams.
Anyone notice the very tall alien cadet at 1:03
anyone know what kind it is
I’m gonna have to look at it like I did the new Battlestar Galactica. It may take a little time to get used to but it could be what Star Trek needs.
Gary at 401
Good point. I more and more find myself thinking remake as we get more pics etc. I had to just decide that I am acceptng remake when the pic of the new Enterprise was released.
I find myself liking everything I am seeing a lot more if I think of it as a remake or reboot like BSG. I don’t know why JJ and team didn’t just call it what it was from the begining?????? It sure as hell looks like a reimagined Enterprise to me. Reimagined like BSG where it is all similar but very different with a new cast etc.
I just don’t get it. I completely understand the fact that people are allowed to have differing opinions on the topic, but why just go out and say that it’s going to be crap and you’re not watching it? There’s nothing you can do about it, the movie is still coming out, and whether you like it or not it will be recorded as part of Star Trek…so why even bother to go out here and complain that it ruined Trek without giving any real reasons to why that is? It’s hard to give this movie a chance when you come in with the glass half empty.
324 i’ll tell u why no one just beamed pieces of ships off…. a) no one would be so idiotic as to lower their shields in combat to do so and b) if they were so stupid the enemy would most likely fire on their transpoter relays and destroy the transporters or do other serious damage…
but as for certain components being beamed off the ship…in st: enterprise episode e2, archer had lorian’s enterprise’s power relays beamed off his ship to force a trade for archer’s enterprise’s warp plasma injectors, and in st: voyager’s ‘equinox’ ep, ransom had voyagers shield generators beamed off voyager…
another reason: voyager episode ‘dark frontier’: voyager beamed a photon torpedo into a borg ship and remote detonated it, destroying said borg ship…MUCH easier than beaming pieces of a ship off and requiring MUCH less power
Not doing it.
I will wait until Monday.
I am not complaining I am planning on trying to promote it to my students… maybe some will go see it. I just don’t know.
The problem that I’m facing is that I don’t want to call this a reboot. I think of this movie as what we would have seen if Star Trek was just starting out now. As if instead of in the 60’s, Gene Roddenberry was using the movie technology of today to make the series instead of what was avaliable back then. The story is still Star Trek, along with the ideal…it’s just different than what happened in the 1960s…the Enterprise is the same ship, it just has a lot bigger budget, and the old Enterprise wouldn’t have looked as modern to most of us if we had seen it now.
This is the best teaser/trailer I’ve seen. Why? Because my jaw literally dropped open when that kid flew over the cliff. Then my jaw was kept open the entire time (literally) until the end because even the trailer itself caught me by surprise — had no idea that it was Star Trek.
The funnest trailer ever. This movie is gonna be awesome.
I agree Voyager but I would like to add that I don’t Gene would care about the ship modernization so much as he would the story and characters. You will note that I have never voiced any of my personal quips with the goofy engineering hull on the ship. I think the story is what makes the movie not if it was built on Earth or n space… LOL
I agree with that, I’m just saying for all those that say the Enterprise doesn’t look like that. I think it has a good storyline going for it so far, lots of mysteries and fun things from the trailer.
For all of the folks stuck on this whole “The Enterprise was built in space’ thing.
The Plaque on the bridge reads San Francisco Shipyards, Earth
Last time I looked San Fran was earthbound. All this orbital stuff was fanboy speculation. Im pretty sure it was Roddenberry himself who originally said he envisioned Enterprise components being constructed on Earth and then final final touches being done in space. This isnt something Abrams ‘made up’ on the fly
395. Shi Don Yu – November 15, 2008
Seriously? “I hope it fails miserably”? Disagreeing and disliking this venture is fine, but shite, what kind of Trek fan are you?
true enough… have a good one all. heres to monday when I can see a clear version… stupid regal theaters.
voyager (post # 403):
The glass is NOT half full.
The glass has already “runneth over” wit nothing but bull$h*t from the Abrams camp!
I will have nothing more to do with any futher Trek!
It’s not canon, it’s not Star Trek!
Have fun then…
414 – Have a nice life then.
Shawn P: I am a Star Trek fan from way before you were born.
I don’t believe in screwing up something that has established over 40 years of un-interrupted continuity to it!
If they are going to go back to the beginning, then for God sake, do it right!
Hey will Paramount be launching an official YouTube page for the new Star Trek movie? That way it has an official presence there rather than all the bootlegged versions. (And I’m surprise Paramount aren’t taking them down, sometimes I see something from “Viacom” or someone who may have taken something down.)
Several years ago, when Enterprise came out a friend of mine told me to look at Enterprise differently than I wanted to, he told me to watch it and decide: Is this good sci-fi or not? Is it good Star Trek, or not? We all have our own opinions about Enterprise.
I plan to look at the new Trek the same way. I don’t want the old trek I know/knew and loved to go away. But the loudest complainers need to remember one thing. Star Trek is a BUSINESS, period. If the old way doesn’t sell and nothing changes, star trek dies. If JJ can make it viable again and it flourishes, Star Trek lives. What’s the goal?
If they’ve figured out impulse drive with fusion reactors that push the ship to 0.5c in 0.001 seconds (as suggested by the TNG technical manual) I’m sure they can build a big ship at 1 g on the ground and get it into orbit without a hitch.
How many times in the original series did the Enterprise go flying through the Earth’s atmosphere, or through the heliosphere of a star, or through the ‘galactic barrier’? If the story (yes it is science FICTION) pits this vessel as being capable of enduring some of the harshest celestial environments, then its construction on Earth is completely plausible in the context of the story. Earth’s surface would be extraordinarily timid in comparison to some of the shit the Enterprise is subjected to over the course of Star Trek’s history.
My humps my humps…my starship humps!
Heeheeheheheeeee!!!!!
no trek trailer in toronto…. wonder if its just the theatre i went to (varsity). QOS wasn’t bad at all, speaking of reboots (yes, I know ST isn’t officially one). And the audience got a big laugh from the really polite Canadian agent. Trailer looks great, well, what could be seen in the youtube version. Have to admit the Uhura top-off thing made me think of all the really awkward, desperate semi-nudity on Enterprise. Still want to see this on the big screen.
Have ST characters had British accents before? Oh, yeah, Picard… heh… also St. John Talbot/Gorkon, Troi (later on, sort of), whoever Malcolm McDowell played in Generations.
What’s with the bridge? Doesn’t it seem a little too white?
Not really, consider the fact that the Enterprise is brand new in the movie.
Where was “Space Abe” Lincoln??
WTF.
Naysayers be damned, I cried at the end oif this trailer, tears of joy.
Quit nitpicking, embrace this, it truly is what Gene would want us to do.
Once again, i’ll say it.
What a teriffic trailer for what looks to be a great film.
Sunday is the big day in Europe for casual internet browsing. I’ve worked there for years, and Sunday is THE day to get your job offer across, and your resume through. THAT is when Europeans are on the net. I;ve been through it dozens of times.
So why is Sunday the day that a superior bootleg (Spockboy’s) gets pulled? Why was the HD trailer not out Sunday instead of Monday?
Paramount doesn’t know.
The release this weekend of the pirate trailer was a brllliant piece of markeitng. It will be written about for a while. But why dumb down the quality on the weekend? Do the research and jack it up. The net has viewing days and times just like TV. And Trek wants Europe…Go get it! But understand it as well.
Spockboy’s trailer was mine first :-P
I think he drives it off the cliff to get back at the abusive uncle
“What’s with the bridge? Doesn’t it seem a little too white?”
“Not really, consider the fact that the Enterprise is brand new in the movie.”
Well, there’s really no reason why the bridge (or all the ship’s interior, actually) should look “dirtier” even if years have passed, this is no old boat accumulating dust, garage and broken pieces… :)
‘The Pantom Menace’ initially had an awesome trailer as well, everyone seems to be forgetting, while busy wetting themselves.
That’s all I have to say.
i saw how the the new airbus 380 is bulit on national geographic, you wouldnt belive how delicate the proces of building just the wing, they milled it, bake it in one big oven, really delicate. i just cant accept the idea that a “STARSHIP” from the 23rd century that can travel trhough space (and time at that) at speeds faster than light be built on earth pretty much the same way a sky scrapper or an oil tanker.
395. Shi Don Yu – Dude, the last few movies were duds. What the heck is Paramount supposed to do?
If they made the movie for fans like you, the majority of the movie going public would stay away, and Star Trek would go away. And I was there for the first show in 1966 as well. I want to see Trek continue, and the only way for that to happen is to attract new fans, not to make the movie for the minority of narrow-minded fans who would rather see the franchise die than to see it evolve.
Go watch your DVDs of TOS, and I’ll happily go forward. Maybe I won’t like it, but I still won’t wish it was more like that cheap old thang from forty years ago. It had its time, it doesn’t work well or look very good by today’s more sophisticated standards.
I certainly won’t hope that it fails miserably. That’s just mean. Why are you so angry?
Why, why, why..why are there so many people ready to hate and disparage this movie?????
Have so many of us forgotten Mr. Roddenberry’s view of optimism and hope?
Are we so unwilling to accept change?
Do not let this be our legacy, I implore you all, don’t pre-judge, please give this movie a chance.
The mythologies that last throughout time do so because they are open to re-interpation.
Let’s not let the Great Bird Of The Galxy’s dream die because we are so inflexible.
Hope is our best destiny.
It says so much about Star Trek fans that they post on and on and on and on about whether or not the ship is built in orbit, on Earth, or if it’s fitted-out in space… or what. After almost 50 years of the ‘human adventure’ that’s all you can talk about?
Someone get NICK MYER’s to direct the second movie!
#428
Actually I got it from a guy named Mike on Vimeo who claimed that he recorded it with a still camera that had 720 by 480 video ability.
If you’re Mike, then well done!
: )
Shawn P and Voyager thanks for the comments on my story.
With all this yelling and screaming back and fourth about canon does not both me. I have gone through how many different verisons of my favorite comic book characters. The best example is The Ultimates or the Marvel Ultimate Universe. The characters that I have grown up on The Avengers ( Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Ant-Man, Thor,..etc). Have gotten a more current update and have done great. I think what im trying to say is Star Trek needs to change. The same formula that was used for TNG, VOY, and ENT does not work anymore. In order for Star Trek to survive it needs to adapt to the times but also keep to the “spirt” of the orginal. I enjoy being in a good debate and listening to one. But this is getting out of control. For all of those who do not want to see the movie or just want to complain about every little thing about it. Step aside and let the people who support it on here. And those who hate the movie for what ever reason take your venom else somewhere else.
Whoever Mike was he was booted off Vimeo just like I was.
.
@ 422
“Have ST characters had British accents before? Oh, yeah, Picard… heh… also St. John Talbot/Gorkon, Troi (later on, sort of), whoever Malcolm McDowell played in Generations.”
McDowell played Dr. Soran and don’t forget about Malcolm Reed – he sounded very British. ;)
323. – you nailed it.
As I’ve said, This film isn’t an alternate time-line,it’s the REAL time-line!
Let’s look past the updated visual look (Just look at the viusal technology changes between ST:TMP,2,3,4,5 and 6!) There’s nothing that says this is a reboot.
Keep in mind most of the back stories arn’t existant or set in stone! Robert April was never cannon to begin with (Even if he appeared in the animated series.)
Kirk’s father always died in the Kevlin incident,he had a trouble childhood and teen years,then got his life in order.
Future-Spock KNEW when and where to go back in time to keep things right. Any changes ARE MINOR,like in The Animate STAR TREK episode “Yesteryear”. Perhaps Spock will pass himself off to his youngerself as the same-said cousin who helped him several years earlier.
Another thing for the cannon nuts – Look at “The Menagerie” – there’s a reference that Pike is “About The Same Age” as Kirk – which is wrong since pike would be atleast 13-15 years older than Kirk at that time. Spock also refers to having served with Pike for 8 1/2 years. – makes you wonder how long Krik commanded the enterprise,or if someone between Pike and Kirk had command (”Number One”?).
The Truth is – you can’t use either of the pilots (or The Menagerie) to nail down continuity points – and that leaves a few past refences in the series,
all that can be fit in!
#428
Actually I got it from a guy named Mike on Vimeo who claimed that he recorded it with a still camera that had 720 by 480 video ability.
If you’re Mike, then well done!
: )
Yep, that’s me! :-D http://deck-one.org/forum is where I first posted it.
I am anxious to get this movie on Blu ray.
#427 – “Paramount doesn’t know.”
Did they tell you that themselves? For some reason, based on a couple of other your other posts recently, you seem to think that the marketing people here are almost completely incompetent and have little clue as to what they are doing. Why?
Give them a little more credit. Monday was the date the trailer was meant to be released online.
“After almost 50 years of the ‘human adventure’ that’s all you can talk about?”
no, but look .. for years star trek has been milking the angle that it has influenced people to get involved in science and technology, and that’s more than partially true. it is *part* of what makes star trek interesting and is *part* of the human adventure.
now the next generation and voyager in particular definitely went off the rails when it came to the technobabble and magic bullet science solutions, and i understand the frustration with that. the way that was handled definitely alienated the mainstream audience.
but i don’t understand the need to jump on people trying to find a bit of technical logic in the film and dismiss them as crazy nerd weirdos. some of those crazy nerd weirdos have provided pretty decent explanations for why you’d want to assemble the ship on earth instead of in orbit so it isn’t like they’re all out to hate the film. it’s just about keeping a sliver of science in the science fiction.
I agree with you Finny.
I am split on this trailer. Part of me likes it and part of me is scared by it.
I just hope they keep the intelligence aspect and this is not going to be just some pop drivel.
I am an old school Trekkie (yes, i use the term trekkie) and I have an open mind on this franchise reboot (face it, that is what this is, you can argue semantics all you want, but the fact remains they are trying to bring a franchise back to life. and that is ok)
No view of OLD Spock, is his role in this movie so small……….
otherwise it looks interesting.
THIS WILL BE THE BEST TREK EVER!
This trailer conveys nothing to me – I’m dissapointed.
Of course I will go and watch this movie and I will try to keep an open mind.
At one point I was really hooked about this project but that’s past tense.
Sure the SFX are looking huge and interesting but you cannot sell me with a bunch of CGI explosions… what a wasted opportunity.
Star Trek will always be hated and loved at the same time. Reason for that is that Trek is about science and the values of an advanced civilization dealing with its inner ‘animal demons’.
Many people hate Trek because either:
1) they don’t value science (which is a problem in our world)
2) they are comfortable with being animals and see Gene’s or Burman’s vision of the future as utopian and boring because it is not solely driven by a lust for sex, money & violence.
I don’t expect any Star Trek movie to be a huge hit at the box office, for the reasons listed above. Nonetheless, I hope all Trek fans go see the movie and buy the DVD/BR to keep the franchise lucrative.
What a trailer! This is easily going to be the biggest boldest and best Star Trek Movie ever made! The look of everything is phenominal or however its spelled hahah…..This looks like some of the best Spaceship battle effex that ILM has done since the original Star Wars! And what is even better….Just this brief glimpse shows more character development of our main characters than I think we have seen in any movie….This movie is going to be a wonder to behold!
Thanks JJ, The great lurker Mr Orci, and all involved….You just may have saved our fave franchise! When Star Trek The Experience reopens in vegas next year, hopefully…..there will be additions that involve your new and fresh chapter to Star Trek….
You guys are making me fall in love with the original characters all over again! This clip makes me wish we had one of the old original curved screen theatres left here in the Tacoma, Seattle area…..All the ones close to me are gone…sigh….there might be one or two left in Seattle….hmmm Well I remember my best bud seeing Star Wars in Seattle driving back to Tacoma picking me up and driving back to Seattle again to see it opening night….This might be THAT good of a movie….I hope! It looks like JJ is gonna KNOCK OUR SOCKS OFF! YEE HAWWWW!!!!!!!!!
We need a Wrath of Khan 2nd ACT… I hope it is Nick Myers! The guy who saved Trek twice.
Everyone is acting like Nick Myers is god here…
@ gagarin…
are you saying your not a fan? then why do you bother to read(and/or reply to) what “US” fans of star trek post here? the answer to your question is obvious..where or how the enterprise is bulit in “NOT” the only thing we can talk about. fortunately we can talk about anything about star trek here without “ANYBODY” telling us what we can or cant talk about.
oh.. i just got back from Quantum of Solace at the Seattle Cinerama.
The Star Trek trailer came on first before the lights had fully dimmed, which was unfortunate but on the other hand it was much easier to notice little details on the big screen.
The crowd was incredibly enthusiastic and applauded twice during the trailer. Once after “James Tiberius Kirk” and once again after the trailer was over. no other trailer received applause, and the trailer recieved more applause than the feature, which received a smattering of claps as the house lights came up.
Sounds like Seattle is very excited abut this movie coming out.
That’s it, I’ve got my Ignore Critics circuits activated, and from here on out, it’s clear sailing. I’m not a YES man, it’s this simple: I’m loving everything about this new film so far, and, in the end, hope to love everything else about it. It certainly looks bigger than any previous Trek film ($$ well spent). I’m really enjoying following the growth of this movie. I look into the past and remember hearing about JJ Abrams taking over Star Trek, and now we have a killer trailer, and in May we’ll get the whole thing. Anticipation is part of the pleasure…
@ 453
Everyone? No, I think WOK is pretty mediocre – only great thing about is is Spock’s death sequence.
But I LOVE TUC and think it is the best Trek movie BY FAR!
And now that MAT (post number 452) mentioned it, he saved Trek twice.
He made it a lot moremainstream and character orieanted after the first movie (which I like) and he made a more serious, political, ambivalent and refreshing send off for the TOS crew with VI after two absolut stinkers (I know IV is considered to be good and was the second highest grossing Trek movie so far but for me I’m SURE that IV is the WORST of the ten even worse than V + Nemesis).
hmm I really liked Nemesis.
#457
I too love TUC
However, how you can say the Voyage Home is worse than The Final Frontier and Nemesis is beyond me!
The trailer already has over 82 000 views on YouTube. It definitely shows an interest in the movie.
Why are people worried about CANON?! The whole point is that Spock (Nimoy) is somehow in an alternative timeline! It’s meant to be different to what we know, that’s the whole point! Come on folks, it’s a well established Sci-fi convention. Mirror mirror anyone? Get it?
441
Thanks for the acknowledgement. With all the posts going up its hard for people to notice all the comments. I really hope more people are of the same mindset.
I shall expound a little on my ideas. Although I believe that April exists in the timeline (TAS is canon in my opinion. Its the tale end of Kirk’s mission The stories are good although it may break some canon rules), his role in the history of Trek is pretty much “I took the Enterprise out on her maiden voyage.” Not much fame for the guy. At least give his character some credit. Also, half of what everyone considers canon is based off of cojnecture from dialogue and what Okuda has said in the Chronology and the Encyclopedia (both of which are dated at this point). I base my assumptions by what I see on screen and then make logicla assumptions based on what I’ve seen to reconcile inconguities (Chekov was always on the Enterprise, but being an Ensign, he wasn’t always on duty hence his abscence in Season 1 of TOS and also from TAS This also explains how Khan can remeber him in Star Trek II). Now that JJ has put up his new film, certain paradigms over what exactly happened during those years will have to be changed, and everyone knows how hard it is to change them, especially when they have been embedded for 40 years.
Finally, the whole argument over whether to call it a reboot or a prequel. A reboot can be a prequel of sorts. Look at the Bond franchise. I consider every Bond movie Casino Royale onward to occur before Dr. No even though the techonological and poltical milieu is the 21st century. I center my focus around the characters and not so much the technology around them. Also, Comic Book heros are easier to retcon and reboot because they don’t have as much techonlogical or political baggage to carry with them. Sure the look is different with the new film, but it is still the origin story of the crew of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701. The Enterprise still looks like the old Enterprise, though it is updated. The bridge layout is preety much the same although the art designer went with a different look. The uniforms are almost identical (can’t say anything about the props as we haven’t seen what they look like close up yet, but from what I’ve heard they are updated versions of the originals). All one has to do is look at the story with some imagination, which for some reason a lot of people have lost on the audience side. Everyone relax. Its a new thread in the greater tapestry that is Star Trek. Lets enjoy the new dimenson it brings to the story.
#321
Your name-calling is a strong indicator for *your* open-mindness. lol
I think a “reboot” (good term) of Star Trek is needed.
It was a success with Bond and BattleStar Gallactica.
This movie appears good, but it will take some adapting by classic fans.
erm, that pretty much made me squirm. It certainly isn’t- as JJ said it wouldn’t be- my daddys Trek. Sadly it don’t look much like mine either.
Everyone keeps saying that there are no cliffs in Iowa… I do believe that Kirk was living on Tarsus IV witnessing Kodos’s massacre as a teenager. I bet Tarsus IV has cliffs.
Few observations:
- Teen Kirk is a little daredevil. Was that a cop he was running from?
- I like the new transporter animation i.e., horizontal circular.
- The new warp effect is excellent.
- The soundtrack is incredibly alive. Who is the composer this time?
I liked the trailer a great deal. The Enterprise looks MUCH better.
461 That’s alternate universe in Mirror Mirror, not alternate timeline.
This movie is predestination paradox (think Terminator another great sci-fi franchise). The events of Spock and Nero create the crew we know. Also, if this is an alternate timeline why is the technology different. Even in Yesterday’s Enterprise, the alternate timline had the same technology and the same design hulls and props (bridge was similar yet suited the timeline). This new look is just updating the technology from the 1960’s vision to something that is more appropriate for 2008. Many of the techs that were shown in 1966 are rather outdated by today’s standards. So, an update in look is necessary for the film to look real to the modern audience (I am a theater major in college and intending to go into the field as an actor for both film and theatre. Also I do anaylze this kind of thing as a hobby). It is important for it to be updated. Sure the original designs were cool, but that doesn’t mean the new stuff is bad. Let’s keep open minds. New artists means new looks. As long as it looks similar to original (which it does), I don’t care where they go as long as the characters remain the same. The only way this movie would be ruined would be if Spock turned emo (emotional outbursts good as in the trailer, letting himself be controled by his emotions bad), Kirk became a by the book captain, Bones was quiet and reserved, Uhura looked bored with her job, Chekov pronounced all his letters correctly, Scotty was at not complaining about what was wrong in engineering every 5 minutes and gave up the scotch, and Sulu was not the renaissance man that he is, sword and all. That’s the Star Trek everyone is fearing and I don’t Bob, Alex, and JJ have done that. I believe that they have enriched Star Trek more than Berman has done with all the shows he produced (I call it mediocre Trek as Trek in and of itself is awesome but Berman was just trudging along with no imagination whatsoever and had run out of ideas by the end of it.)
JJ, Bob, and Alex, I hope you get a chance to read my posts. I want you to know that I’m behind you all 100%. Please, if you do a sequel or spin off series with these actors to keep the spirit alive and end it if you believe that spirit is lost. Without the spirit of Star Trek (not the canon), the story cannot flourish. When it is time for it to die, let it die. If it be after this movie, so be it. If it be after a revival, so be it. But don’t let Star Trek continue until it is in its dying throes as Berman left it. Let it die with grace in its own good time and give it a proper burial. Give it a final act that will truly be a symbol of that spirit. Let Star Trek live on even after the cameras have stopped rolling and the scripts stop being written. Let it continue to inspire people long after the last movie has lit the silver screen and the last syndicated broadcast is shown on televison. Don’t let Star Trek become a thing of the past that is only remebered for rabid fans and canon mongering. Let Star Trek be remebered as an optimistic view of the future and an inspiration for the human race to become better than it is, above petty differences. Let Star Trek become legendary again.
Brian,
Yup. By the way, are the floors like black glass? I wonder if they were running inside the corridors of the Enterprise or another ship.
The new ship insides look very alien (which is good).
I also like the Vulcan homeworld scene. It adds a “Superman + Krypton + Jor El” feel to the movie with the noble British accented voice of presumably Spock’s father talking to Spock.
There is no canon in Star Trek.
it’s on you tube if you can’t wait
466 – But will it have Corvettes?!
Pretty mesmerizing trailer. A little too chopped up, but the idea is to surprise people here.
The reaction I’m seeing at regular movie websites has been pretty positive. Several people saying they’re not fans, but they are becoming interested.
Not much in the way of reaction at my screening of QOS. One middle-age man behind me saying he thought it looked good.
From an interview with the U.S.S. Enteprise NCC-1701.
Reporter: “Let me guess… You were built in outer space.”
Enterprise: “No, I was built in Iowa, I only work in outer space.”
;)
I will not allow you to lecture me.
Will it enter the lexicon?
Oh brave new world.
#475 – That was actually pretty clever and classic!
I am pleased that this topic has more uses of ‘canon’ than ‘cannon’. People are finally learning how to spell.
That said… aside from that car chase at the beginning, I liked this trailer. I still think it looks like the Enterprise’s saucer is blocking its bussard collectors, though.
I’m not sure. Perhaps I have to see this in HD.
Totally blown away except –
Pine’s Kirk kinda sucks. There’s virtually none of the original character in how Pine portrays him. This is a huge disappointment for me. Quinto, Pegg, and Urban nailed it, but Pine missed the dart board entirely. Its like they reinvented Kirk!!!! This may be why the Shat wasn’t included in the movie.
Its a damn shame because EVERYTHING ELSE IS AMAZING!!!!!! I love the Enterprise exterior shape, bridge and deck sets, uniforms……Everything clicked for me up until seeing Pine’s Kirk in real time.
I hope those scenes are isolated incidents. I miss the old Captain James T. Kirk / William Shatner (sniff….sniff), and we’ll probably never get him back.
The radicalism of the anti IDIC fans who crucified Enterprise since the first reports of what it was about where known, are who killed Enterprise, which, by the way, was a damn good show and one of my favourite ST ever.
I honestly hope that obsessive closedmindness doesn’t harm the effect of this wonderfull movie in the general public.
I, for once in my life, would like to be able to go to carnival dressed as a Captain and not be the only ridiculous costume people laughs AT instead of WITH.
And I insist any change in design and canon are very logically explainable in a chain of events that begins with First Contact. It makes perfect sense to me.
In any TV show about time travel, there are several timelines, but the viewers don’t count time from year 1 to year 2. We count time from episode one to episode two.
This means that the real timeline we should be concerned about isn’t from 2008 to 2399, but one that goes this way:
TOS-TAS-TNG-DS9-VOY-First Contact- At this pont we, the tv audience, leave the “Time Machine” and stay with Zephram Cochrane, so then Enterprise-Star Trek Zero (We have to find an unmistakeable name for this new one diferent than STXI ot ST. I vote ST0).
We are the time travelers witnessing the chain of events. We experienced the events and therefor, they are all real. We have them taped and can re-watch them whenever we want. Any change in the timeline is a part of the plot and a part of the chain of events, and I have allways enjoyed it as such.
The borgs going back in time (thus being encountered by starfleet 200 years soon), Riker and Picard influencing Cochrane and his assistant (producing more modern designs in Enterprise and ST0), The temporal cold war, Nero klling Kirk’s father in the Kelvin… It is all part of the plot and the continuity and canon of the series, which isn’t a linear timeline which remains constant, because it is a series wich involves lots of time travel.
Keeping track of the changes in the timeline and having fun with them is what being a die hard trekkie is about since First Contact (and probably earlier).
451. Jim Nightshade, Its Darren from Quarks Im trying to remember who you are help me out I’m from Seattle too.
481. asc-1138 – November 16, 2008
Totally blown away except -
Pine’s Kirk kinda sucks. There’s virtually none of the original character in how Pine portrays him. This is a huge disappointment for me. Quinto, Pegg, and Urban nailed it, but Pine missed the dart board entirely. Its like they reinvented Kirk!!!! This may be why the Shat wasn’t included in the movie.
————————————————————
¿? You already detected that in like… two sentences and three pictures? Souldn’t we wait untill we see at least a scene of him? In the scenes shown on the press preview, I identified Kirk perfectly on Pine’s acting.
Can we all stop talking about the technicalities and focus on how hot Zoe Salanda is? haha
#481: “Pine’s Kirk kinda sucks.”
To be fair, when did we really see much of “Captain” Kirk? When he said “Buckle up?”
This Kirk is younger than the Kirk we saw in TOS… And for all we know, all the events of the new movies take place prior to the 5-year-mission, and the events of these films could show him grow into the character.
Has anyone mentioned that that kid at the start of the trailer is horrible? Acting wise…horrible… I am James Tiberius Kirk (in a Mickey Mouse voice!). So, how are they going to sell the Playmates toys, when this movie clearly is not a kids movie? (aka kirk’s bedhopping, Uhura showing her hailing frequencies, etc.)
A few more questions:
Enterprise built in the San Francisco Shipyards? Not in the boonies!
Iowa looks nothing like that
Corvettes, Motorcycles in the 23rd century?
Where are the scenes with Shatner? (jk!)
Where are the scenes with Nimoy?
- The trailer is … really really great …i have the same feelings like in the day when i saw for the first time the trailer for F.C…i’m speechless…
ahaha, the above youtube vid was JUST taken down, probably as I was watching it xD
or…not? o.O
#488: “Corvettes, Motorcycles in the 23rd century.”
I sure hope that McCoy never gives Kirk a pair of antique glasses. They sure as hell won’t be using THOSE in the 23rd century!
Being Scottish myself – Scotty sounds absolutely crap.
What is with the high pitched tone?
Should have got a Scotsman to play a Scotsman.
Fools.
I’ll add that I think it’s a shame that young Kirk doesn’t turn around after scrabbling up the cliff, watch the car sailing down into the chasm and murmur “My god, Bones. What have I done.”
#493: “Should have got a Scotsman to play a Scotsman.”
I hope this was a joke…
No.
Why, did you find it funny?
#496:
James Montgomery Doohan: Born March 3, 1920, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
I cannot believe some of the stupid things being said here. I thought Trek fans were intelligent…
#497
That is my whole point. They had the opportunity to get an authentic accent on screen this time and they didn’t.
End of subject.
” #488: “Corvettes, Motorcycles in the 23rd century.”
I sure hope that McCoy never gives Kirk a pair of antique glasses. They sure as hell won’t be using THOSE in the 23rd century!”
Oh please! All of the enviromental wackos say that we will run out of gas, so, that finishes that vette, and if had other means of propulsion it would not sound like that. As for the motorcycle, what a strech, why not go on some kind of a shuttle or transporter?. Glasses are not that much of a strech, as they are a medical device and they did not have ocular implants in the 23rd century. But, what about that kid’s horrible acting? I would not want that for the first scene of the trailer!
Vette, motorcycle= cheap non-fan audience pleaser
This indeed looks very very very…. different. Different not even so much by looks but much more “by heart”. I have no doubts now anymore that unlike all previous Trek this movie is not for the “analytic tech crowd” anymore but for a much more extraverted, emotional main stream.
#499: Awww, you ended the subject. Bummer… I thought I’d be able to continue discussing it.
Oh wait. I can.
You’re criticizing an actor known for his convincing accents based on a single line of dialogue delivered when the character is very obviously fuelled by adrenaline?
Scottish people talk in monotone voices at all times, do they? Well, I guess you must know, being Scottish and all.
We should discuss this on the phone sometime. I’d love to hear your point of view in your authentic, low, monotonous tone of voice.
Yeh, I was pretty much against Pegg playing Scotty but I think he looks/sounds good. But then I’m just a biased Englishman!
I like it!
And I don’t give a f+++ where that ship is build.
Trailer in Spanish:
http://www.cardassiaprimera.com.ar
I think it’s Chekov who says “Buckle up”, and not captain Kirk like many people seem to think…
A board called trekmovie isn’t trying to steer consensus towards loving this noob shite?
This trailer is many things but it’s not Trek.
You know who deserves your ticket money? James Cawley and his crew giving their best to all for free on little more than donations and duct tape.
I defy anyone who truly loves Trek to watch the trailer for Blood and Fire and say they aren’t busting their tails to keep the essence of real trek alive.
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/news20080916.html
They deserve your support, not JarJar Abrams.
#475
LMAO
Really this forum is incredible. So many idiotic opinions….
It’s actually a good cross section of humanity. A nice gaussian distribution of sense…. mostly fairly normal, but with a bunch of weirdos round the edges.
I mean, the people saying, ‘this is sh*t, I’m never gonna see it,’….. what????
It’s a TRAILER. It’s meant to be a flashy whizz-bang pied piper of hamlin designed to bring people in. It may not represent the tone of the movie at all.
Anyway, just to sucked into the b*llocks for a second. The sky being blue on Vulcan is probably down to their planetary advisor (about the only bit of sense she ever spoke)…. the colour being due to scattering from nitrogen and oxygen sized molecules. If you want a red sky you need to stick loads of red dust in the air or have a much longer column length of air.
…and rest.
yup, the more I watch this trailer the more excited I get about the new direction Paramount is taking with this Star Trek reboot. It is very 2008ish in CGI and quality.
This film looks PANTS!!! Another Star Wars Episode One!!!
#511
Oh Good GOD!
i am afraid that it is going to be to modern for my taste all about to much aktion and to much sex. but i hope i am wrong and it is going to be the best movie since EVER..
#511: If any Trek movie was a “Phantom Menace,” it was Nemesis.
Star Trek has nowhere to go but up from there.
What continually astonishes me is the people (on BOTH sides of the issue) who decide on the quality of the film they haven’t seen. Both the “this movie will suck” people and the “this movie will be the best trek ever” people are equally confusing to me.
I have a strong opinion on the trailer, yes, but that’s because I’ve seen the trailer. I have (and cannot yet have) an opinion of the movie. How can you? (special exception, of course, for folks like Boborci who may actually have seen a cut) :)
Another thing I find odd is the repeated defenses of the trailer on the grounds that the trailer may be dishonest. That’s supposed to make anyone feel better?
And then the folks who seem to think that its in the spirit of fandom to simply believe in the quality of the film without question. Is this the spirit of Star Trek? Sure, if you’re a miner being duped by Harry Mudd, or on your way to Eden, or are a citizen of Stratos …
How about you all wait till may 2009
then you can bitch, praise or cry then.
until then STFU and get on with your life.
I however like the looks of things so far so ill just be looking forward to this regardless.
#508 Plenty of people on this site support and enjoy New Voyages. But the Star Trek Universe is a lot bigger than fan based re-productions of sixties television.
Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek was always trying to be ahead of the pack.
JJ Abrams is simply emulating that vision. At the very least Trek has to either move with the times or get buried in the past.
To assert anything else is simply illogical.
Two observations.
1) Is it just me or does that Cop bike look like the hover-bikes from THE ISLAND?
2) I wonder if Nimoy will turn out to be the Colin Powell of this movie, where the WMD’s are actually a quality Star Trek movie. Just a thought.
Firstly my reaction to the trailer is that it looks awesome.
Mr. Orci if you are reading this my anticipation level for the movie has gone up greatly. Now that we have seen some footage for the film, how long until we find out the special features for the blu-ray (joking).
My one concern was Eric Bana as Nero, he can be either very good in a role or slightly lacking, fortunately I loved that last bit, My favourite part though is the McCoy line, looks like Karl Urban is going to rock in the role.
Cant wait to see the movie – Big Fan of TOS/TNG – but the movie should be true to the roots of the franchise and not take undue liberty with some basics, just to look “cool”. The key piece is knowing the time frame of the movie in general. All points talked about so far is that its a prequel on the origins of Kirk and Spock and the crew of the NCC-1701 (this was from the Rolling Stone Interview)
First – from a Canon Issue:
There is no reason from any perspective to assemble the Enterprise on Earth. Thre is no reason for gravity or G-load purposes, assembly purposes, Hide & seek purposes, clandestine or otherwise to assemble on the Earth. Those people that want to know if the UFP is building the Enterprise would know either thru operatives, Long range scans, telescope arrays, sensors, probes etc. Remember, we are PAST Enterprise (The series) level of technology here. Enemies and friends alike can see what we are doing from far, far away.
Also, we know this from various mentions in the TOS series and the movies and confirmed below:
From startrek.com which is CANON:
Launched in 2245, the original and illustrious starship U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth. The Constitution-class starship was previously captained by Robert April and Christopher Pike, before coming under the command of Captain James T. Kirk.
So, if the ship that is being assembled is the Enterprise, it breaks from Canon, if it isn’t, which may be possible, then all is good. Kirk could be looking at another ship being built. Or it could be just to look “Cool”
Second Canon Issue:
Where is Captain April? If its the NCC-1701 then Captain April should be in command of the ship. Again, in the trailer, we may not be seeing the launch of the Enterprise or a launch that shows the Enterprise YEARS before Kirk gets into Starfleet. Kirk ENTERS Starfleet (2250) 5 years after the Enterprise is launched on its first 5 year mission with Captain April. May not be an issue depending on how they do the transition from Captain April (if needed) to Captain Pike to Kirk (Kirk takes command in 2264 – 19 years after the Enterprise is launched) If Kirk is seeing the Enterprise launch then he is 12 years old (Kirk DOB is 2233) – 19 years later he is 31 years old.
Third Canon Issue:
Dr. Piper is the CMO under Christopher Pike. McCoy is assigned to the Enterprise when Kirk becomes Captain. (only an issue if Captain Pike is the Captain of the Enterprise at the time of Kirk’s arrival on the Enterprise)
Forth Canon Issue:
Um Chekov? If this is a prequel (as JJ Abrams has said it is), then we know that Chekov CANT be in the story, since he was not a part of the Enterprise crew. (yes yes, ST:TWoK shot this to hell, but it still is CANON)
Things to consider –
Pike was horribly disfigured by radiation between 2264 and 2266, the time between his promotion to Fleet Admiral (And Kirk takes command of the Enterprise) and the 2nd year of Kirk’s 5y Mission.
If the ship at the shipyard is the Enterprise, it could be a refit. Remember, Kirk was the first Captain to bring home the ship “Intact”. We could be seeing a refit/repair. However it would not make sense for that ship to be on Earth if it was done so. Since we see Kirk on a motorcycle, viewing (the Enterprise?) and he is not 12yo then it might be a refit.
Ship and Phaser technologies also get a much needed (23rd Century) upgrade from the TOS and TNG. Looks great.
Yes im poking holes in JJ’s Vision. Some of us grew up on TOS and we know Star Trek as much as we know our friends. It’s ok that he has a different “image” but some things are very obvious. Certain things are easy to adapt to a new vision, The ship, the Tech, the uniforms, the SFX. Some things and details should have been better paid attention to and somethings he has had great ideas to utilize a liberal creative license.
In the end – it will be another blockbuster and he deserves all the credit.
I’m impressed! I’m very much impressed. At one point I had to laugh, because I had an idea for the movie where Kirk drives in an old car out of his “ancient looking” hometown in Iowa. The camera follows him and reveals a futuristic city, where he is living now.
Here it’s him on a hovercycle and the groundbreaking shipyard.
I can live with the idea that the Enterprise was build on the ground. Even if I wouldn’t have done it. And by the way… I’m even beginning to get used to the new Enterprise, which I’ve hated at first.
This is a reboot! Perhaps we have to reboot too?
Can any tell me why Spock’s delta shield is on the wrong side at approx. 1m31s. drives me crazy like on the original series when Kirk’s is seen reversed in “The Way to Eden”
trailer shoots tend to be more or less manipulated in some fashion, so they don’t look the same when you see them in movie
most of you guys make me not want to be a star trek fan. how embarrassing., the trailer was great. looks like a fun movie.
i like what ive seen but what about the menagerie/cage.pike captained the ship 13 years before kirk.so why is it being built in front of jim?It should be in space already.
this is the best version i found.
http://www.box.net/shared/static/xr4u838857.avi
“I like this ship! It’s exciting!” I think that sums up the trailer in a nutshell; PURE AWESOME. I can’t believe how amazing the warp animation looks in this, and that fight in space is just win. The tiny sliver of Sulu’s sword fight with a romulan looks cool. I can’t wait to see this movie!
#01 I AGREE WITH YOU WHEN YOU SAID: “Someone get JJ a red shirt”
MY GOD, THIS IS MADNESS! HE LOST HIS MIND! Or, like Dr. McCoy would say: “Are you out of your vulcan mind?” ….
Reboot = good.
Cannon = evil.
Mindless fandom will kill off the thing it loves
Embrace the new, i did 20 years ago when TNG came out… i am old enough to remember the BS spoken about Picard and co. back then.
The really sad thing about it is that a film needs to make double its budget before it makes a profit. this budget is 150 million(rumored).There’s no way this films gonna do that.
I have always enjoyed trek- in all its forms. and i know in my gut that trek will not lose its essence in this film… this is exactly what trek needs. i trust jj and co.
it doesn’t matter if the ship ship gets put together on land or in space. for the first time, people who aren’t fans of star trek are getting interested. this movie is gonna bring new life to the franchise that’s been with me since i was a boy.
Just nitpicking but is that a blue swirl on the viewer when the enteprise exits warp ala STAR WARS HYPERSPACE
worried jjs taken the star wars parralels too far
well, given that new bond earned twice as much on first day of release than it did last time, and i would like to think new trailer has at least something to do with that, or at least a lot more people got to see the trailer, we may be of to a good start
another thing that there are so many changes in the story shatner could have been in. This isn’t a reboot of star trek it’s a pretty good rip-off. I was really excited for this but with everything that’s come out in the last couple of weeks i think i’ll pass
I’d like to know thoughts on what those structures are we see off in the horizon in the two scenes at the beginning of the trailer. When boy Kirk is driving through the security fence you can see these massive structures in the distance and then you see them again when Kirk is on the motorcycle before we see Enterprise under construction.
Perhaps they’re gantries for ship construction? Office buildings? Mixed use development on the prairies of America? Who knows?
IS jst me or has everyone forgotten the the Dedication Plaque says that the Enterprise was built at the San Francisco Shipyards. That would be on land wouldn’t it. The D was built at Utopia Planitia Shiyards on Mars.
Als
Where’s Gary Mitchell
517 – How do you define potentially dumbed down science fiction and rehashing Top Gun as being ahead of anything? Are all the shiny ILM effects that hypnotizing?
I’d be more interested in seeing what Cawley & Co would do with JJ’s budget that what JJ would do with Cawley’s.
JJ isn’t emulating anything more than the Fast and the Furious. He’s merely using Kirk and Spock as recognizable brands to further milk the franchise.
At least Cawley and Co do what they do out of a real passion and it shows. To deride their achievement as merely emulating 60’s television is illogical.
You want Transformer Trek – That’s fine. But if you think Orci and Kurtzman are going win any Hugo Awards – good luck.
Don’t forget how snazzy Ep 1’s trailer was and that Godzilla’s add campaign was just as clever as this.
537 Stop being an a$$hat and wait until the freaking movie comes out!! You pass judgement on an entire movie with only seeing a 2 minute trailer? LoL, that makes you the authority on everything doesn’t it?
#537 you are so right. If anyone keeps treks spirit straight and true it’s crawley and he does it with no money and little talent. i’m already wondering what the next movie’s gonna be like maybe something that takes place in the nexus after all it’s not real and you can go back and make changes
508: I was going to balk at your claims that Phase II would be superior to the new movie. But I followed your link and checked out Cawley’s trailer. Holy sh*t! It’s really impressive. Still doesn’t compare to a fresh, new multi-million dollar update of course, but anyone looking for old-school Trek need look no further. Kudos to Cawley and co. I’ll definitely be checking it out as well.
CT-TrekFan,
Philip Boyce was the CMO under Chirstopher Pike. Mark Piper was CMO under James Kirk during the Enterprise’s mission to the edge of the galaxy.
One of the stickier issues with developing a coherent canon timeline has always been fitting “Where No Man Has Gone Before” with the rest of the series. Because of the different uniforms and different hardware, and because the Enterprise needed a substantial refit after contact with the energy barrier, it’s reasonable to assume that some time passed between WNMHGB and the rest of the series.
What we don’t have any real clues to is how long the Mitchell/Kelso/Piper crew was together with Kirk and Spock, before WNMHGB.
Lots of room in the Trek universe for both.
Okay, so here is my justification of the new Enterprise and the construction on Earth.
Simply put I just figure ST: Nemesis’ time travel changed EVERYTHING. I assume Cochrane even glimpsing at the EE revolutionized early thinking on warp field flow mechanics and the other lady (I forget her name) getting a look at what was possible on the ship gave period scientists an idea of what was possible.
Shoot forward to ST: Enterprise and this explains why we have the NX class rather than the Daedalus class.
Going forward further this is why the older Kelvin looks more like the tech level of TOS and why the Constitution looks like a mix of TMP and Next Generation. Star Trek Nemesis changed history and this is the result.
Or at least that’s my thoughts on the issue.
Trailer Skeptics,
Have any of you viewed the 30-second trailer for the remastered Corbormite Maneuver…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muQWKVgcON8
Especially the second half makes it look like the episode is centered on some kind of non-stop action space battle.
Does the creation of this trailer mean that we need to write off “The Corbormite Maneuver” as not true to the original spirit of Star Trek?
Just FYI, after seeing Spockboy’s account get deleted, I took my version down because I didn’t want my account to be killed, I have around 50 videos there.
Personally the trailer isn’t terrible. I look forward to mashing it up with something else on Monday.
since no one has said it in a while….You should go back and read #31
I really like the look of this but I still can’t get over:
1) james Siberius kirk
2)the reversed spock
how could they let this happen?
someone help me….
As a simple minded Dutch-man here:
This movie will rock everywhere, from Europe to the US of A.. I am a Trek-fan since TNG, I never saw TOS completely so I really don’t care if Pike got his burnes in this movie, if the Enterprise was constructed on Earth or in space..
ALL THAT MATTERS NOW IS THAT STAR TREK IS BACK !!!!!
546. spiked canon – November 16, 2008
since no one has said it in a while….You should go back and read #31
I really like the look of this but I still can’t get over:
1) james Siberius kirk
Yeah, I don’t know where you’re getting that. I can hear the ‘T’ just fine. Might be your speakers distorting it…or the poor quality of the file.
the trailer looks fantastic, i wish it every success and given that i have followed trek most of my life, I am willing it to bring in a new audience. Star trek needs this new generation to survive and to be honest, those who moan about canon and talk this fim down are effectively bringing down the franchise. Is that what you want? The whole feel looks great, the CGI refreshing and my fellow countryman, Simon Pegg is going to make a great Scotty. Best of luck to em, i cant wait.
ps. i do admire those that follow the canon to the letter, but sadly, one or two of you dont do yourselves any favours and are going to alienate the very audience JJ is trying to attract. Lets face it, there arent enough trekkers out there to make this a success on its own, look at ST: Nem.
You “canon” people need to get over it. You haven’t seen anything but a trailer and heard anything but gossip but here you are about to jump off a cliff. Enjoy the fall.
Star Trek is fiction, and as such will be open to interpretation by anyone willing to spend the effort on reviving it. After the disastrous Rick Berman years, it needs a resurrection. This looks like a good start to me. Thankfully someone has finally been willing to spend real money on a ST film, and it will get the look it deserves but could never afford.
#550 Chas
You “Get-over-It” people need to get over it…
#550
I am not a “canon” person, but what was disastrous about the Rick Berman years? I understand that a lot of people didn’t like Nemisis, but I enjoy TNG the most of all Trek.
#551: You “get-over-it people need to get over it” people need to get over it.
And for that matter, we “get over it people need to get over it people need to get over it people” need, totally, to just get over it.
I have spoken.
I have been a Trek fan since I was 10 years old… since back in ‘90. I love all that is Trek, but I can safely say that I’ve spent the majority of my life being in the minority on that belief. Let the transgenerational warfare go on! My generation, and certainly the ones after mine, would forget Star Trek if the ’same old’ was produced.
They keep saying how canon WILL be respected here… let’s wait and see how true that is and use the full movie as the comparison, not a trailer.
This is just like anything else today… the old and obsolete (thus ineffective for us) is *FINALLY* being erased by the new… because quite frankly, the old just does NOT WORK anymore. All of this nonsense about lack of respect… forgive me, but my generation knows this: Respect is earned, NOT given. It’s time for us to grow up and claim what is now ours… because if we do not, it will be lost forever. Don’t you get that?
I wish this movie all the best in garnering a new generation of Trek fans because the franchise NEEDS it to survive. All of you canon crazies, there are hundreds of hours already out there, so if you really hate the movie, you’ve got something.
I BELIEVE! YES we CAN!
To all of you debating whether the ship should be built in space verses on earth…..give it up…you’re making all us Star Trek fans look like total dorks.
Good point JohnnieF # 552. TNG, DS9 (the best), Voyager, ENT, and all the movies under Berman’s watch were good to varying degrees. To me…they are just as much Star Trek as the original series.
543. Turnip – November 16, 2008
I’m with you on this.
I also defend that canon isn’t chronological but narrative. There are several diferent timelines and all of them are real and interconnected; an example: the mirror universe.
In order to arrive to the timeline of the movie one must come from the timeline of TOS. Both are real, paralel and conected in between one another.
In a mirror darkly proves this, because Enterprise is in the timeline of the new movie and, nontheless, their mirror universe captured a constitution class from TOS from a paralel universe. So, the three universes and timelines are real and connected: the mirror universe, TOS and the one in the new movie; and the three of them are canon; one must follow the events from TOS to First Contact then to Enterprise so that he can arrive to the new movie.
Honestly? Not that impressed. Plus the more I see the bridge, the less I like it, and it has nothing to do with canon. It looks more like a disco than anything else.
Hm, I would say that the style of production of TOS, the first 6 movies, TNG and even DS9 was in line. Since ST:Gen and ST:VOY the style of production and quality changed rapidly downwards.
As I think my previous posts have shown, the last few days of big reveals have left me skeptical, but I have every intention of seeing the film and judging it on its own merits. I can very easily see however that some fans are very offended by the changes. After all, we’ve been told for months this is not a reboot and just the “next Star Trek movie.” Obviously, much has been changed for this film, due to the (SPOILERS) …
…Romulan incursion into the past. Now, this is a clever way to reboot, and make it part of the ongoing saga, however to me at least that still means I am not seeing the origins of the characters I grew up with, but rather the origins of new versions of those characters. That may be great, and it may turn out to be a great film. Changing the timeline does predispose me against it however.
I see two problems here (and again realize, there was no way to make a film about Kirk and crew and not tick someone off): 1) not being about the TOS timeline I have a bunch of people I don’t recognize but using the same names as my heroes. 2) I think the esteemed Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman have a conundrum if they fix the timeline by the end of the film.
See, if they reset to the original (or perhaps ‘Prime’ timeline) then the same problems we had going into this film exist (40 year old designs, niche audience, etc.). Also, that means the two hours I invested getting to know THIS version of the characters are negated, so I have no real reason to watch this movie, except perhaps as a novelty on netflix.
Though it is not my preference, from a dramatic standpoint it seems any serious changes made to the timeline MUST BE LEFT IN PLACE at the end of the film. Maybe this movie WANTS to reset back to Prime at the end, but what you want is irrelevant, what you’ve CHOSEN is at hand! (Tee hee, love that line.) Once the reboot/re-envision/changed-from-the-original-even-if-it-makes-sense-in-the-context-of-the-story path was taken, it must be adhered to in future films.
I think the majority of even “canonista” TOS fans like myself will come around if the film has the right elements of science, character, theme, and adventure which characterize good TOS (yes, there was bad TOS, and keep in mind, most of us came around finally to TNG). I just hope this movie doesn’t treat its audience with the same disregard the writers of Nemesis had. That movie had enough plot contrivances and holes to fly a Doomsday Machine through. That’s why it failed, not because it was Star Trek- but because it was REALLY BAD Star Trek.
I’ve never been one to get into the virtues of canonicity as regards Star Trek, but let’s take a look at some of the most enduring and best-regarded kinds of fiction — Greek tragedies, for example, or Shakespearean plays — and ask ourselves whether they have been adapted throughout the ages to circumstances beyond what were originally contemplated. I believe that they have been, and some modified versions were downright extreme. One adaptation of “King Lear” starred James Earl Jones, a black man, as the title character. Was this somehow a sacrilege against Shakespeare?
What would happen if they had cast an African-American as Kirk? What wails of outrage would there be then? Isn’t what Trek stands for far more universal than would be charged, for all that?
The video has been removed. Here’s a link to another video of the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7b_0WAbBVs
#552
The Berman Years imo were good as long as Michael Piller, Ron D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr had their say in weekly trek. Berman and Braga alone had serious problems…
#553
Not sure you liked my sentiment. Sure hope so.
#554
How about them Transformers? Liked Phantom Menace? Think 40 years of enduring ongoing pop culture need “Reclaiming”?
I’m really not sure anymore who’s more overreacting here, the gents like me who want their Star Trek not disney-fied or the “Believers”, who need their Michael Bay childhood put all over some classic property beause that’s what people drives into the theatres… kinda.
Well, so long nobody talks about jumping J.J. for having his “Sort-of-Enterprise” build on the ground…
The standing assumption is that that’s a robot cop that catches up with young James Tiberius Kirk.
What says it’s really a cop?
What if it’s someone *disguised* as a cop? What if he doesn’t want to be identified, so wears a full face covering helmet?
Compare, in the trailer, 2 sound bites, listen to them side by side.
“What is your name,” (@ 00:28) and “The wait is over.” (@ 01:37)
Tell me what you hear.
– DaveO
:)
562:
I actuallike liked Transformers a lot… granted, I was like four years old when the cartoon was out, and I didn’t really watch it, so I guess that one doesn’t count for me.
Phantom Menace sucked, I will give you that, and I’m not even a Star Wars fan… but, they seemed to learn from the mistake(s), as I thought the following Wars movies were decent.
Let’s just see what happens… I have this odd feeling that we’re all overreacting, and many of us are going to walk out of the theatres feeling pretty good about what we see. I can’t help but feel that everything will tie in nicely, and that all that has been laid out before will be honored somehow… I will NOT let a trailer and some glimpses of the Enterprise allow me to pass some sort of judgement yet!
..and for the record, I don’t like Disney either.
562:
What’s a “Michael Bay childhood?”
#508
Fortunately for me, I can honestly enjoy both interpretations with an equal amount of enthusiasm. The hard work and dedication of Cawley, or any other fan-made projects keeping Trek alive will never go unappreciated by me, and I cannot wait to see the Phase II episodes. That said, I feel exactly the same way regarding this new take by the studio. More Trek! What the heck’s not to like?!? Taking an intolerant absolutist approach to anything in life will only leave you cheated out of the full experience. I shall have my cake, and eat it too.
I’ve been thinking about CHANGE.
Everything changes, doesn’t it? Even if something lasts for 1,000 years, it is still altered by the passage of time. Everything changes.
Remember how everything changed after 9/11? In some sense, we are living in an altered-timeline now, because everything has changed.
Human beings change. What you wanted when you were 7 is not, typically, something you want when you’re 50. When I was 7, there was no XBox, and when my kids were 7 they couldn’t conceive that there were no XBoxes when I was a kid.
Consider the invasion of the home PC, which didn’t exist when Star Trek first aired. You’re all probably pretty happy about that change, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing this.
Everything changes. Change is the only constant in the universe.
How many times has a classic like “A Christmas Carol” been re-imagined? How many times have Shakespearean stories been redone (”The Tempest… redone as “Forbidden Planet”…. quite a change, huh)?
I was browsing thru a cd store (they used to be called “record stores”… more change), and happened to notice the Yes cd “90215″ and a little sticker on it that said: “The album that brought Yes to a new generation,” or something like that. I remember how hard-core Yes fans reacted to that album, saying Yes had sold out… and yet it was one of their biggest selling albums.
The point I am attempting to make is that everything changes… (didn’t I just say that?) As the NEW replaces the OLD, the young and unfamiliar have nothing to compare it to, and are more apt to embrace it. The older people tend to have a more difficult time letting go of the past, because it leaves them with that “altered” feeling, and they just don’t like that feeling. Perhaps we should have a “Forum Psychologist” to help certain people adjust to the change.
No one can stop change from taking place. It is a natural part of existence. What’s here today is gone tomorrow. You can choose to ignore change, you can bitch about change, you can fret about change all you want, but you cannot prevent it, because it is not something different than existence, itself. Your own human body at this moment is completely different than your human body was at the moment of your birth, and you aren’t inclined to bitch about those changes, eh?
Change is necessary. It is inherent, it cannot be separated away from the flow of things.
Star Trek has been thru numerous changes since 1968. And if Star Trek is still around 40 years from now, it will have changed more. No use crying about change. It will happen in spite of all the crying, moaning, groaning and bitching.
Everything changes… I, for one, say: “Bring it on!”
I think this movie is going to do exactly what Paramount wants to do with Star Trek, and has been trying to do with Star Trek for years, and that is get it going with a more general audience.
It is a re-imagining, no matter what “canon” explaination they are going to claim to wrap it up within, with a goal to bring in the masses, something Star Trek hasn’t done since the Next Generation. I just wish they had been more open with calling it that since I think that would have softened some of the blows for some of us die hards. We might not have been as shocked with the reveal of the Enterprise as we were.
I’ve been around on enough forums to see that there are some Trekkies almost violently opposed to this, and I can understand how they feel.
After all, Star Trek has been an almost exclusively private club for many years now, with secret handshakes and languages that most people don’t understand. Little jokes that reference other series that a lot don’t get because they lack the encyclopedic knowledge of the Star Trek universe. And there always has been the feeling, encouraged by the studio themselves, that ultimately, it was all being done for the fans. Star Trek was ours, and anyone who wished to be in the club pass the main entry hall, had to pass the requirements of knowledge.
It would be as if the Freemasons suddendly opened their doors and said,
“Hey anyone can be a member for a $20.00 subscription fee, with all the rights and priviledges therein.”
If you don’t like the movie because it’s going to shatter the fanclub mentality, of “What it means to be a Star Trek fan.” be honest with yourself. I had to, I didn’t like one thing about the movie until someone finally dragged it out of me that I was really afraid of my 20+ years of memorizing everything about Star Trek was about to be rendered useless. This person gently pointed out that the knowledge, technically was already useless, but even so, this movie was not going to suddenly wipe my brain of the knowledge. I would still be able to recall seemingly insignificate data on the number of maglock stations on the Enterprise-E’s deflector dish. Spock’s Starfleet Number, or the number of Red Shirts killed in “The Apple”.
And already from the trailer, some of my knowledge is already coming useful, for I recognize the young kid Kirk from the novel “Best Destiny”, even if they are going to change the root cause of his troubles.
See the movie, don’t see the movie, make your choice and live with the decision. Because ultimately, whether this movie succeeds and brings in a whole new generation of fans, that may be considerably different from the current fans, or flops and renders Star Trek fandom forever as a “Cult-like” group. Life will go on.
562, TOS (1966-1969) remains TOS (1966-1969). It hasn’t been erased from the archives, and one can still view it on DVD and TV reruns to our hearts’ content. The reworking of series, even as a matter of prequels to it, never really changes what actually occurred. And yet because of the passage of time, things that occurred since then have irreversibly modified what did occur.
If you think about it, even the world of the original series itself was never really completely self-consistent. Why was Kirk’s middle initial “R” in one episode, for example, only to be contradicted through the use of the middle name “Tiberius” in a TAS episode overseen by the original producers only a few years later? Something must have been different, or modified, or misunderstood. In any event, something was other than it previously was. As Heraclitus observed, that the only thing that is constant is change.
It would be interesting to discover a treasure trove of hitherto unknown TOS episodes and be among the first to see them after decades of obscurity. Perhaps that would be the ultimate in canonicity. But even in that, it would be quite a discovery indeed — and change in itself.
The trailer is great but all I kept thinking about when watching it was Michael Bay’s “The Island”. And that is not a good thing….
#546. He says Tiberius. The carry over “s” from “James” is the problem. When I look at it I see and hear “Tiberius”, as do most people here. Everyone knows he said Tiberius. It’s James T. Kirk for crying out loud. Do you honestly think they messed that up? You need to let it go. Also, in the editing process, images are sometimes flipped so the actors are looking a different direction than filmed. They do it for flow. I’ll bet it’s only that way in the trailer because it was fast paced and they though nobody would notice. One of the EW pictures released last month showed they scene of Spock choking him but it was flipped the correct way.
If we listened to the complainers here we wouldn’t have any Star Trek anymore…
this revamp has to happen – TNG is 20 years old – its old, worn out, threadbare and spread too thin
i am 40. i’ve seen each incarnation come and go…
and each time, without fail, the most myopic fans start getting angry…
eventually, they shut up and enjoy the ride like everyone else.
Kirk and Spock will be around forever, like Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan etc – they will be recast and rethought for generations to come
So.
You’ve got to stop complaining, because the alternative is ridicule from the mainstream and a rusty clapped out entertainment franchise…
if Paramount listened to the bashers – Star Trek would continue to be a pile of continuity-laden crap.
this movie is going to be awesome – realize it and enjoy the ride
I would think Gary Mitchell or Finnegen would be in this film somewhere.
YouTube removed that trailer you have set up.
#564 JeFF
Sorry, maybe I’m getting too harsh. Shouldn’t at least bash a fellow Obama-Supporter.
#570
Thanks, that’s what I meant with Michael Bay. I find it kinda obvious. The Top Gun Kirk who sees his Jet… Enterprise build doesn’t help either.
I just noticed something on IMDB. There is an actor on the cast list that has no character name mentioned. The actor’s name is Paul McGillion from Scotland. I wonder if it’s Finnegen.
#563 What says it isnt?
I do not think the cop is a robot. I think it is a man inside that mask. If you look closely it appears to have a respirator like breathing apparatus on it. A cybernetic form would not need to breathe. This area shown (Iowa?) has a wasteland feel to it. Maybe there are radioactive zones or poor air quality spots and this is protective gear for the copper. The voice patterns
are somewhat robotic but perhaps just filtered. Why wouldn’t they infuse a amplified voice emitter into the mask so the coppers don’t need to yell to address civilians or baddies. Just another view is all :)
Its also hard to say what parts will actually be in the movie. I’m sure most everything after the car chase would be, but the chase may only be for dramatic effect for the trailer….
I am waiting for the first schematics of the new movie Enterprise, as well as some of the other new ships we’re going to see. I hope that someone at Pocket Books is working on it as we speak.
John Ordover, are you still reading these boards?
#572 sez “this movie is going to be awesome.”
Have you seen it?
I mean, I agree that people dissing the film in advance are being myopic. But isn’t praising it in advance, necessarily and logically, EQUALLY myopic? Exactly, 100% as myopic?
For what it’s worth, here’s my two penn’orth.
Star Trek to me is the TV show I watched as a small child on a black and white telly in the early 70s (I’m 42). It was a rare ray of sunlight in the dullness of British TV in that dark age. There was little else- Doctor Who (even little children laughed at its cheap carpness), Space 1999 briefly. Not much sci-fi at all. But there was Trek.
It wasn’t about Gene Roddenberry’s grand vision, because he was just some name on the credits. It wasn’t about some grand liberal multiculturalist philosophy or message. It was Captain Kirk, Beam Me Up, Scotty’s bad accent, Mr Spock, Uhura in a teensy miniskirt, phasers, the Enterprise, a fun action TV show that everyone could enjoy. When it stopped being that, when it started to be about some dubious vision, it ceased to be that inclusive adventure show that welcomed the viewer in.
There wasn’t any fandom, there wasn’t any internet. You watched it and it was gone, because there were no VCRs and you couldn’t play it back, let alone freeze frame it and dissect it. It was TV. Very good TV. But nothing more.
We live in a different world now. We’re all pulling this movie to bits before we’ve even seen it. We’re demanding it be this, or that, or the other. When the first movie came out, all that mattered was the thrill of a Star Trek movie. I went with my sister to the local cinema, knowing not what to expect, and it was awesome.
We have more now; more information, more media, more everything. But as a result we have less too. We seem to have lost our capacity for wonder, and to merely enjoy. When everything is so freely available, it is so hard to treasure anything, because it is difficult for anything to be truly special. Like everyone else, I’m poring over every detail but, deep down, I wish I wasn’t able to and the movie, when it arrives, would be as fresh as that first Trek movie in 1979. Or The Trouble WIth Tribbles, on a rainy school holidays morning, in black and white, before the cricket on BBC1 which, if you missed it, you might never get the chance to see again.
#520 – You have echoed ALL MY SENTIMENTS since day one. And believe me there is no one more old school than I am. Here’s is what we need to accept. I HATE to repeat myself, this will be a completely overhauled/alternate time line of the TOS universe that we have come to know over the past 40+ years (I am fan since 1966 since the early days on NBC). ONCE we accept that all these changes and contradictions in the TOS origial timeline will make some sense. FY — it was Doctor Phillip Boyce under Pike AND THEN Dr. Mark Piper under Kirk in WNMHGB.
Think about it there IS NO WAY Chekov should be in this movie — AT LEAST under Captain Pike. Again (not to sound like a broken record)…
NO Gary Mitchell
NO Number 1
NO Dr. Boyce
NO Dr. Piper
NO Lt. Tyler
NO Charles Garrovick (WHO WAS A FATHER FIGURE to Kirk)
NO Carol Marcus
NO Kodos
NO Lee Kelso (WAS the Helmsman BEFORE Sulu).
Hey — I can go on and on. But it’s so OBVIOUS that we’re being introduced to a WHOLE NEW TREK, same characters, same ship BUT IN A WHOLE UNVERSE, which (when you think about) opens us possiblities for future so-called TOS movies). I am a disappointed? In some ways yes, since I thought early on that we would be seeing a TRUE PREQUEL (I think most of us thought that). The fact is we’re not. Again like I stated prior Captain Pike will meet a dark fate OTHER THAN being exposed to delta rays while on a class-j starship. I would be lying if tI did not admit that the trailer has me a “wee bit” excited. I think it’s really time to get over Abrams “messing with the TOS universe that we have known” and really embrace this project and PRAY that we wil be seeing the BEST MOVIE/BEST EPISODE ever of Star Trek!!!!
#575 Federelis.
In Top Gun Tom Cruise doesn’t stop on his motorcycle seeing his jet being built. We don’t really know much about young, pre Academy Kirk. We know that Kirk is a maverick who constantly broke rules. It’s not much of a stretch to compare the characters. They may have done it as an homage to the scene in Top Gun on purpose.
Ok, we are nearly at 600 posts here. If you are reading down this far like me, the we should get a life. But since we don’t have one, let me say this…
If the trailer or the new movie in general bothers you because canon isn’t perfect, or there’s no Robert April, or Chekov has curly hair or whatever, then just ignore it. Don’t see the movie.
For the rest of us, our options are either A) Reruns that we have all seen 100 times or B) New life for Trek using the best characters the franchise has.
I’m voting for option B. Even if it’s not PERFECT, which it won’t be, it will probably be better than Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise… To me, those shows are just sticks of gum that’s lost its flavor.
I mean, all CSI’s have merit, but the first is usually the best. And I don’t think we need yet another series like CSI: Iraq. Too much saturation. Stick with the original. It was popular for a reason.
Love,
Big Ass Trekker
did they pull the trailer from youtube??
Here’s another one that works for now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WNPb8R-40&fmt=18
Criminy! After reading all these posts on this page this morning, over 100 more posts were made during my reading time!!!!
DS9 was excellent. Please do not lump it in with those other two failures — Voyager and Enterprise…or Insurrection and Nemesis!
#581,
You just jogged my memory: Don’t forget that it was security-officer Mallory’s(*) father from “The Apple” who was the one who got Kirk into Starfleet Academy.
(*)Remembered the reference, had to look up the specific name.
#583
Well said. I have been trying to state what you said with your second point for quite a while.
I’m glad that STAR TREK (without any secondary title attached to it) is back instead of another generic ripoff crew.
579. S. John Ross
Agreed! Its all myopic at this stage my friend. Everyone is filling in the unknown blanks with opinion and conjecture. I have also…
For my own myopically challenged view, I try to judge only what has been presented so far, and to my view I think it looks amazing. I will await to see how Bob Os comments previously on canon and such play out, but will reserve judgment until I have all the facts before me. My mind is open and my self centered desires put aside for the greater good.
Wow.The New Trailer has been Viewed 165,000 times. Kool. I have seen it at least 5 times already. Great Trailer
580, well said. I would add this, as well: Anything that is truly inspirational needs to have what has been termed, “the shock of the new.” I may be misusing that phrase, and if so, I apologize, but ultimately the phrase is applicable here.
When “Star Wars” came on the scene, it was truly a new phenomenon. True, it was in some sense a retread of classic SF tropes and matinee cliche’s, but nevertheless it synthesized the old in an entirely new and spectacular way.
What would happen if they literally brought TOS (66-69) onto the big screen? I suspect that, except for existing fans, few people would watch it. It looks dated, frankly, and by admitting that this is so, one shouldn’t be made to feel that one is less of a fan.
What people want to see is something they really haven’t seen before. Even the TOS movies got old after a while, except to die-hard fans. The same happened with the TNG movies. Even if “Nemesis” had been a better movie, it would hardly have seemed likely to have recaptured the audiences that the second TNG movie had.
I’m hardly the first to note this, but the Bond franchise has gone through multiple Bonds, startling changes in tonality, and endless discontinuities. Only a few things have really remained: Hot action, cool gadgets, and cold-blooded violence. And through all this, Bond has endured.
Trek needs to be less continuity-obsessed and more Bond-like. The shock of the new is what it needs to embrace.
We are — of whatever age — in the era of Obama. The past is past. The starship has left the station. If newness is anathema to us, then I’m afraid we’re simply going to be left behind.
Amen to change, i stated before that i hope we are in for new tales and for those pathetic people crying, my god you need to get laid.
347. Jim
Trek a SPACE OPERA?!? Apparently, you’ve never read any proper sci-fi, nor seen an opera, since you obviously use this term in a completely bass-ackwards way. Star Wars is a space opera. Trek is pure science fiction.
GOOD CALL #588 — You are 100% right on that one. Like I stated in May of 2009, it will be a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME for STOS. And I can accept that then ANYONE CAN!!!!
The funny thing is us talking about it doesn’ make or break this movie. It’s an endless discussion. Of course. For me it’s mainly putting things in perspective (and maybe vent a little) because I’m one of the long time fans. That and being a 31-year old seems to put me already out of contest to make this movie successful, if you believe some young, “severely” open minded folks here.
#579 S. John Ross
We agree on the merits of having an opinion without a screening.
But the things I’ve seen so far lean Galaxy Quest. Which I loved for being extremely funny and having a good and exciting narrative. And had an obvious love for the source material. And good actors who fit their roles.
But it would be kinda off to call it good Trek.
That’s not change we can believe in…
Re: 233. Gary Seven – November 15, 2008
RE: 156. Art•Rob – November 15, 2008 :
Anyone from NYC out there who can tell me which theater is showing the trailer. Just found out that 23rd St. is not showing it . . .
I saw it in Chelsea at 23rd Street, Bond with the ST trailer. I read somewhere it is only in the 35mm print, not the higher quality Bond print. That’s my guess, because I did see it Fri night at 23rd St. Hope this helps.
~~~~~
Thanks Gary Seven. Saw a great print at 34th St.
This is a TIME TRAVEL movie, people!
Has anyone considered that there may not be a Gary Mitchell or Kelso or whomever because the timeline has been altered and it’s not yet CORRECTED?!?
And I’m tired of hearing this whole “Chekov shouldn’t even be in this movie” deal. Even Gene said (to cover his own ass) that Chekov was probably on board the Enterprise, we just didn’t see him until season 2. If the Great Bird could have explained it away so poorly, then you’ve gotta get over it.
596, 31 is hardly visible anymore in my rear-view mirror, and yet I still consider myself a fan and part of the audience for this movie.
I actually don’t mind that this movie might be intended for younger, hipper audiences. In fact, in some ways, I hope it is.
#520 & #581:
You guys are right on. And the sad thing is – there’s no reason why these points couldn’t have been covered. Why is Chekov in the movie at all? Fans like us know that he shouldn’t be there, and the general audience wouldn’t care either way. The same could reasonably about Uhura and Sulu, too. And why is Pike the father figure and not Garrovick? Again, the general audience doesn’t know who Pike is.
I trust this movie will be a real visual treat – but its going to be hard to think of it as TOS if the most obvious canon issues are thrown to the side.
This looks awful. Transformers style. Maybe someone who actually LIKES Star Trek should have taken the project?
594. Jax Maxton
Funny, Star Trek has been called space opera for years, even by Harve Bennet himself….although, they were talking about the movies and not the tv show.
I just saw a bootleg of the trailer on YouTube. And as many on this site have probably seen, I have been pretty critical of several aspects of the film process. Well, eh, hot dang, even that cruddy version of the trailer may have altered my mind! What was the moment? The extremely brief argument shown between Spock and Kirk. The lines were just exactly right, and no wonder Nimoy was so high on the script. Also, the brief shot of the Enterprise looked good, the silhouette was right.
Now all that said, I still have numerous nit pick points, and the Enterprise model is not as perfect as it should have been. Still, I think this movie has the “makings” of being a big new start for Star Trek (I don’t give a crap what records it breaks or not). One thing, I REALLY hope that they use something close to Goldsmith’s TMP music when revealing the Enterprise in space or space dock. That is the Trekkers’ moment of zen.
PS: I hope Paramount has an explanation for the trailer mishap at the theaters. No way I am going back to see Bond for another $8.50. Perhaps Sony screwed them?
Well, Space Opera because the dramatic part of the first show and the movies had in their best times an opera feel to them, the pathos wasn’t unlike Gladiator for example. It’s pure Sci Fi only in terms of the sience, so it was less of a fairy tale than Star Wars. But in short, it’s of course almost only an opera where “Khaaaaaaaan” could work.
I like it. Was never one of the techno nerds, more the dramatic nerd, if you will…
I saw the trailer at the Shoreline Theaters in the Silicon Valley. I liked it.
It was very fast with quick cuts. The main shot that lingers is Kirk gazing at the Enterprise being constructed. Or perhaps it’s being re-fit prior to him taking command.
It appears Urban’s McCoy dialogue is very much what he’d say. That was kinda cool.
Two things occurred to me after sleeping on it. The “Star” and “Trek” in the trailer and posters are now one on top of the other. At first, I didn’t think much of it, but now I realized it’s Abrams’ giving it more of his Star Wars creed to it. The same as the Star Wars logo now. And the trailer itself felt to me like the original Star Wars trailer. Quick shots, it looking very disjointed with glimpses at the strange aliens and space ships.
Which ironically makes or breaks the new Enrerprise for me. It’s not dramatic enough…
#596 sez “But the things I’ve seen so far lean Galaxy Quest.”
I agree with that; I’m worried about it myself.
I was just making the (I think necessary) distinction between “I’m enthused about this movie/I’m concerned about this movie” and “This movie SUCKS/This movie IS THE BEST TREK EVAR,” because the first set are reasonable expressions of taste and second set are, functionally, bordering on the insane (unless someone here has actual time-travel tech and isn’t sharing).
Thanks “Cousin Itt”. These items still do bother me. But like I said we ALL need to get over it and move on and ROOT for this movie to be GREAT!!! Because if it is GREAT, we will all be happy campers!!! You know something — I WANT TO BE A HAPPY CAMPER!!!
Anyone who has been a loyal, or even casual fan of Star Trek will walk out of the theater after viewing this film and say, “What the f**k?”
It will be familiar to most, but we will know that it’s just not right.
You can’t just over-write 42 years of established Star Trek History. Paramount will find that out come May 2009.
I feel that word of mouth from dyed in the wool Trekkers will cause this film to die a merciful death at the box office.
Rest in Peace
Star Trek
1966-2009
TO post #31:
That is the point. TOS was a victim of time and money. Rodenberry wanted more, much more and we all know that. He had do what he did to get the show on the air. But all these posts about were the ship is built, how is the time line, what went on in TOS, it’s mute. It was alwsays the ideas and ideals on Star Trek that had me hooked. Personal stories of honor, duty, courage, self-sacrafice, what it took to lead. I am very interested in how all these people got here. It is gonna be a hellava ride!!!
It will rule. You must watch. That is all.
I have read a few more reviews and am apalled at some of the posts of people claiming to be trekkers. MOVE ON!! To survuve Trek must move forward. Why not. I know this is going to irk some people but is MAKE BELIEVE. The entire point is to dream. If we can’t change or shape our dreams to fit a changing future. How can we have one. If you Trek to continue, support this film. It looks like fun! Remeber Kirk’s last words.
“It was…..fun……Oh my!
@609: Buck, there are a lot of “dyed in the wool” Trek fans (I’m one of them) who are excited about the film and the new direction in which it takes the franchise. Look at the posts on this very website.
Your opinion is noted and appreciated, but it’s not based in any sort of reality – after all, NOBODY HAS SEEN THE MOVIE YET!
Grrrr.
And yes, if you are spending the money on a franchise in order to bring it back to life, you can do whatever you want with 42 years of “established history” (much of which is contradictory, regardless of the “timelines” printed in so-called “canon” publications like “The Star Trek Chronology”).
Real history – what happens to us every day – cannot be rewritten. Fictional history? Go for it. Do what you want to it. Because IT NEVER EXISTED.
Grrrr.
# S. John Ross
Very true, I just wanted to agree with you, and then talk about the Galaxy Quest impression of the material so far. Wasn’t meant in any way as a contra.
#609
I don’t see one unlucky Trek production as death for Star Trek. It’s longelivety doesn’t need to be proved by the success of even a 200 million dollar movie. In a funny way the whole existence of a 200 million dollar movie after Nemesis’ failure proves it already…
If I want a s**t sandwich I’ll make it myself. I certainly don’t want JJ Abrams cramming one down my throat!
After seeing all that reguards Star Trek from Mr Abrams, all I can say is, “No thank you!”
Paramount won’t like the taste of that s**t sandwich either, but they’ll end up having to eat it anyway!
Here’s a thought on the “changed timeline/changed canon” issue.
What if the entire point of this film is to show that these characters will come together as a family no matter what the circumstances? Instead of the “Back to the Future” version of time travel where one little change alters the history of Hill Valley, maybe Trek is going to show that no matter how massively history is altered, this crew will still come together on this ship.
What if the changes to canon (Nero’s timeline meddling, etc.) completely alter the pre-TOS history, and yet this crew still bands together into the legends we all love?
That’s not a terrible way to go; a reboot that reinforces the core characters’ relationships as being literally stronger than time, while also allowing a whole new future to play out for them and the next generations.
This movie is for the under 50 crowd. The older you get the more cynical and close minded you become, naturally. So chin up peoples Star Trek will carry on. A good nap will help some of you feel better.
Falcon:
This movie’s going to suck! So get over it!
609-”Anyone who has been a loyal, or even casual fan of Star Trek will walk out of the theater after viewing this film and say, “What the f**k?”
It will be familiar to most, but we will know that it’s just not right.”
I understand how you feel however I have been a very loyal Star Trek fan for the past 25 years and I am embracing one key thing with this new vision of Trek: change.
Trek NEEDS to change in order to survive. We love Trek but the harsh reality is that if Trek doesn’t change and make some $ it will not survive in the way we want it to.
As long as it has a slice of the Roddenberry ideals that IS Trek, I, and i know many other Trek fans, are ready for things not to be totally exact. If you want exact TOS tributes, watch the brilliant fanfilms.
For a while, I’ve seen that this film will divide the happy Trek family fanbase. Kinda bums me out.
Gotta say it again. Star Trek looks to be going so far off its Brand and Identity that It may be leaving itself open for copyright abandonment.
I will wait to see the actual movie to reserve final judgement on that.
But if I were Cawley, I’d put a stop to the Phase II thang, and re-introduce the new TOS versions online. Maybe he sell some bobble heads in place of charging for access to the site for now. I’d buy one. Just get a REAL Kirk and real Spock, please. I am sure t=with the exposre you provide , james, that there would be PLENTY of 30-something actors looking to fill those command shoes
To me, TREK could go either way, good or bad. But trying to make the whole franchise resemble STAR WARS is just RIDICULOUS!!! This is supposed to be STAR TREK! It’s completely different!
The creators of ST-TMP surely did not take the STAR WARS copy-cat idea to heart. AND THEY WERE RELEASING ST-TMP JUST AFTER STAR WARS ORGINALLY CAME OUT!
Yes ST-TMP did have the style and elegance that this version seems to be lacking. KEEP IT SIMPLE FELLAS! Just look at the opening credits to Star Trek against those of Star Wars, It’s suppposed to be more of a cerebral show than anything else.
PLEASE KEEP THE WARS OUT OF TREK!!!!
Geee, thanks for spoiling the “star trek webmaster program” release of the trailer. Rest assured that webmasters will be getting the HD and SD versions, this trailer’s quaIity is horrible. I wouldn’t allow this to be shown on my site…uggghhh!!!
You can’t even see the details, much less the characters…IT IS OVEREXPOSED!!! IN EVERY PLACE!!!
This is a film student’s nightmare!!!
LOL
Trekwebmaster
605. Nelson
“Two things occurred to me after sleeping on it. The “Star” and “Trek” in the trailer and posters are now one on top of the other. At first, I didn’t think much of it, but now I realized it’s Abrams’ giving it more of his Star Wars creed to it. The same as the Star Wars logo now.”
Actually, the over/under arrangement of the Star Trek title was used back in the 1960s and 1970s, so it’s not Abrams putting a Star Wars feel to it; it’s Abrams going back to the early Star Trek.
I hope George L. doesn’t try to argue that the “motorcycle” scene is a violation of copyright…LOL! Just kiddin’, but THAT reminded me of SW and it shouldn’t have.
C’mon America, demand “real food” instead of being “spoon fed” by the major media and studios, (this is the film student in me talking now!)
That trailer is SO OVEREXPOSED that I can’t tell what it is supposed to look like…I am going to wait until I get the “official webmaster program” trailer to really judge it…expect more then.
Trekwebmaster
618- Wow. Please stop giving those of us with legitimate concern over the new direction a bad name with emotional and irrational responses. JJ is not coming to your house to cram a S**t sandwich down your throat. You will have to go to the theater and ask for a bite. If you don’t like what you see so far, don’t watch. I am all for you giving reasons you don’t like what you see, but I don’t think your judgmental irrationality is really in the spirit of Star Trek– pardon my own judgmental response.
619- It’s been a while since we were all a happy Star Trek family. Probably since TMP… ;)
623. Trekwebmaster — You really need to chill out. The bootleg trailers I’ve seen have all been viewable without a problem, with plenty of detail and decent exposure. If you can’t tell what the trailer’s supposed to look like because of a little excessive brightness, you aren’t going to make it as a film student.
Same for the various people around here commenting on the “shaky cam” trailer copies; so far, I haven’t seen a single copy of this trailer that shook in the slightest.
Thanks, Anthony and others, for posting the video for those of us who can see clearly and don’t need unnecessary “HD” details.
#273 – “You know…
…STAR TREK, in one form or another, has been written by dozens of different writers over a 40+ year period, and even the man himself, Gene Roddenberry, didn’t even write every single piece of TREK between 1965-91.
On that basis ALONE, we were NEVER going to get a consistent version/universe of STAR TREK, at least in regards to how closely it adheres to this “canon” nonsense.”
And yet, while not absolutely perfect, what we got *has* been largely consistent over all these years. Sure, there have been occasional oddities, but a remarkable amount of effort by a remarkable number of people has gone into keeping it largely straight. And there has never, at any time, been a conscious, deliberate effort to say, “What happened before no longer *matters*”, irrelevant of what sorts of excuses people might cook up to justify such a statement.
Until now, apparently.
Is the argument to be, “It is not perfect, and therefore it is meaningless?” That seems an extraordinarly weak argument to me, really.
“Abrams, Orci & Co. claim to have reasons to explain any deviations… and quite frankly, even if they didn’t, I wouldn’t care.”
On the most basic level, the reality is that “It’s a different timeline and things unfold differently” is itself a canon explanation for variations, because the idea of a multiverse is itself canonical in Trek’s world.
In the end, the question might come down to “How far-reaching are the differences?” And depending on the answer to that question, different people might have different reactions to the film.
“The only people who get their Vulcan panties in a bunch are those who have already memorized the “Star Trek Chronology” book backwards and forwards, and are now pissed that, supposedly, these things “never really happened” they way they “were supposed to.” ”
Or the ones who simply know and care about the characters as they were presented to us in TOS, and feel that changing their whole backstory was neither necessary not any sort of service to the audience or the characters.
Speaking for myself, I always felt that there was a rich potential for backstory without having to change what little we know about the backgrounds and histories of the characters, precisely because we had just enough hints that they’d all been on a journey to get to where they were in TOS, and that journey had never been told on film. I guess it might never be, now, and that’s a real shame. Yet another opportunity lost in Trek. :(
“Give it up already.”
In a word… No.
“It’s been a losing battle since STAR TREK II, where Walter Koening should have spoken up and said, “Hey, waitaminute… I’ve never even MET this Montalban guy before today!””
And yet that never really broke continuity, either, just gave another opportunity to explore a part of the story yet untold, just as this movie could have done, and which the writers apparently opted not to.
#302 – “I know someone who works on the film, it is indeed Iowa where the Enterprise is being built. He confirmed this after the trailer was released.”
We don’t even need to go to behind-the-scenes sources. If one is watching carefully, one can see two large, rectilinear buildings in the background during the corvette scene. In the scene where Kirk rides the motorcycle up to the shipyard, those same two buildings are again visible, anchoring the setting.
#312 – “You guys who want to like it so much and call the rest of us “haters” sure seem to hate us haters!!!!”
While I think there are extremists on both sides of the debate, I must admit to being struck by the level of contempt being directed to people who have the temerity to care about a fictional world keeping its basic continuity straight, let alone the ones who are just plain not comfortable with what they’re seeing on the screen. I think some of them should listen a bit more to their own prattle about tolerance and open-mindedness.
Weerd (624):
Paramout Pictures could shelve this piece of crap RIGHT NOW and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings. This film will pound the final nail into the coffin of Paramounts “Golden Goose!”
626- hear hear! Rational discussion about something we are all passionate about. Thank you.
#624
I have no intention of giving any of my money or time to JJ Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman for this raping of my childhood. I have no doubt I’ll see it eventually, but so far this looks abominable.
re: 622-
Thanks Paul, I too seem to recall that the over/under usage of the Star Trek logo was done in the 60’s. I have a vague memory of it now that you remind me. But I have not found any imagery that shows it. But you could be right!
#622. Paul B.:
I agree that the “over / under” title credits on Trek was copied by almost every sci-fi show that exists…much the same as Star Wars with their title was copied by Battlestar Galactica – ___STAR___WARS____ = ____BATTLESTAR___GALACTICA____ == Get my point?
STAR
TREK
Either way, one pays homage to the other…but in any case, Trek started the ball rolling, we can all agree…You can stick up ARIAL fonts italicized in capital bold and call it Star Trek…
I don’t think it would be fonts that are driving ppl to pulling thier hair out or instantly falling in love with the new movie.
Personally, I like the old TOS ship, but really when you strip away all that, all you have driving the film is a cheap story or a good one…if you strip it all off and the story can still tell itself, it works, if not, then it sucks…it is simple as that…REMOVE ALL THE ACTION BLOCKS and if the dialog can still tell the story WELL, then its a good script.
Any movie that depends on SFX or extra action to make it work SUCKS if the dialog can’t support it.
Trekwebmaster
#627… I agree
As I finally told my wife. JJ is right, this is not my father’s Star Trek, (TOS) nor is it really my Star Trek (TNG). This is my son’s Star Trek, this is what he will be obsessing over, learning every detail, memorizing every schematic and stat line of the ships.
I’m just going to go along for the ride and think…”I was never that young.”
Re: 312. Stanky McFibberich – November 15, 2008
You guys who want to like it so much and call the rest of us “haters” sure seem to hate us haters!!!!”
Absolute truth. It says much about character when some act as 24-hour, unpaid cheerleaders for something they have not seen in complete form.
I watched the Bond film a couple of times–and in different theaters, and on each occasion, the audience disnterest was apparent. Nothing sparked as little as a cheer, clap or hoot of an kind.
The trailer does nothing to inspire even a thread of hope for the film, and is presented like many a thoughtless night time TV series–selling everything that is the complete opposite of Star Trek, but would be better suited for the Star Wars Prequels.
@#633 – No, you’ve been younger! :)
#629 & 632 :
Thank you Werewindle!
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd262/cinema_lover/star-trek-poster-03.jpg
Is it just me or does Chris Pine look like that kid from High School Musical….Zac Efron?
LOL Good point #633, but I am going to love it just the same…its not the destination that matters, it’s the journey…maybe there is something we all can learn from it???
This film is one that I definitely will take my nephews to see, and he loved watching TNG “starship” as he called it, I am sure he will love this movie as well…
Maybe we all can feel “young again” and agree that for 2 hours on May 8, 2009, we won’t be arguing. I think this movie is one of the most controversial movies in a long time…let’s agree to disagree but keep in mind we all like Star Trek, and this is not Praxis exploding which puts us at each other’s throats.
Y’all are acting like a bunch of Romulan Senators vying for power and waiting to stab each other in the back at the slightest change in protocol or agenda.
Trekwebmaster
About the lack of cheering in an audience…
I’ve never heard anyone cheer or clap in an audience about any trailer, mostly I’ve heard just complaints along of the lines of “I paid to see the freaking movie, not sit through 20 minutes of advertisements.”
627 Buck-
This film seems likely to change the intellectual level of Star Trek, but it also seems poised to make the brand far more marketable and give it wider exposure. I again can’t judge at this point what the film will be, but rather just don’t like the direction the trailer took. Hopefully the trailer is not indicative of the final product- other trailers have had this problem (why was Donnie Darko sold as a horror film? W sold as a mockery of the current administration when it was actually a thoughtful analysis of a man in over his head…).
If the trailer IS exactly what the film is, it will be a huge hit. We can all complain about the new Star Wars trilogy, but look at the ridiculous commercial success. We can argue about how vapid a movie like Independence Day was- but it was a huge hit. We can look at the cliches in Transformers, and the Shia-Factor, it still made more money than fan favorite Iron Man. Easy to understand sells. Based on what I see now, it does not look like an interpretation of Trek I want, but I have little doubt it will make mad-bank and spawn a sequel. I can’t argue with Paramount seeing Trek as a money maker again, hopefully allowing it to also spawn Old-Trekker-friendly side projects either in novels, tv, or webisodes. We’ll always have Cawley…
All of this based on two poorly edited minutes and some stills. Hope springs eternal… it may all make sense in the end. I am skeptical, but keeping some hope.
deleted by admin
Anyone been able to read the sign to the left of the road before the vette goes over?
Wonder if anything worth reading on the wood sign?
Maybe we can read it on the official trailer monday.
280 plus year old vette now thats vintage…
How can anyone Judge something before they have actually have seen it?
I have waited so long for Star trek to return. This may be a good (re-boot) or not, I hope it is good and we will see another TV series and more movies.
But we will not if its killed before its even been seen yet. If there are mistakes and we have seen plenty including some of the classic series shows it is because diff writers are involved.
Please lets give it a chance. If this film dies Star Trek dies with it, as it will be unlikey any more will be made if it flops.
Mr Orci or any of the production crew, do you know when the trailer is going to be shown in UK picture houses
It is obvious why some of the die-hard obsessive fans are not in support of this movie. They are afraid. Afraid that all the other fans will forget of all the old ways of trek in favor of the new while they are left alone. But I think it is safe to say that everyone who has been a fan of the current Star Trek will always be a fan. What’s wrong with having more than one?
620:
“Brand identity” is interesting.
My 6-year old son knows who Darth Vader is, Darth Maul, Luke Skywalker, R2D2 and Yoda, too. I’ve tried to do Trek with him, but there are no memorable iconic symbols.
Back in the day we had Spock. But Trek has thrown us hundreds of pointy-eared people since then. We also had Enterprise, but now we’ve seen dozens of variants of the design.
Trek has no brand identity whatsoever today.
Trek needs readily identifiable iconic images and characters which can be easily remembered and recalled.
Young Kirk in the Corvette is a good start. My kids will be more interested in him than in anyone else. How does he know how to drive so well? My 6-year old son will say he’s cool. My 8-year old daughter will think he’s cute. My son will most likely ask me about the robocop as well.
What JJ & Co. do after that is even more critical. The characters must all be larger than life and identifiable with Star Trek.
In short, Trek needs a Darth Vader, an R2D2 and a Yoda to work with kids. Adults will hopefully have a great film to watch, but the money will be made on the younger ones growing up with the new version of the franchise.
#323 – “Ok. I am going to do my canon speech again for those of you who haven’t read it. How do I reconcile the stuff from the old series and canon with the new movie. Remeber what Starfleet Academy is at its heart. It’s a college like West Point, the Naval Academy, or the Air Force Academy. As such the programs offered would be similar. You say that Kirk never was on the USS Republic or the USS Farragut. Canon doesn’t reveal when or for how long he was aboard those ships. All it says is that it was during his Academy days.”
Well, no, not quite.
We can assume he was on the Republic just after he was at the Academy, because he served on that ship as an Ensign. Apparently he was promoted to Lieutenant not long afterward, and then went on his first deep space assignment, which was the Farragut. We don’t know how long he was on the Farragut, but we know he was there at the age of 24, roughly, because “Obsession” says that. My original thought had been that the events of this film sort of hop over that period, and pick up with Kirk ending up on the Enterprise sometime later. It still might; maybe a throwaway line about Kirk being back at San Francisco after the Farragut ran into the cloud creature? But now, with more of a potential that none of that backstory is even being considered, I’m not sure. That’d be a Bob Orci question, I suppose. :)
“The way I see it, Kirk did Study aboard programs (training missions if you will) on active duty ships. Which would explain how Spock is on the Enterprise with Pike during The Cage.”
That’d work perfectly fine for Spock, but we were told that, on Farragut, at least, Kirk was a serving officer.
“Also, it is possible to be a cadet and have field promotion to the rank of up to Lieutenant. Look at Saavik or Valeris. They were cadets yet held officer’s rank.”
Valeris wasn’t a cadet, actually. As for Saavik, she might have been in Command School, not the regular 4-year program. That might also explain what Kirk was doing while on the Republic (and also apparently still at the Academy, not yet having gone on his first deep-space assignment).
Of course, in this film, if it’s all changed, who knows? Was any effort made to explore the potential of these people as competent, efficient officers with accomplished careers in StarFleet leading up to their positions aboard the Enterprise? That idea was one of the “realism” aspects of TOS to me, and that I fear (perhaps unnecessarily? There’s so much we don’t know about this film) might be lost in the new movie. That wouldn’t even be an issue of continuity, but instead one of believability.
“With this in mind one has to assume that Captain April commanded the first Enterprise training missions early on (maybe Kirk’s plebe year). Pike then took over later heading up the missions and such.”
Except that apparently what we’re seeing is that Pike is already slated to become the first CO of the Enterprise, while she’s still under construction.
A friend of mine noted something interesting. Noting that the writers had listed _Best Destiny_ as one of the books that inspired them, it struck her that some of the descriptions of Pike made it seem like they’d taken Diane Carey’s Robert April and, for the purposes of the film, renamed him Christopher Pike.
“I’m assuming that the starships came back to Earth or to Starbases every few months or so to pick up cadets and new crewmembers. So that explains how there can be a 5 year mission and cadet trainees aboard at the same time. This would explain how Kirk could serve aboard multiple ships in the brief span of 4 years.”
That could work.
“As for the situatuion with Kodos on Tarsus IV, Kirk could have been there during the summer on a school trip or visiting relatives at the colony.”
Oh, absolutely. Even in this movie’s apparent structure, it looks like there’s plenty of time for Kirk to go to Tarsus off-screen. I wonder if, after one or another of his stunts as a kid (maybe wrecking a ‘vette? ;) ), Kirk’s mean ol’ uncle packs him off to Tarsus for a while, and then all hell breaks loose.
“Finally, the whole debacle as to whether this is a alternate timeline or not. I see this as predestination paradox. Spock is the impetus to change Kirk’s destiny. Kirk (as portrayed in the film) doesn’t look like Captain material, but Spock and Nero’s interference unleash the greatest captain Starfleet ever saw (not to mention the youngest). This in turn would allow the timeline to occur naturally, and when Spock and Nero leave the 24th century, nothing changes. That’s how I reconcile the new movie into Star Trek Canon.”
Obviously the question there is, how alternate is it, in the final analysis? Is it just the character backstories and visual elements that change, and the end result is still that things merge into the chain of events from TOS onward? Or are the changes bigger (e.g., the rumored–but not confirmed, of course!–destruction of the planet Vulcan)? How easily–or not–the movie can be reconciled might not be known until May, and that’s still assuming the writers don’t have a complete resolution/timeline correction up their sleeves that they ain’t talkin’ about. ;)
Well, I sure hope we get a couple of more Trek series on TV and the NET…as well as ALOT of fan films. If we make too much noise, paramount and cbs could very well pull the plug on all of our “projects” so let’s make nice, ok?
At least try to get along? I sure don’t want to go back to the STAR TREK computer game days when if you posted one insignia you would get a DMCA notice for copyright infringement.
You guys don’t realize how good Paramount and CBS are being to us. Don’t make a fuss and post a bunch of garbage, which could, and probably would be seen as a “dilution of trademark” or worse.
Keep it in some level of rationality, please, I don’t want to have to pull all of my OFFICIAL Trek stuff down off my site because a bunch of people started whining and posting negative stuff cuz they hate how a warp engine looks or some other non sequitor argument.
Trekwebmaster
Just watched this trailer again. What I love most is that it has absolutely no feeling of TNG or the spin-offs. This feels like TOS. There isn’t a hint of the boring aesthetics of the 24th century, there isn’t a hint of the bland music or hum-drum sound FX or pretentous storytelling. Finally after almost 20 years of sameness….there is STar Trek that is fresh and exciting and my God, dare I say it….fun! This bares no resemblence to anything cranked out by the Berman assembly line and I couldn’t be happier.
I’ve been loving TOS since I could assemble the AMT exploration set models in the mid 70’s and this film has me excited again. I had kissed any hope of new TOS goodbye17 years ago and never would have thought a fresh TOS themed movie would ever see the light of day. But then againg, I would have never guessed the Berlin wall would fall or that Mike Nesmith would tour with the Monkees again.
Bob Orci, you are reading a lot of complaints I’m sure…but buddy I gotta tell you, regardless of what they are saying…you guys are making a whole bunch of fans happy…and when all is said and done, you’re gonna bring a boatload of new TOS fans into the party. And what a party it is, thanks for the invite!
I can’t wait to go see this marriage between the Star Wars prequels and High School Musical. MTVs’ influence continues to dictate Americas’ “taste”. Come to think of it, the JJ’s Supreme Court is probably kicking themselves for not casting Paris Hilton as yeoman Rand.
I was SO disappointed when they didn’t show the Star Trek trailer with Quantum of Solace last night.
That was at Empire Theatres in the World Exchange Plaza in Ottawa, in case anyone is wondering.
But Quantum of Solace was a pretty good movie.
“In short, Trek needs a Darth Vader, an R2D2 and a Yoda to work with kids. Adults will hopefully have a great film to watch, but the money will be made on the younger ones growing up with the new version of the franchise.”
Uh-huh. Just like Batman needs Robin to break $500,000,000.00 at the box.
Re: The End of Star Trek…. I don’t think Star Trek will come to an end if this film is not a blockbuster. Star Trek is, essentially, a concept… as GR called it, “Wagon Train To The Stars.” That concept will go on forever. If this film does not do well (which I do not think will happen, anyway), I think Paramount is going to hang in there with JJ Abrams and do it again. Otherwise, we would probably go for a pretty long period of no Paramount-produced Star Trek, and I wouldn’t think that would be a good thing for Trek-fans, hmm? I realize this is falling on DEAF EARS, but there is absolutely no point in bitching about this movie any longer. It’s in the can. It’s coming out in May. See it and then pass judgment. Or don’t see it, and go make your own damned movie. Star Trek — whatever form it appears in — will go on, looking different, having its ups and downs, but always lurking around, somewhere. Thankfully.
The more I watch the trailer over and over, the more I’m thrilled! I also thought as I watched the trailer the first time: OMG! Kirk drives a car, but he couln’t drive one in episode “A Piece of Action”? The Enterprise is assembled on Earth? Kirk and Uhura together on the Academy? But hey, as long as in the series or the films not claimed it will not break the Canon.
We Star Trek fans always had to exercise our imagination to acept all the logic errors or changes within the recent decaded
- The look of the Klingons
- Klingons with red and purple blood
- Permanent changes in the position of the Turbolift from movie to movie
- Khan meets Chekov
- A city named Leningrad in Star Trek IV
- Spock suddenly had a half-brother
- Has the Vulcans moons or not?
- Is money used in the Federation or not?
- The modern look of the Archer-Enterprise in comparison to the Kirk-Enterprise
- Why can’t we see the Archer-Enterprise on the Wall in the Enterprise-D meeting room?
- Ferengis, Borg and Romulans in ST-Enterprise
- Tom Paris loves antique cars (as the young Kirk?)
- The Enterprise go to the center of the Galaxy
- No Andorians or Tellarits in TNG and all later series
- Once you see a young Picard with blond hair, than as cadet without any hair
I could continue this list. There’s nothing in the Trailer, that would oppose the higher Canon of Star Trek. Everything you need is imagination.
And to the Action in the Trailer: I am thrilled that the Special Effects of the new movie finally can match with other new SciFi movies. This trailer is perfect to get people to the cinema, which had never watched a Star Trek movie before.
Many people say Star Trek XI will contradicts Genes Roddenberrys philosophy of humanism, harmony and the attempt to solve problems diplomatically. First of all: This people haven’t seen this film so far and secondly: The Classic-Series under Gene Roddenberry has shown that people of various nationalities and skin colors can collectively work together on a higher goal. But when an evil alien was a threat, Phasers and Photon-torpedoes were loaded, or Kirk launched a fistfight, lost his shirt and one or two alien-babes got laid between this fights. I expect nothing more and nothing less from the new movie. But I would be very happy to see some good character moments, when the crew grow together.
I’m sure this will be a great Star Trek movie :)
Greetings from Germany.
#342 – “Regardless, you will see this movie. You have to. It’s all that’s left for us to digest.”
I certainly plan to see the movie! At least once. :)
But it isn’t even remotely all that’s left, unless your appreciation of Star Trek is limited to what’s on film. Mine is not, and I have millions (maybe a billion by now!) of words of Star Trek to enjoy and appreciate and digest and discuss.
If indeed I don’t end up enjoying this film, it is but one small bit of the whole.
BTW, in the theater I was at, the only audible reaction to the trailer came from the group of fans I’d gone with. The rest of the audience? Not so much.
#359 – “I’ve done Star Trek licensed material professionally, too, and it was then — when I got to feel the heat of fannish obsession from the other side, so to speak — that a lot of things really fell into perspective for me re how much of a “fan” I am in that sense.”
FWIW, I really enjoyed a whole lot of the material you did.
#390 – “What amazes me is that the biggest bitch of the first few posts was whether or not it was accurate to build the Enterprise on earth. It’s not relevant to the story, it’s never been established in canon how it was done/built.”
I think that goes, not to canonical accuracy, but to believability. The question becomes, in the context of what we’ve been told of the technology of the time, in that world, is it believable that a space vehicle like the Enterprise could be built on the Earth’s surface and hoisted, whole, into space? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think there’s arguments on both sides, so it bothers me less than some other things. But I can see why people would discuss it.
The trailer kicks ass but am I the only one who thought it was very Michael Bay-esque? (And, btw, that isn’t necessarily a good thing, though Bay films always look really good.)
True, #650, TNG had its place…and from then on, anything which came, had that TNG “smell” to it. This was the major reason why I didn’t like ENTERPRISE and probably why it was cancelled. ENT didn’t have it’s own “feel” or “look.”
ENT was dated the day it aired the first episode. Although ENT did have great stories, people expected it to be like all the rest. Voyager was the best show after TNG, I think Kate Mulgrew brought a level of realism to this series, which Bakula couldn’t due to the “treknology.”
Nothing since then has sparked so much discussion, disagreement, or agreement. Not even Star Trek Online, being cancelled, revived, and redone offered this much controversy.
J.J., you guys are on to something. I haven’t seen this much interest or argument from the Star Trek community since one computer game network quit supporting Starfleet Academy. Keep it up!
Personally, the interest and opinion presented on this forum and others, is very exciting. Kudos for all you Trek fans who give a damn to voice your opinions on ANYTHING is very nice to see.
“Jim, they are crying, I don’t know, but it’s a good thing to see.” –McCoy from the “Children Shall Lead.”
I love you guys! JJ and Team AND all you apparently drunk off bloodwine TREK FANS!!! LOL!
Trekwebmaster
Times have changed,
Trek has once again rewound the clock,
Since the Romulans got a shock,
When Nero encountered Spock.
If JJ
Any stories he should try to stem,
‘Stead of fans lining ‘round the block,
the flock would abandon them.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose, Anything Goes.
Star Trek’s gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
We’ve been had today,
Now I’m sad today,
When most guys they say
that it’s okay
Are just silly bozos
And though I’m glad Trek ain’t got cancer
I know Orci ain’t got the answer
But I sup-pose,
Anything goes
When Nimoy whose al-most eighty
tries to save his former ship mates he back in time goes,
Anything Goes.
To see this flick I won’t even bother
It’s a wanna-be Wrath of Khan and it shows,
Trek Lost Heroes.
If driving fast cars Kirk likes,
Fights in bars he likes,
If no can-on you like,
Berman-Bran-non you like,
Simon Pegg you like
Uhura undressed you like,
nobody will oppose!
When every night,
The set that’s smart
Is holding old TOS parties in studi-yos,
Trek 90210.
If Nero’s stare you like
If no hair you like
In the Captain’s chair you like,
If back stairs you like,
If love affairs you like
If no one cares what you like,
nobody will oppose!
New Star Trek Blows!
A board called trekmovie isn’t trying to steer consensus towards loving this noob shite?
It would certainly explain the disappearance of my post.
This trailer is many things but it’s not Trek.
This whole “this isn’t your father’s Star Trek” has been bugging me, and another post up higher kind of clarified why: Forget “my father’s Star Trek”, I’m 44 years old, THIS ISN’T MY STAR TREK! This isn’t like the Battlestar Galactica reboot, where you’re only dealing with fond remembrances of a one-season show we haven’t seen much of for nearly thirty years, Star Trek is running in syndication right now! “Errand of Mercy” was on last night, for Crom’s sake! It’s a real short trip from this movie to this week’s episode and figuring out that something doesn’t add up. Which I’m sure is going over really well over at the television side of the franchise. How many millions of dollars did they expend revamping and remastering the original episodes, only to see these twerps swoop in and try and invalildate the whole shebang?
You know who deserves your ticket money? James Cawley and his crew giving their best to all for free on little more than donations and duct tape.
Agreed.
I defy anyone who truly loves Trek to watch the trailer for Blood and Fire and say they aren’t busting their tails to keep the essence of real trek alive.
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/news20080916.html
They deserve your support, not JarJar Abrams.
And they sweat out the details “nobody cares about”. For free. JJ and his merry band are getting paid big bucks for this (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE PROFANITY HERE). What’s their excuse?
OH Gawd, its the attack of Hairy Mudd and the Dirt-tones…ugggghhhh…somebody get those Orion Slave Girls off the stage…AND that Ferengi in a Gorilla suit!
PHASERS DOWN THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE!
Name Withheld
Looking at the apparent changes as a whole, it seems there is a certain desperation Starfleet and Earth are feeling in the new timeline. The Enterprise is obviously much larger, as if the ship needed to face a bigger external threat. A starfleet desperate enough to pick a promising though troubled cadet like Kirk and give him command of their spiffy new Starship. We have been assuming Nero only alters Kirk’s history when he destroys the Kelvin- what if Nero helped the Romulans during the first war as well, and rather than being neatly tucked behind their Neutral Zone they are a clear and present threat to the Federation now? Mr. Orci, can we ask HOW extensive the timeline changes are, and how militant those changes have forced the Federation to become? Hmmm… how very Yesterday’s Enterprise.
#660:
I AGREE on that 110%…James Cawley and company have really gone the distance. Thier quality is excellent, as well as the storylines of thier productions.
“World Enough and Time,” made me cry and I haven’t done that since Admiral Janeway at the end of Voyager. It is just that damn good.
I think we should support STNV and look forward to seeing the “PHASE II” USS ENTERPRISE! It is something we have never seen on TV or the Silver Screen. Not even this NEW film has done this. If I were J.J., I would seriously think about helping STNV / Cawley do more, that production has merit and you don’t see major stars from ALL Trek eras appearing in episodes if it weren’t that damn good.
I AGREE STNV is worth more than we realize. It is a damn good webiseries. One day, I hope they make it to film and tv.
Trekwebmaster
The trailer is gone!!
Like I said before: Big, Loud, Stupid.
#651. there will be a sequel so they will have time to take advantage of Paris Hilton as Yeoman Rand…and then she can take advantage of the crew. Star Sex. (Pun)
#647. You wanna take your kids to see a sexed-up trek? this is the version of trek you want them to see? you are worried about icons? these are just fictional characters. FIC-TION-AL characters who are showing us nothing but how to look cool in the lighting. Do you want your son to say “don’t lecture me” after watching “cool” spock? Do you want your daughter to take off her shirt and show everyone her bra in the world? I’m not trying to tell you how to raise your children, but this is not family trek any longer. Ive talked to other parents about it and they agree its not something they want to take their ten year-olds to. They didnt have none of that stuff in star wars either so dont give me that. JJ wants to show us SEX WARS: 90210. this story is about characters, not having character. If you want an R2D2 or Yoda or Vader, Star Wars show them, you should. On TV a weekly show, there is. Star Trek and Star Wars are different. JJ doesnt want us to know that, because its HIS trek. You should know that too.
There are many memorable icons out there who stand for something, like our new president elect, unless, of course, you’re libertarian or were hoping for the former MISS ALASKA or whatever she was. There are scientists who cured polio, astronauts who first walked on the moon. There’s John Lennon. There’s GENE RODDENBERRY. But for the love of all that’s sacred and holy, it is not JJ “TV SOAP” Abrams!!
LOL you guys, I bet JJ and all the guys at paramount are “snickering” as we chase our tails…worrying about this and that…LOL.
Do you really think top notch professionals in the movie industry would willy nilly jump into a project, disregard canon, and put out something that would antagonize the fanbase? I doubt it. They have studied this for years (trek canon,) I doubt we will have to worry when this movie comes out….it will all be told in a way that makes sense and we all will look back and realize we were acting like fools chasing our tails.
If Nimoy thinks this film “works” and has so much fun acting in it, that is all I need to know. Not since the “Wrath of Kahn” have I been so “pissed off” at Paramount for killing Spock. They realized it was a mistake, and here we are.
I trust the major studios and JJ to deliver us a new film and reboot AS WELL as who knows what marvelous things that will come out of this, possibly a second film and no telling how many neat toys and games, etc.
I think we need to trust them a bit and wait and see what unfolds.
Trekwebmaster
#660, Captain Robert April I couldn’t agree more. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
#666:
Sadly to say, kids these days will see alot worse on the school’s bathroom walls. I doubt seeing a bra in JJ’s film will make them any more perverted than public and private schools have already done and I don’t even mention public libraries or the internet.
This new film is rather “tame” compared to some of the video games kids play these days, don’t mention what the kids send each other on thier cell phones…you should check photographs on thier phones or their internet caches if you dont believe me.
If there is one thing that will always be so, that as many rules as you make for children or try to make life family oriented, there will always be children who are internet and web saavy enough to exploit the rules and most parents won’t know the difference.
Sorry to turn the light on, but it’s time to wake up!
Trekwebmaster
#666
I was actually going to try to reasonably address what you’ve said, but you veered so far into hyperbole that I’m sure any sensible person will realize it. Rodenberry on equal footing with Salk? Wow. You have taken a discussion about an unseen SciFI film to an entirely new level.
Regarding possible non-appearances of Mitchell, Kelso, etc.
Who said they won’t be appearing? I don’t recall that information ever being revealed. For all we know, they do appear or are at least referenced.
boborci: I remember you said that Nurse Chapel was not in the movie (kind of a bummer, but completely understandable). Any chance we’ll see Gary Mitchell, Lee Kelso, Number One, Doctors Boyce or Piper, or anyone like that from the two pilots? Also, I don’t suppose you could tell us whether or not Paul McGillion is playing Finnegan, could you? :-D
@ 667:
About “Do you really think top notch professionals in the movie industry would willy nilly jump into a project, disregard canon, and put out something that would antagonize the fanbase? I doubt it. ”
Respectfully, the percentage of the moviegoing audience that cares about canon has got to be pretty small. What is a major piece of the storyline to readers of this web site means zip to 99.9% of the potential audience. (Try throwing around the name Captain Pike with the next non-Trek group of people you’re with and see how many know who he is, and how many care when you tell them.) If a major studio has to choose between antagonizing the core fanbase on the one hand, and creating a hot-ticket mainstream piece of entertainment on the other hand, then it’s no contest. Our only hope is that Abrams is trying to do both.
I think those who are raising issues of conflict with canon really really need to come to terms with the reality of the situation. It’s a retelling, and its a FICTIONAL franchise. More or less every second of this movie will break canon on some level. What does that tell you, either consider it a reboot, and this canon does not apply, or simply learn to live with it. Because the other option is to allow the movie to be crippled by ‘canon’.
When the reboot BSG came out, a core of the old school battlestar fanbase threw a spaz on the grounds that they changed various characters genders etc. And BSG has gone on to be one of the best sci-fi shows in decades and drawn in a massive fanbase. All of that would not have happened had they obeyed canon.
When stargate sg1 first appeared, to create the show they broke canon with the original movie, because it better suited the shows needs and if they had allowed themselves to be strangled by canon, that show which has run for 10 years, longer than any single trek show, and spawned 2 more series would not have happened.
So those people raving about the intricacies of starship building, note that while you can reason your way to why the enterprise should be built in space for a million reasons, those reasons matter not one iota. Because there are a million reasons to build it on land, and clearly for the sake of the films plot and shots, land was picked. One of the big elements of these reboots, like bsg, bond, batman and now trek, is returning realism, a sense of gritty reality to these universes. When you as joe public see the original teaser, the building of the enterprise on earth, sweat pouring off the face of a guy welding. These are images much much closer to our current reality than a space build would provide. This film is going to try and make people believe such things could happen, that an enterprise could be built, and i think a lot of the choices will be geared towards that.
And i think it will result in a spectacular movie that will make a lot of people into startrek fans. And lets be clear on that. It’s not pleasing the small niche of current fans that will make the movie a financial success and ensure more trek to come, its doing that while making it accessible and relevant to today’s audiences. And given the dramatic effort being made to push the film as a serious film, internationally in the press, in nations that don’t have a strong trek following, that is indeed the game plan and its probably what paramount tasked the director and script writers with doing.
Is that a betrayal of trek fans? Some of said fans may think so, but i hope the percentage will be small. And even then its a small price to pay to resurrect the franchise.
And please, poster 666. What can be said. OH GOSH, YOU CAN SEE HER BRA!!!!! This is not family trek!!!!!
So what was star trek 2? What was the dominion war? With characters legs being blown off? With sisko having a romulan politician executed? What was startrek enterprise with archer torturing a prisoner to get information on those who attacked earth? How have your children been influenced by these actions? What do they think of cool sisko and archer’s rationalisation of torture and murder? And if a bra is too raunchy, i guess that means any episode with a character in a bikini, showing just as much flesh as a bra shot is just not family friendly. And what about the original series treatment of female characters, the endless string of semi naked eyecandy that would be falling over the screen week after week, what did this tell your children about representation of women in the media?
Talk about a double standard.
If you don’t like the movie, fine, but for all that’s rational don’t throw out an argument as bizarre as that and expect it to go unchallenged.
#672:
The percentage of ppl that go see movies and dont care about canon are NOT TREK FANS!
Trek fans are unique and so are Trek FILMS!!!
I don’t care about other movies, but any Star Trek film, then that’s another thing.
I can agree, Trek has grown and it will make fans who don’t care about canon as the traditional fan does, but then again, they weren’t brought up on TOS. They saw TNG, and are used to changes…and possibly just enjoy it as entertainment.
Remember, our “hard-core” canon-loving fanbase who were brought up with TOS, made cardboard spock ears and had Capt. Kirk pajamas WITH a real insignia!
There is a difference!
But I embrace change, even though I am hesitant at first. This is TREK, and in all its forms, will always be TREK!
I think we both made our points and actually AGREED!!! LOL
Trekwebmaster
Whats annoying about this is though that in ENT, the ship was clearly built in dry dock orbiting earth, whereas here the enterprise is built on earth. This is what worries me about this movie, is that Abrams (who I love btw) is going to change some minor details that will frustrate ST fans, who knows though. And what was with Spock being pissed off like that?
629-
Rape your childhood? You can’t be serious… are you?
Again, I’m embarrassed to be a Trek fan. We sound pathetic because of comments like that, and rightfully so.
Change is a comin… YES WE CAN.
It’s the story stupid.
Nothing else matters.
#675
Since the majority of Trek fans weren’t watching Enterprise, I don’t think it’s anything to worry about.
I suggest all of you pick up David Gerrold’s book “The World of Star Trek” and read the interview with Leonard Nimoy near the end of the book. It’s a fascinating, and prophetic, talk about the actor rejecting a story idea initially because it didn’t sound right for his idea of what Spock and Star Trek were all about, then discovering he was wrong and deciding that he was never going to reject an idea with that kind of rigid thinking again.
I was reading a post on another message board and someone was literally saying this: “For 40 years Star Trek has been the SAME! Through every show and movie it has always been the SAME! And now JJ Abrams is going to NOT make it the SAME! How DARE he!!!!”
What a badge of honor! How dare Star Trek grow or evolve!! Star Trek is not about change, it’s about staying the same!! Sheeeesh…honestly, it’s no wonder some of us are looked at as ridiculous. We’ll be proud to live in our caves forever! Remember “Risk is our business”? Somehow that philosophy seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the way…
LOL Spock is probably pissed off that young Kirk doesn’t understand (TREKFAN who thinks the warp engines look funny) why Spock is doing what he is doing to save the UNIVERSE, why he is telling Kirk to not oppose him.
“Message, Spock?”
If you know what I am saying then I don’t need to “remind you of things which you know so well.”
I think we need to wait and see…the “universe will unfold as it should.”
HEHEHE
Trekwebmaster
Re: 641. Weerd1 – November 16, 2008
“This film seems likely to change the intellectual level of Star Trek”
That much seems certain.
“but it also seems poised to make the brand far more marketable and give it wider exposure”
It was marketable enough that a 3-season TV series turned into a merchandising phenomenon based on the popularity of reruns. The property had brand identity evident in the use of its icons, Kirk, Spock & the original Enterprise on nearly every piece of advertising and product–alone or in combinations. Trek was a major success in virtually every ancillary field long before TMP’s 1979 debut.
The only reason the property has lost its former status is due to the no-talents of the Berman years, and (it seems) a new film may not help matters when it appears to be founded on the sensibilities of People magazine mixed with bad TV.
“We can all complain about the new Star Wars trilogy, but look at the ridiculous commercial success. We can argue about how vapid a movie like Independence Day was- but it was a huge hit.”
But who actually cares about Star Wars anymore? A CG TV series is not evidence of lasting cultural interest (more like the result of Lucas cash grab attempts) –the very thing Trek fed off of as it was in the frequently exposed medium of TV. The Prequels made money, but will it have lasting impact a decade from now (like TOS did by its 20th anniversary in 1986)? I doubt it.
As it stands, SW lacks the mystique and historic importance of its own Original Trilogy, leaving nothing except sequel productions with no heart, no sense and all flash.
First time posting.
I am in marketing, and I can tell you that this trailer was custom-made for the Bond audience.
I encourage you to perform the following experiment:
1) Forget about Star Trek for a second, go get Casino Royale, and watch it. You will effectively be putting yourself in a “Bond” mode. You will then be in a state of mind similar to the people who have come to watch QoS.
2) NOW watch the trailer.
You will see what I mean. This trailer is exactly what you have come to see in a Bond film – lots of action, car-chase scene, some conflict between characters, and sex.
Exactly what I would have done, exactly what my firm would have done.
Remember, this trailer is trying to sell the new ST film to the Bond audience. It’s a commercial, you know.
We would not use this trailer to precede some romance comedy movie. But before a Bond film? RIGHT ON TARGET.
You have to look at it that way, and not independently from the film it is accompanying.
I am not talking about violence. And people like you have become so desensitzed to what is on tv even that it is actually expected and there is disappointment if sex is NOT seen. I was a bit shocked when i saw enterprise and there was actually nudity on tv on trek. This has gone in a totally different direction than its intent. I doubt very much roddenberry would be pleased with a sexed-up trek. I dont own a tv and havent since 1990 because I dont want to see this kind of crap, though I do have an extensive dvd collection. And I realized I do not have a single movie that has a sex scene where you actually see them having sex. (I had boogie nights but I gave it away to a friend. And yes, i understand that was the point of boogie nights. thats why I bought it. I am an adult).
I’m not trying to criticize, I am merely stating that people like you (and sadly america is influencing the world on this) think everything should be acceptable.Why do is it necessary to show Uhura stripping on a trailer and kirk about to get in the nasty dugout on a trailer? dont tell me you (if you have children) wouldnt get upset if you found out your daughter were taking off her shirt and standing in her bra at some party or bar or any other public area, regardless of whether or not you know they will do it anyway, that doesnt make it right. And if you think its fine, then tell her to call me next time she takes her shirt off. I’ll go and watch. I’m an adult. And I’m hoping when spock tells kirk not to lecture him that Kirk is not his captain at that time because we know that dog just won’t hunt! Or would you like your son (or anyone else for that matter) to tell you not to lecture you. What i’m talking about is the trailer. something EVERYONE can see. ALL ages. I think only Bond is the other kind of film that will show that (I’m not a bond fan, but that has nothing to do with it) because I understand that is what Bond is about (though I dont find that fascinating). But hey, if all of you are cool with your kids seeing that on tv any time of day (remember: south park comes on after ten) then by all means, sit with that. But dont come complaining to anyone because the icon spock told off his boss (maybe) so your son did too (and lost his job or got a bloody nose as a result) or because sexual innuendo can be put on (what has always been a show oriented for all audiences) a trailer for anyone else to see, so why cant your daughter take her clothes off or have sex in public places? Whats wrong with that? There is a time and a place for everything. And a trailer is not one of them. Because we all know, its all about the bucks. who cares about the after affects? Show me the money!!
I doubt film students will agree with you #681. Star Wars is part of Cinema History, much the same as Jaws was. Both proved vitally important. Jaws in showing the major studios that “summer blockbusters” MAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS of money. Argue that point with the decision to push back this new Trek movie to the “summer of 09.”
Star Wars’ success, right after “Jaws,” decided the fate of the Star Trek we all know today. Paramount saw this and acted, which spawned Trek TMP. It is part of cinema history which is CANON in any film students notebook.
I don’t think I have to argue details that Star Wars was a MAJOR force in deciding what should be produced and what shouldn’t. If it weren’t for Star Wars, Star Trek might have died w/out so much as a whimper, even as Trek fans protested. Remember Paramount shelved the “Phase II” series for TMP.
Trekwebmaster
checking over at memory-alpha, it says that the ship was built on earth and assembled in space, however if I understand canon, it is anything seen on screen. Nothing’s touched on the construction or launch of the NCC-1701. We see the NX-01 & NX-02 constructed in space, but remember the episode of TNG “Parallels” where we see a picture of Utopia Planitia Yards and a Galaxy Class ship is under construction, on the surface?
As for Trek lore, a ship can be built on the surface or in orbit. As for the story line of the new movie, the folks decided their story needed her to be built on the surface and since I can’t find anywhere that says she wasn’t, she shall be. San Francisco Yards could be anywhere on Earth, it shouldn’t automatically be assumed it is in California.
Minutia shouldn’t get in the way of a good picture, and this looks like it could be a fantastic picture! Nit picking about obscure details only turns away the people needed to keep the franchise going.
We shouldn’t get worked up, as long as the “doctrine” of Trek is maintained (i.e. starship design, established character names, existing species, etc.) then the things non-doctrine (okay, maybe NCC-1701 could be built on the surface, perhaps the Kirk family could have a family heirloom of a Corvette) can fall under creative license of our new friends running the show.
after reading and reading and reading all the negative comments from people.. i have come to this conclusion… these people will never change their mind. For them, Trek isn’t Trek unless it is TOS. These are the same people that won’t embrace the change and will never accept the change. That’s fine.. you have the 3 seasons on DVD you can watch over and over again.. you can speculate what you want about how things began in your own versions. That is your God given right. What makes YOUR version any better than this one? Nothing.
I am tired of the 90210 comments.. looks nothing like that. The actors aren’t in high schhol.
I am tired of the Star Wars comparisons.. looks nothing like Star Wars at all. Not in visuals, not in style, not in nothing.
I am tired of term “raping my childhood” … grow up already. Do you know how stupis you sound saying that?
I am tired of people saying that this movie sucks.. without even seeing the damn thing! IF… after seeing it.. you say it sucks.. fine. At least you saw the movie and made that judgement. But saying it sucks from a trailer?
You can’t make everyone happy.. so for you guys that want to hate the movie and want it to fail… be that way. The rest of us have been waiting for something this good to happen to great for a long time.
I, for one, am waiting to judge the movie until I actually see it.
#683:
If you don’t like what you see on TV, turn the damn thing off…You should know where the DAMN POWER button is.
Your turning a “new trek film” into some personal witch hunt advocating that we cut off our genitals and never say “damn” in public.
My gosh, your passions will be your undoing, you have already lost credibility by posting your “left wing” rhetoric under the guise of being a “trek fan.”
Try the forums on CNN, jeeez.
Trekwebmaster
#686:
I agree MP, I used to like TOS, especially when I flew my brand new “connie” from the TOS era up against a fleet of NX ships from the TMP era in Starfleet Command Orion Pirates computer game…I quickly decided that TOS wasn’t for me…got tired of my butt being handed to me…lol.
I am excited about this new film…:)
Trekwebmaster
James SIBERIUS Kirk? James SIBERIUS Kirk??? Did the young Kirk actually say that???? Anyone else hear this? I’ve listened to it many times and I am hearing the Same Thing! SIBERIUS???
The new movie almost looks like a continuation of the tv show that was cancelled after four years, the “Enterprise”. To me that show looked like they were trying to reboot the star Trek universe. Of course that show failed but the fourth season was pretty good. I was looking forward to warching that show when it first came out but after the first episode I was not too happy. I was hoping it was going to show more about what happened after “first Contact’. I wanted to see starfleet being created and how all the techo worked, a liitle bit was revailed but not enough for me to keep interested. Also the ships and the bridge looked way too advanced to be before Kirk’s enterprise. So to me this new movie looks like it takes after the “Enterprise” tv show. I am still looking forward to the new movie but I haven’t fell out of love yet for the actors that originally played the charactors that we want to see again.
Just showed the trailer to my brunch gathering. The overall opinion is “That’s Not Trek”.
#648
I have to agree that final analysis can only occur once we’ve seen the film in May. I’m just basing it off of what I’ve seen so far. As for Vulcan being destroyed. Highly doubt that. Maybe it’ll be like Generations with some sort of time resolution. Or maybe the drill fails. If it is destroyed however, then I’ll see this as an alternate timeline. We will have to wait and see.
OH, Spocks left ear is 1 mm shorter than the OTHER ONE..
JJ I AM GOING TO HAVE TO BURN YOU ALIVE FOR THAT BIG FAUX PAS!!!
YOU BASTARD!
J/K
See how stupid all this BS is?
Trekwebmaster
It really is not the Star Trek any of us know and love. We just have to accept that this is an altogether different animal, with a bit of the Star Trek essence in it to call it Star Trek. Simple as that. It is not at all the same. Either we will hate it or love it, but non-trek fans will probably love it for its pure “action blockbuster” potential.
I understand why people are upset. I am quite unsure how I will feel about this film. I may have to just enjoy it for what it is, a “re-imagining” of Star Trek. As how it actually works with what we have all known to be the formula of pre-2005 Star Trek is obviously not.
#683
I can sum up Trek’s view of sex in two words: ‘Amok Time’. What Trekism do we glean from this episode? Have sex on a regular basis or you will go insane, disobey orders and murder your captain.
Anyone who says Gene Roddenberry would not want a “sexed up Trek” either has not watched the original series and/or has never read or learned anything about Gene Roddenberry. Roddenberry was not St. Francis of Asissi and one of his oft-stated goals for Trek was to use the sci fi setting to get around network censors regarding sexual content. There are all kinds of sexual “easter eggs” in TOS in addition to the miniskirts and cleavage (anyone remember Kirk zipping up his boots after a roll in the hay in “Wink of an Eye”?).
Seriously, people have constructed their own ideas of what Trek is, ignoring all evidence to the contrary–better just retreat inside the safety of your own minds.
Guys, Roddenbery was a visionary and he had strong principles, but stop thinking of him as a saint or a preacher. Star Trek is not a religion.
I Like the trailer. It’s action packed and sexy and whatever people say: this is a REBOOT and will definitely ignore CANON. But it’s great. I can’t wait to see it. I watched a TOS episode last night and I honestly can say; so boring….so old… zzzzzzz
this is 2008 people. Welcome back Star Trek.
#675 The TOS Enterprise was built in the San Francisco shipyards on earth not in orbit. Star trek Enterprise got it wrong, u know like everything else they did and there was far more nudity and sex in Enterprise.
i’m weary of this trailer, i’ve seen WAY too many movies, that had all the action in the trailer, and was so BORING when you watched it. it better live up to the hype. i will see it, but at home, after i download it from bittorrent. i’m not supporting the movie industry who cannot make anything original anymore, they just keep making remakes or reboots of the same old shit. GROW UP HOLLYWOOD !
i will watch it, just to see it it’s really star trek, from teh looks of it, they coppied alot of tother movies, and watered down Star trek scifi, wich is a very sad thing, Gene Roddenberry’s spirit lives on in each star trek fan, i hope somehow it still flickers inside all of us, after seeing this movie.
I was in the theater it was “Tiberius” the recording from the bootleg was bad. Come on people lets not get bent out of shape over this.
Star Trek Trailer (Unfortunately) Hits the Net
683 is right.
I become utterly enraged when any show i watch is not filled with sex. SEX SEX and more SEX. What i now do is, splice sex scenes at random into all shows i record from TV. Us ‘kids’ today are like that! I’m glad you were so easily able to build a psychological profile of ‘people like me’.
However violence is wrong! That’s why i don’t allow my kids to watch any episode of startrek or any other show which features any act of violence. Because a slap across the face is the same to me as a gore fest mutilation, just like to you, seeing someones bra seems to warrent the film is infact an R rated movie. Thats why i loved the R rated movie startrek 5, which had the same character dancing around in a sexual fashion covering herself with nothing but some leaves! Thats way filthier than the new movie.
But yeah, i can’t stand violence on tv. That’s why i ban the showing of ‘power rangers’ in my home, which promotes violent resolution of situations rather than diplomatic ones. Of course, i still let the kids watch power rangers, but only after i have edited out all the violence and replaced it with sex.
Also, 701. Among excuses to steal from others, yours is particularly lame.
I am now convinced that there is no Star Trek that could ever be made that would make everyone happy. Why can’t we enjoy it for what it is and what it could be, do you think if they could make a movie or TV show like this back in the 60’s they would have? Yes they would. There is NO way you can judge a movie by a short trailer.
Damn! This kicks butt! Just wish it was available to see on the big screen. : ( Very excited about this film. This will reinvigorate Star Trek and the fanbase.
It’s unfortunate that some people want to see a carbon copy of the 60’s TV series on the big screen in 2009. Complete with the exact same effects and green screen model ships built for 60’s televsion and cardboard and plywood sets and 30something actors William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy (that’s right guys, they were the same age and some younger than these guys.)
Guys, you still have that on your DVD’s.. if you feel like you are missing something. keep watching those episodes and by all means.. don’t go see this movie.
And for those of you who say you are going to “boycott” this movie and not see it at all… uh huh.. see you at the midnight screening in May! ;)
Just two things I thought I would pop in and say firstly, if you watch the original series in stardate order Chekov is on the enterprise before space seed so TWOK works just fine.
Second I noticed that a few people seem to have an issue with Spock losing it and attacking kirk, if only there were some form of precedent for spock trying to attack kirk due to being “emotionally compromised” say This side of paradise. This is a younger spock so he would not yet have as much control over his emotions, there is plenty of scenes in the original series where he can’t control his emotions. So it’s not an overly big issue for me.
That’s all going back to watch the trailer now.
You know what I think is the scariest thing to some people who are posting negative comments on this site?
They are afraid of their version of Star Trek not being good enough anymore.
Thats why they are ok with watching New voyages and Phase II because they know that they are still able to watch them and feel confident in saying that the original was better.
It’s like fans of a sports team saying that a current team could never compare to the old team.
It’s loyalty…I’ll give them that.
This isn’t your childhood people…it’s your adulthood. Time you started acting like one.
Funny – It’s actually quite easy to tell who is a TOS fan and who came into the lore with TNG or after.
So many people are entirely flipped out by Uhura’s bra, and Kirk getting it on, I’m actually astonished.
Doesn’t anyone remember the sexy costumes in the original series?! ( I was watching a DVD once, and my GF came in, looked at Uhura and said, “Why the hell is her ass showing?”
People, particularly Kirk, had sex all the time on Classic Trek. Ever notice how they’d reach into their sideboard and pull out something alcoholic quite casually? That’s right – They drank too!
Berman’s vision of Trek was very chaste, and I think this is where people are confused. They are placing the qualities of Trek, after the death of GR, onto the whole of Trek and forgetting its origins.
Well, you’re about to get a whopping $130,000,000 reminder.
@ 701
I’m not saying I’m the perfect example of not pirating things at times. However, I’ve been very good as of late trying to NOT pirate things and give credit where credit is due. My suggestion to you is, instead of pirating the movie, maybe what you should do is wait a day or two after it comes out, see what people think and then go if you’d like. These people deserve to get paid for their work.
577
My apologies, but I seem to have misrepresented myself. I had no intention of arguing in support of it being a robot or android. (I was just responding to the idea.)
(if we had editing capabilities, I would strike the entire first sentence of my post — #563)
I was suggesting the idea that it was not a “cop,” but someone *disguised* as a cop.
And that someone can be identified by playing the two sound clips side by side. My intention was to draw attention to the similarity of the voices. (Which I have done for myself.)
( “What is your name,” (@ 00:28) and “The wait is over.” (@ 01:37) )
I am certain it’s the same voice.
– DaveO
Want to see my personal observations from some of the shots of the Big “E”?
Check out some stills from the “unofficial” trailer. Sorry the quality is not as good as I wished, but the details are there, for all you hungry Trek fans!
http://www.studentech.net/trekmovie/observe.html
I hope this helps to put some of the “bitching” to rest!
Trekwebmaster
710, interesting that you should mention the “vices” of the TOS crew, including drinking alcoholic beverages. There is a sense in which TMP actually made the 23d Century seem slightly more sterile, so to speak, than TOS itself did, even though both occurred within a decade or so in the franchise’s fictional timeline. This was parallelled in the idioms, both linguistic and otherwise, of the day. TMP presented a 23d Century in which everything was clean and perfect; TOS did not. Oddly, in some respects, TWOK and TVH represented a reversion to TOS sensibilities — where there existed physical scuffs and wear and tear on board starships, for example, and where, similarly, characters spoke a bit more naturalistically than we saw in TMP and, especially, TNG.
It’s refreshing to see the dustier sides of the 23d Century represented in this new Star Trek movie, even if it’s only in the scene with the boy Kirk.
Lest we forget, TNG was intentionally designed to represent a more perfect version of humanity; TOS was a century or more before the realization of that reality.
Re:684. Trekwebmaster – November 16, 2008
“I doubt film students will agree with you #681. Star Wars is part of Cinema History, much the same as Jaws was. Both proved vitally important. Jaws in showing the major studios that “summer blockbusters” MAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS of money. Argue that point with the decision to push back this new Trek movie to the “summer of 09.””
I’m talking about the Prequels–and how they have no lasting cultural impact because they were all flash and little to no substance–which is why said it lacked the mystique of the Original Trilogy and its importance.
SW has become all about Angry Anakin, endless lightsaber duels, Boba Fett and secondary villain characters all written like high school stage production’s interpretation of “bad guys.” That’s the reason the modern day Star Wars–in its attempt to be flashy and loud like too many current movies, lost its heart and reason to exist. Do that to Star Trek and you get the ingredients prepared for possible failure. Just like the Tim Burton garbage called his Planet of the Apes “reimagining.”
“Star Trek might have died w/out so much as a whimper, even as Trek fans protested. Remember Paramount shelved the “Phase II” series for TMP.”
But Trek was already a cultural phenomenon earing millions through syndication and mercandising, hence the reason Paramount wanted to use a new version of a cancelled TV series as the flagship product of their planned TV network. The specific switch to movies was influenced by SW, but the studio aggressively trying to re-launch ST was already in the works years before anyone in the world ever heard of Star Wars (predating the film’s production). In fact, the 1973 Animated Series was the 1st attempt to bring it back because all parties involved realized Trek was hot.
Even on crap-cam this one looks GREAT!!
710. devon Richards
Funny, I was just thinking about how this movie looks more like somebood that THINKS they understand Kirk, Spock, and the rest, yet really only go by what they THINK Trek is. In other words, they think Kirk is this maverick hot shot Captain, that the best parts of Trek was he action, and that Kirk slept with every woman he met. Kirk was rarely if ever a maverick in TOS and followed orders pretty regularly. The rebel is more a movie thing. The best part of Trek was the SciFi. Kirk really didn’t sleep with a lot of women (what kind of representative of Starfleet would he be?).
In the end, the project feels like a nostalgia for something that never really existed. It’s a non-fan’s remembering what they thought Trek was when they were a kid. In reality it was a smart show that explored the human condition through science-fiction, much like the best sci-fi of the 20th century.
Funny, I was just thinking about how this movie looks more like it was made by somebody that THINKS they understand Kirk, Spock, and the rest, yet really only go by what they THINK Trek is.
Stupid language! Me no good spell grammar some how.
#715 I can agree with your point about Star Trek, but UPN came years later, and still didn’t make it. Voyager kept it alive for a couple of years until it was “affiliated” out. Now it only serves as a footnote and in not very many people’s memory.
Star Wars, the first movie, has its place in film history, which is undeniable. I wasn’t attempting to analyze what came from the first Star Wars movie, only stressing the fact that it has its place in film history.
It was only after Star Trek proved successful in syndication, the studios realized it had something, and they moved to capitalize on that fact. I think the “reboot” will be sucessful for the franchise. It is better than anything we have on the table at the moment, unless you want to use the computer game fandom as an example of what happens with a major title like “Star Trek Online,” when its original developer screws it up. I doubt CBS and Paramount would allow that to happen with Star Trek.
Of course, this is all personal opinion, and we may well have to wait until the movie is released to see whom is right.
Either way, I suspect we are both right. You involve your argument in details of Star Trek, while I am looking at cinema history in a general perspective. TREK, JAWS, STAR WARS, TMP…it’s not rocket science to see that.
Trekwebmaster
Hmmmm… first of all the continuity issues worry me (I know there’s a backlash against canon but it drew me into Trek and I think it’s one of the ‘franchises’ strengths.) However the time travel plot will hopefully addresss this – ideally I’d like to see no more time travel in trek again but I suppose some nods to continuity is better than nothing.
Cinematically it looks more ‘real’ to see the enterprise being built on earth – and it serves the story (Kirk living near a shipyard) – it makes it seem more ‘real’ – but Trek has a fine tradition of ships being built in orbit and I think it’s a shame they’re jettisoning this.
Spock getting upset by Kirk is a bit of a worry – (parallels with ENT’s grumpy Vulcans) – can’t Spock just dismiss Kirk with some veiled sarcasm like he used to? I know Spock punching Kirk in the mouth is more dramatic but….
Scotty as the comedic foil doesn’t look too good either.
the interior of the ship looks good but in a sort of Tim Burton Planet of the Apes way. Too white and shiny. JJ talks about trying to make Trek real but makes a ship interior which looks like a big ipod shop.
And why do policemen look like evil robots? I thought Trek-era Earth was a better place?
The movies have always suffered because they have to give big action set pieces and battles, which means the more thoughtful side of Trek gets left behind. Normally this isn’t a problem but this film will be our only Trek – there’s no Trek on TV. I’m sure this will be a piece of pure pop. Nothing wrong with that, but will it ask any questions about what it means to be human? This is what Trek can do, at its best.
Nice to see they got some things wrong – ‘I’m JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK’! yells the boy, unconvincingly. Why didn’t he just say something like, ‘my name is James…. Kirk’.
Jax Maxton – November 16, 2008
Interesting argument.
@683:
“I doubt very much roddenberry would be pleased with a sexed-up trek.”
LOL, have you ever watched TOS??? Roddenberry had almost every feamle guest star on the show in a backless bikini!!!
…and from the books I’ve read , he helped to fit the dresses himself…
By ‘wrong’ I mean ‘uncool’ or as you Americans say, ‘lame’.
Along the same llines as the third paragraph in 720, a recent article in “Wired” reported on how some have becomed worried about the new movie based on a few scenes. “For one, Zachary Quinto’s Spock is described by AP as appearing ‘edgy and hostile’ in the preview scenes, two words one would rarely associate with a Vulcan, much less one that has spent the last several decades as a model of cool, calm intelligence.” Maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t Spock pretty emotional in “The Cage”?
LOL it wasn’t roddenberry that prohibited the “sex” in TOS, it was network censorship that did.
Jeanie, couldn’t show her belly button, neither could most Trek TOS females.
The first inter-racial kiss was on Star Trek with Kirk kissing Uhura, in “Plato’s Stepchildren.”
Star Trek broke alot of the taboos of censorship back in the 60’s.
Star Trek explored subjects in ways which would never have been acceptable with the network, they did it with style.
I think this movie will do the same. I don’t know why you all are so against it? Unless you are so “inflexible and old as to constitute a joke?”
C’mon, don’t ruin it for everyone just because you think you saw Uhura’s bra or some other silly BS. That’s just plain ignunt!
Trekwebmaster
721. boborci
I also want to say that I am torn about new Trek. I have a real emotional attachment to the original show and its characters. It’s hard for me to see new faces in the roles and to accept a modern take on a well-documented, 40 year old franchise. And I don’t even consider myself a die-hard Trek fan.
To me, it’s a bit like “Superman Returns”, where I can accept a new Superman, but it’s hard to see a dude trying to play Christopher Reed as Superman.
I also am trying to make no judgment on this new movie. I WANT to love it. I really, really do. I hope I can accept a more modern take on the original Trek cast. But we all walk into a work of art with our own biases and ideas of what we want, and we just can’t leave those parts of ourselves at the door.
When did Earth become “Paradise?” I know its referred to this way in TNG, DS9 and VOY., but maybe when Kirk was a lad it was still a little bit rougher around the edges?
#709
I dont watch the new voyages or phase two because I dont support the idea of trading on a name. it lacks real imagination and originality and says that the creators are afraid they’re stories wont sell by being on another ship or being other characters. I dont mind if the characters are MUCH younger so you need different actors, that’s all well and cool but there appears to be much misunderstanding HOW much younger the characters are. This is where canon comes into play: If the characters are much younger, than is this version how they met according to canon (which is where stories make sense or not)? if its not, then why SHOULD it be acceptable by everyone (which is what you people want) because then it is a remake. If it is a remake, then be honest and call it that. Dont try to say we’re “honoring canon” when you aren’t.
If the characters are not supposed to be much younger, then most of this doesnt even make sense and is clearly a remake.
I dont care if the enterprise looks a little different on the inside (no blinking lights and stuff). But not completely starwarsized and ipodized (apple should sue).
#710. No one says there was no sex on the tv show. But they didnt show people actually getting it on because why do you need to show them actually doing it? Aside from that, the point is in the original or any other spin-off (maybe excluding enterprise, i dont know. I have not seen it on tv) they never showed people getting it on in the trailer or commercials because they dont need to show people doing it to sell the show. or movie. I grew up on TOS, not TNG, though I have seen a few episodes and the films. So it aint so funny or easy to tell who watched what when. Of course they drank. they drank openly on the show. Saurian Brandy, Romulan Ale, Scotch Whiskey, So what? who’s talking about drinking? ESPECIALLY back in the 60s men drank. It was a very open part of the culture.
If this is a remake, just say it, But clearly they are also afraid of trek failing without the original cast and ship and nimoy endorsing this film. Essentially, they are saying trek cant make it on its own without that. And apparently neither can JJ and Orci and you. I’m not telling you not to see the film. I’m just saying I’m not.
When i first heard Trek was being redone, I was interested and excited. I knew the special effects would be great. I knew many things would be great, I always looked forward to the enterprise getting cooler and cooler with each show or film. I thought if the cast is younger, that’s fine too since they are showing the way they all meet. hey, I was cool with all that. But then there were so many contradictions and outright fabrications and then i realized that this was no different than Bond or Superman being remade because Hollywood can’t make movies worth seeing anymore. They have dumbed down america and now they want to dumb down the world. Thats how money is blindly handed over. Ive repeatedly said if you wanna go see it, see it. (not that you need my permission) but im voicing that I am very let down by what ive seen in the trailer and the trailer is supposed to be what gets the legs in line and the butts in the seats. This is not Trek. This is Star Wars. I saw the first prequel in the theater and never went back until 3 when a friend who helped me move said if i buy his star wars 3 ticket he’ll help. So he did and we did. then i liked 3, actually. Now I dont mind all six and have recently spend a day watching all six (though i have no interest in clone wars). And i have no interest in 90210 in outer space. I don’t care #686, if you are tired of hearing 90210. I got tired of watching it so I stopped. I’m *($! tired of these #$@! kids on this #$@! starship! I’m just kidding. But next time I need to move, I think I’ll do it myself. And montreal paul will not see me in line. maybe just online.
725. Trekwebmaster
That quote from Trek VI is perfect. Can we accept new takes and new ideas? I guess I’ll find out in May.
That kid is certainly fit to play Kirk, he is an actor on par with Bill- Bill from the 60’s! I….Am….James…Tiberius…Kirk! (In a Mickey Mouse voice!)
@ 724
Can Spock be emotional? I don’t know, maybe. I’m really a 24th century fan so I can’t say I’ve watched a lot of TOS. I think it’s more interesting if Spock doesn’t get angry personally, although I realise many will disagree. (Inner conflict etc etc).
I do have to say though that The Cage was the pilot, so maybe Spock was (incorrectly) an emotional character back then.
It just seems to me to be a very alien concept that someone can’t get angry, or at least can fully suppress their anger. However I know Spock is half human etc etc
I am all for people expressing their own opinions, but I also want to remind people that there is no ‘right’ way to be a fan. No one has the market on the right point of view, we may not agree on all, but we are all star trek fans.
Also, with Regards to Gene Roddenberry. I have noted a number of fans who believe they can speak for Mr. Roddenberry and think they know how he would see this Trek. Well unless you are a psychic, or at the very least knew him personally, you cannot speak for him. I suggest you let him speak for himself. Here are a couple of informative articles we did about the man a few months ago:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/27/roddenberry-considered-tos-prequel-for-tmp/
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-him-recasting/
#724
Yes, Spock was emotional in “The Cage,” especially when he touched that plant and smiled. Spock’s character wasn’t fleshed out by then. After all, the network objected to spock being “red,” he looked too much like Satan, so Roddenberry made him a green hue.
Y’all really don’t know much about Trek do you? Any Trek fan knows this.
Kirk was the swashbucker type, blowing Horatio’s horn, with Spock as his sidekick, replacing Number One’s logical reasoning and intelligence. McCoy became the medium of both, as the quintessential healer that cared and the TRIO was born.
Number One had to be written out due to the network’s scoffing that there couldn’t be a female second in command, so she had a sex change, a name change, pointed ears were added, and Spock was born…it is really this simple.
JEEZ, read the old book, Spork, Spack, Splick, Spuck, ooooh I get it…SPOCK!!!!
Trekwebmaster
Trekwebmaster
731. Bloons
(SPOILER)
Supposedly, from the descriptions of the footage that’s been seen, Kirk is trying to release Spock’s emotions on purpose. Interesting….
When did Earth become “Paradise?” I know its referred to this way in TNG, DS9 and VOY., but maybe when Kirk was a lad it was still a little bit rougher around the edges?
-Well, unless you dismiss ENT completely, they say in the pilot that war and hunger have been eliminated, and that’s 100 years before Kirk….
I know a lot of people don’t like the utopian aspect to Trek but I thoroughly enjoy its optimism.
718:
Could all be part of the show.
Many of us (including Mr. Orci) know the backstory of TOS Kirk.
This could be an alternate Kirk with the same potential as the one we know, but without the life-events to get him there.
Instead of going with his family to Tarsus IV and going to the Academy, and serving on the Republic and the Farragut, he’s left home in Iowa with his mom and brother, and becomes a brash punk.
Pike, who admires his dad, mentors him, and he gets fast-tracked to resume his destiny (”You’ll have your own ship in 8 years”) in the new timeline.
I remember nothing but whine from Transformers ‘fans’ prior to its release, and look how that one turned out.
Geeks commenting on forum threads and talkbacks constitute 0.5% of the moviegoing audience? Maybe? So I am not worried about the whine of die hard fans and their friends.
The box office will prove them all wrong.
703. lieud vejgrint – November 16, 2008
Star Trek Trailer (Unfortunately) Hits the Net
What? They didn’t ask your permission? Vote with your $$ and don’t see it….but others of us will.
“Pike, who admires his dad, mentors him, and he gets fast-tracked to resume his destiny (”You’ll have your own ship in 8 years”) in the new timeline.”
-Tsk, it’s not what you know but WHO you know…..
732. Anthony Pascale
There was an article online somewhere recently about the anger that seems to persist online from the passionate views people have about things. I know I feel like I can come across as angry sometime, partially because of the medium not allowing one to express inflection, non-verbals, and the such. But for the most part, I think the arguments on here have been pretty fun, without slipping to Ain’t It Cool mud slinging. Mostly.
You got that right #732:
Gene Roddenberry said:
“that in the years to come, new generations of fans would look at the new forms of STAR TREK being produced and say, ‘This is the real STAR TREK. Those other people back there at the beginning, they didn’t do it half as well.”
I am humbled at these words. I can see how Gene would say this, especially looking to the future.
This is why J.J.’s film is so important! You guys and gals must suport this film, it is “Gene’s visionary statement” that says this, even if it does look different.
Trekwebmaster
“I remember nothing but whine from Transformers ‘fans’ prior to its release, and look how that one turned out.”
-Yeah, it turned out bloomin’ awful. I fell asleep, I genuinely did. And I’m not a rabid Transformers fan.
One thing about Kirk being a badass punk who has to take charge of his destiny, is that I always got the impression that Kirk at the Academy was a bit of a nerd, wasn’t he? He got bullied by Finnegan, didn’t he? And as he grew up he became confident and a leader.
In contrast, Picard was a badass as a cadet who grew up to be a bit of a stern, humourless ’swot’ captain. I do like Picard.
I always liked that contrast between the captains. :-)
Are there those skyscrapers in the bottom of the cliff?
I think that is another ship that Pine is looking at. The Enterprise should be out in space by this time in Kirk’s life. This might be a later Constitution class.
Maybe this ship was built in Iowa and Enterprise was built in San Francisco. You would think with all of the old naval ship yards they could have put Enterprise or other ships together in a shipyard and then sent the parts up to orbit for assembly. I believe it was the book “Enterprise” that the saucer section was flown up to orbit from San Francisco.
742.
Transformers did 708,300,000 in worldwide box office, the masses disagree with your assessment of Transformers.
Would we prefer a movie that panders to our canon and 60s look that makes a massive loss and helps us to all become even more of a laughing stock than we already are? Or take a shot of getting some of that 700million big ones and a new generation of fans?
Infact, for all we know, you will love the movie anyway?
Its still too early.
742 – Bloons – As a Transformers diehard from the old days, I was extremely excited about the film, until a couple things happened. One, Michael Bay was hired as director. Two, I saw the pictures of the Transformers themselves and had a heart attack. Three, Peter Cullen was hired as Optimus Prime’s voice, but they did not hire Frank Welker as Megatron. The finished project (sorry Bob and Alex) actually made me sour to my stomach. This project, other than the omission of Shatner, I can largely live with. The trailer was very encouraging. At this point with TFers, I was already in hurling mode.
744 – Mike T. – Technically, they could just say that the ship was “commissioned in San Francisco,” It’s I think an honest disagreement on the science aspect of whether the ship would be built on Earth or in orbit.
Is there a difference between being a “trekkie” and a Star Trek “Fan?” I think I fall into the latter categorey; I’ve always enjoyed Trek and watched it through the first few seasons of DS9.
However, I’ve never worn a “uniform” and the paraphenalia I own is limited to toy “transporter” and “shuttlecraft” I was given as a kid. I kind of like the concept of official history and “canon,” and every now and then I sneak on Memory Alpha…
BUT, I am not so shortsighted that I am going to let a few concerns about “canon” get in the way of me enjoying this movie. I will judge it on its own merits, and as long as it is true to the spirit of Trek, I will be satisfied.
I have a gut feeling that if Gene could have chosen between having a glass of synthehol with a “fan” like me, or a “trekkie” who can’t get his mind around a reinvention, he would have chosen the fan.
If being a “trekkie” or a “trekker” means being so blinded by nerdy obsession with some mythological “canon” (which has been full of contradictions along the way anyhow) that you can’t sit back and enjoy a fresh take on this incredible franchise, well I just feel bad for you. Stop taking life so seriously, and in the words of WIlliam Shatner… “Get a life!”
728. lieud vejgrint – November 16, 2008
“I dont watch the new voyages or phase two because I dont support the idea of trading on a name. it lacks real imagination and originality and says that the creators are afraid they’re stories wont sell by being on another ship or being other characters.”
Well, you’re missing out on some great Trek for what I consider a somewhat pretentious reason.
The whole point of new voyages wasn’t to create a new Trek series, they wanted to explore the idea of ‘continuing’ the original 5 year mission. It’s a ‘what if’ scenario. The first couple of episodes were shaky, but they’re really flying now…and have a lot of support from professionals who have worked on Trek. You should give it a chance, just like many of us are giving this new movie a chance.
anyone else notice the buildings in the horizon line at the beginning with the car? same ones when kirk’s on the cycle.
hence same place…
745. Flake
I REALLY don’t care how much Trek makes. I don’t get to see ANY of the $700mil of “Transformers” not a dime of new Trek. I just want a good movie. Honestly, who cares how much it makes?
Flake, I take your point, but popularity is not necessarily an indicator of quality. The Original Series wasn’t watched by a heck of a lot of people, and yet I assume you’d agree it was a great show?
I think you’d agree it would be a boring world if we all said everything was amazing. I agree it’s a shame if people are so angry with little things being wrong that they can’t enjoy something, but picking holes in stuff and being a bit diehard can be a lot of fun as long as you don’t take it too far.
I know Trek isn’t great lart, but being a diehard nitpicker can get you a career as an academic, as long as you focus on great works or art, music and literature rather than space operas!
Still, this is pop culture after all. I know that. Honest….
As for Transromers, Greg, I just didn’t feel it had much of a story, and that the robot designs were incomprehensible (couldn’t understand what was going on – the Decepticons were a mess). They should have set it in the 1980s and had the original designs! That would have been so cool!
#749. Actually, I did lie. I saw two of them, I think. I just didn’t like that they kept switching the actors who played various characters. So I discontinued watching them. They weren’t too bad though, but they seemed to confuse me, like with Chekhov dying in one than being alive in the next one. But they are free and made by lovers of TOS so I suppose that is a good thing.
Remeber folks, the trailer isn’t really for us. It’s for those other 5.9 billion people out there who don’t live and breathe Trek. And as such, the trailer is emphasizing the scope and action of the film which, I am certain will have some type of dialogue in the remaining 119 minutes of footage.
Unless these guys are literally lying to our faces with their description of “The Supreme Court” of canonicity, the story will somehow put all those fears to rest. If Nero changes the whole timeline, there wouldn’t be any need to respect canon anyhow. I’m not a freak about it, but I would like to see the rough outline that we are all familiar with appear up on the screen. Time will tell.
697
….”Roddenberry was not St. Francis of Asissi and one of his oft-stated goals for Trek was to use the sci fi setting to get around network censors regarding sexual content.”
Exactly. All the more reason why I, as a prepubescent boy in the ’70’s , instinctively knew Star Trek Phase II would have been a great show. (And my thinking at that time was “you go Gene.”) Talk about something that could have/would have changed the world of Trek had it come to pass. I’m probably in the minority here but I always thought that series would have been more fun than the movies that came instead.
[734] Kirk provokes Spock, who is already totally mixed up because of Vulcan and his parents, to lose control so that he can take command of the Enterprise from him, like Spock Prime told him to do, including the paragraphs from Starfleet regulation. To save the future, Kirk needs to command his ship…
RE: 681- Well Compassionate God (and thanks for the universe BTW), I think you are missing quite a few points. Let’s see, who cares about Star Wars now… I have to assume the people who made Clone Wars the highest rated premier in Cartoon Network history. The kids (like mine) who made their parents go buy “Force Unleashed.” The kids dragging new Star Wars figures off the shelves like they are candy. You can bash Episode III all you want, it still made more money than Jedi or Empire (and don’t try to argue inflation with me- if that were any indicator studios would be trying to recapture the magic of Gone With the Wind- the highest grossing film of all time, inflation adjusted). All these things right now dragging in ridiculous amounts of money for Lucasfilm and Hasbro are based on the “new” Star Wars. I couldn’t get my kids to watch the original trilogy until they saw Episode I in the theater. And while I sat thinking “what’s this crap?” they squealed and shouted and loved it. THEN, they found the original. You want to know what makes the studios money? Go look at the toy shelves, and see what’s selling and what isn’t. The Indiana Jones toyline, marketed for people like me, is a pegwarmer. The Clone Wars figures are moving. And like TV, like comic books, like music, in our modern world art takes a back seat to what sells.
I will not argue against the wonder which is Classic Trek, but it has become a niche market like all classics do. Shakespeare is perhaps the greatest writer in human history, it still took Leonardo DiCaprio to get 20th Century kids to pay attention to him.
After bike riding baddy Kirk fades to credits, won’t it be cool to have your kid look up and say “is there more about this Kirk guy?”
Again, a commercial success here won’t necessarily equal the artistry of classic Trek, but I bet the DVD sales are better. And that means more interest and production of ALL things Trek, just like how I couldn’t get a decent TIE Fighter until AFTER the new trilogy.
@ Just a fan…
What if you find continuity one of the most enjoyable things about Trek, though? That’s part of my reason for being a ‘fan’ – maybe it’s a poor reason, perhaps. Apparently the new film will address canon anyway so it’s a moot point.
Could Trek have survived on a purely casual audience? Maybe, maybe not. The hardcore fan base have always been a cash cow – maybe without them we wouldn’t be seeing Trek XI, at all.
Try not to distance yourself from Trekkies too much, I hung out with a lot of very nerdy Trekkers for a while who raised lots of money for charity with various Trek-related activities.
I’m afraid the very fact you left a comment on a forum about Star Trek irretrievably denotes you as a bit less cool than the average person! ;-)
You lost 3 cool points by that very act….
Great Trailer! SIMPLY GREAT!
I am actually really cool with the Enterprise being constructed planetside and there’s no violation of canon.
#749 hit the nail on the head.
Granted, I think I’m more Trekkie than mere fan, but I still agree. Gene was never affraid of bending or breaking canon to tell a better story.
For me Trek is both entertainment and a metaphor for the human condition. Metaphors need refreshing from generation to generation.
Those who hate it- just relax, watch TOS on DVD and let teh rest of us have fun.
629. Werewindle – November 16, 2008
#624
“I have no intention of giving any of my money or time to JJ Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman for this raping of my childhood. I have no doubt I’ll see it eventually, but so far this looks abominable.”
Then don’t. Save your dollars or euros.
You and some others must have psychic abilities to see the whole film while the rest of us only saw a 2 minute trailer and you found it not only lacking, but so offensive as to use the word “rape”.
To throw the word “rape” around so freely in reference to a possible change in a TV show/ movie is just blatantly callous and ignorant.
Yes, agreed ^^^
I do not like seeing people throwing around offensive words. Find ways to discuss your opinions without going so over the top, or resorting to name calling and ‘labeling’.
Is there anybody else out there who thinks JJ stole the concept of the ground-built starship from the Finnish fan film “Star Wreck”? If you ask me, Samuli Torssonen should sue Paramount.
And while I am at it, the plot seems awfully similar to the Star Trek Early Voyages comic from 1997 where a band of isolated Vulcans decide to violently take over Vulcan.
Just one question, if they had reproduced the 60s style set and ship (with a few minor improvements like graphics on screens etc) would it really have looked so rubbish? Would it have looked absolutely terrible? It looked OK on ENT, didn’t it?
[761] I am with Xai here. While being a hardcore fan since 1970, and one of the folks who saw the 4 scenes, all I can say is that this movie will work with the masses, will restart the franchise and will be a great passing of the torches. The humor is right, the tek is amazingly believable, and the actors are convincing.
The only way to get Trek 1966 back is to wait another 5 years till Pixar and ILM will recreate it… together with Marylin and James Dean. Who wants that?
752- Popularity is not an indicator of quality.
Amen, but it is an indicator of who gets toys, sequels, and spin off series… TMP only came to fruition because Bantam was making money off novels, a bunch of us were mailing poorly mimeographed fanzines back and forth, and Lucas was making money of Star Wars. Paramount wanted some of that bank. This is the entertainment INDUSTRY, art is secondary. It’s a rare film which gets critical and monetary success.
Trek be a pop culture phenomenon and the production team have got a much better idea than we do of how to do that. Thats what they are paid for!
Times have changed and Star Trek must change with it. If we do not like it then we must be cast aside, its not the end of the world, we have lots of stuff to watch – all the stuff that came before.
This injection of youth and money will do Trek good, whether we like it or not.
good lord I am agreeing with Xai. These reactions to the trailer are overblown. I am a huge naysayer, and if the trailer (on cruddy youtube) impressed me, that says something. Now, we haven’t seen anything with the story, so there’s much unknown. One point I hope the movie doesn’t go to is try to make these characters into superheros and not real people. The Nero character in that sense worries me (Nemesis nightmares!)
Re: Phase II
After all, they were introducing a bald woman who banged Decker and had to sign an oath of celibacy just to get onboard. How odd for a G rated picture.
769- How about the irony of Sulu’s embarrasing erection in the extended cut?
“This is the entertainment INDUSTRY, art is secondary. It’s a rare film which gets critical and monetary success.”
-Well, fingers crossed that this film has merits as art, and fun, both.
Trekwebmaster said, “Yes, Spock was emotional in “The Cage,” especially when he touched that plant and smiled. Spock’s character wasn’t fleshed out by then.”
My point stands. Whether it was “fleshed out” or not is irrelevant — his character was emotional at that point in the series. To claim that the Spock of the pilot wasn’t “the real Spock” because it hadn’t been decided that he should be calm and emotional is simply another take on the issue, and not necessarily the only correct one.
To be honest I’m not sure what the argument is, here. Contrary to what some seem to believe/desire, canon is going to be addressed in Trek XI via the lovely magic of time travel. So everybody’s happy. Right? Right?
[773] For me the question remains, what starts Spock Primes time Travel in the first place, does he just get wind on Neros expedition and follows him to the 2260s?
768. Greg2600 – November 16, 2008
“good lord I am agreeing with Xai…”
There’s hope for you yet.
;-)
‘Even in the future, it would take a lot more in terms of energy and time to build a ship in space because of the environment suits and care and feeding of the construction workers which would be far more expensive in space than on earth.’
There’s no money, therefor no limits of production or ‘cost’ in kirks time.
The problem with talking about Roddenberry and Trek continuity is that there were no VCRs, DVDs, the internet wikis and the like. Nowadays any one of us can throw in any episode we want on any given day and know EXACTLY what was said and done. G.R. didn’t have that to deal with. If he wanted to change the continuity, he could, and no one would be the wiser.
Today’s writers and creators have a much tougher job, because if things change too much from one movie to another, or one season of TV to another, the fans will know it. And if the writer isn’t a real fan of the show/movie they’re writing, then they miss some continuity, then the fans go nuts.
So we can’t really know how G.R. felt about continuity, because making TV in the 1960s allowed Gene to be free of those continuity errors. Perhaps if he were around today he’d be a much bigger stickler. I know the J.M. Straczynski was concerned with continuity on Babylon 5, perhaps G.R. would have been similar.
[772]
When Pike and Company leave for their away mission, Spock is smirking ;))
776. databrain – November 16, 2008
‘Even in the future, it would take a lot more in terms of energy and time to build a ship in space because of the environment suits and care and feeding of the construction workers which would be far more expensive in space than on earth.’
“There’s no money, therefor no limits of production or ‘cost’ in kirks time.”
But saving time and energy and effort makes sense is is more efficient.
But Straczynski planned the whole series as one huge arc, Roddenberry could’nt do this because of syndication. I was amazed when DS9 started with longer arcs around the time of the Dominion war…
re: 779
“and is more efficient” should fix that sentence
@Bloon…
Yeah, I kind of keep my fandom in the closet a little, and don’t claim to be the coolest person in the world. And as I said, I really kind of enjoy the whole canon thing…
But my overall point is, that it has its limits. I really hope people can just relax and enjoy this film. And if after I see it, I think it sucks, I will say so… but I doubt a failure to follow “canon” will be the reason.
774. thorsten
Man, I’m with you.
The confusion of this Trek is the inclusion of Nimoy. What’s his role as Spock in this? His inclusion means that this movie is not just a pure reboot. But what is it? I really wish I didn’t know that Nimoy was in this, cause then I think I would feel more open to this movie.
At any right, I guess I’ll just have to wait till May like the rest of you.
Is it just me, or did Paramount miss an opportunity in not releasing it this winter? There is absolutely no big box office movies coming out this season, with the exception of Bond. And this movie really feels like a winter movie.
Canon Supposition
The team involved keeps saying that they are adhering to canon (official Trek) wherever it is present and working around holes where it is not.
Agewise, most of the actors are in the range they are supposed to be, with the exception of John Cho, who is way too old. Anton Yelchin, I believe is only 17 or 19. Although we see Kirk riding his bike to the construction site of the Enterprise, I’m inclined to believe the main action of the film will happen several years later, with Kirk in his late 20s, only a few years from getting his own ship and the much younger Chekov having only recently begun his training. I’m thinking Pike has already retired from active command and is already training cadets (he did want a career change, remember?), with Spock as a student instructor, a postion Kirk also held at one point. It would explain the absence of Doctor Boyce, Number One, etc ,etc., who have either been reassigned red-shirted.
The situation is depicted as an emergency with cadets and officers alike being assigned to various ships, so the posting is not permanent. Kirk wasn’t even supposed to be onboard. He will meet these people but will not get all of them under his command immediately (you wouldn’t fill the bridge with all green officers would ya) but rather gets experienced officers like Lee Kelso and Doctor Piper. Of course, he does manage to bring his closest buddy Gary Mitchell along.
This works for me.
Re: 719. Trekwebmaster – November 16, 2008
“#715 I can agree with your point about Star Trek, but UPN came years later, and still didn’t make it. ”
Oh, I was referring to the 1970’s network attempt on Paramount’s part, with Trek as the “star” attraction.
I’m hoping Nimoy’s appearance is not the two minute scene described in the other articles because that most assuredly is defined as a cameo, which Nimoy said he was not interested in.
Bob Orci, man of mystery…you out there?
A question that you can answer with a yes or no if I may.
For the moment, I am assuming the “Kirk in a ‘Vette over the cliff” scene is Iowa of the future. We are shown a huge chasm. A quarry or geographic feature that has no current time equal.
The question is… is this feature explained in the film? Thanks.
# 772
” ‘Trekwebmaster said, “Yes, Spock was emotional in “The Cage,” especially when he touched that plant and smiled. Spock’s character wasn’t fleshed out by then.’
My point stands. Whether it was “fleshed out” or not is irrelevant — his character was emotional at that point in the series. To claim that the Spock of the pilot wasn’t “the real Spock” because it hadn’t been decided that he should be calm and emotional is simply another take on the issue, and not necessarily the only correct one.”
Spock “smiling” in the cage is a damm sight less radical than Spock lunging at a peer when goaded. It’s out of character. Maybe it will all make sense in context, but on its face this is a concern, especially when we are looking at a “think outside the box” reimagining of the franchise.
Moreover, we aren’t talking about where the Jeffries Tubes should be located or how many torpedoes the ship should be able to hold. We are talking about core character traits that are very much part of the identity of Trek and are foundational to Trek stories.
Saying that Spock’s being violently emotional in behavior toward his peers (i.e., attacking Kirk) is no big deal would be like looking at a re-booted Sherlock Holmes who “doesn’t care about clues” and saying, “Meh, no big deal. You canonista sissies need to shut up. This is the sort of stuff that makes Doyle fans look like idiots! Look, there was once a Doyle story where Homes was not really interested in a particular clue, so it is all good”
To J.J., Bob and Roberto,
Thank you for all that you have done. While I can understand the thought processes of the die hard fans, I am behind this project 100%. The trailer is fantastic and May cannot come soon enough. I am talking this up to everyone I know and will continue to do so to get as many non fans to the theater as possible. I worked at Six Flags the majority of the time from ST-II to ST-VI. Everyone knew that I would be there opening day and I always got a group to go with me. Even if they did not really get into Trek, they enjoyed the energy and excitement. I ask all of you who believe in this to spread the word. This film is going to rule. For those that don’t like it, please don’t spread your negativity around before this film has a chance to show its true measure and character. After that, your criticism will either be validated or not….of course it is always in the eye of the beholder and I choose to the the glass half full, not half empty (of romulan ale…lol…) So, here’s to to the future of Star Trek, in whatever version is comes.
@ Yarn – lol very funny, and eloquent. 7 points.
#786 Kirk’s Girdle
As I recall, it was explained that Nimoy’s part was not a cameo or book end.
778, another point is that the pilot episode, “The Cage,” was viewed by the characters themselves as historical footage, meaning that this is one fhe few episodes that incorporates previous footage of the series as part of a newer episode. (Another one that comes to mind is DS9’s “Trials and Tribbleations,” which actually screwed around with original footage by incorporating a DS9 character in it.)
Incidentally, by contrast to “Trials,” “The Menagerie” never modified the footage shot for “The Cage” in any way, shape, or form.
The footage in “The Cage,” showing the emotional Spock, is arguably doubly, triply, or quadruply canonical, since, besides eventually seen in its complete form in 1988, more importantly, was not only seen in, but affirmed as legally accurate in “The Menagerie.” In what other episode has this occurred in Trek? Even in “Trials,” the authenticity of the TOS incorporation is made questionable by the digital insertion mentioned above; and in “These Are the Voyages,” it was a historical record, yes, but not a legal proceeding.
#245-
re: only seeing San Francisco in Trek:
Actually, we’ve seen New Orleans (Cisco’s dad the chef in season 1 or 2 of DS9,) the Picard vineyards in Frace (TNG,) and a Federation prison in an unamed loaction (Voyager pilot- Tom Paris’ last address before joining the crew.)
We’ve also see Kirk’s cabin in the moutains (though that might have been a Nexus fantasy.)
Beyond those, I can’t think of any other depictions of Earth circa the 24th century and beyond in Trek. If there are, I’m sure someone will point them out.
I know, that’s why I’m scared, because it was described as Kirk meeting Spock and Scotty. Spock tells Kirk what to do and then transports himself away. He better show up more than that.
And I never even considered that his hair would be white. He’s gonna look like his daddy.
[783] Oh yeah, it would have been perfect. Spock looks great in his warm jacket, with the white hair and eyebrows… a man in his prime ;))
As far building the ship on Earth goes, it can be argued either way.
I imagine that they should have pretty good space suits, robots, and “work bees” in the future, so I don’t see the big deal about assembly in space. You don’t have to fight gravity when fitting massive parts together and the E is designed for space flight, not to take off from Cape Canaveral with booster rockets.
On the ground you don’t have to worry about meteroids. You don’t have to sorry about spacesuit failures. We have built big things that have had to fit together with precision on the ground before so why not the E?
a Federation prison in an unamed loaction (Voyager pilot- Tom Paris’ last address before joining the crew.)
-It was in New Zealand.
Re: 792. LOL Yes, Pike did beep once that it was all true!
789. jeffreyNdallas
Why is it invalid to be skeptical of this project? Why is the only opinion that is right is the people who have already decided that this movie will be great? I don’t see the glass as half full or half empty. Right now, I’m looking at an empty glass, and want to see if I’m going to get tasty Kool-Aid or mud. From the teases we’re getting, I’m not sure what I’m getting.
Let’s keep this an open conversation for everybody. No opinion is right or wrong, especially since none of us have seen the film. I just know that I am enjoying the debate on here like a lot of others. I really want this movie to be great, and I hope my fears are assuaged on May 9th. But I will still express my concerns until then.
Paramount will live long and prosper
788, I believe we’ve seen Spock being emotional before, and not just in “The Cage”/”The Menagerie.” Let’s recall that this is a younger Spock. Regardless of Spock’s greater longevity, younger is younger.
For my part, my thumb is completely horizontal.
I have no idea how this movie is going to turn out.
But I have hope…
We’ve seen Spock flip out, but always with a reason.
In all our Yesterdays it was the dubious premise that Spock was somehow devlolving in Zarabeth’s time.
In The Naked Time, it was that damn space sweat
And in The Paradise Syndrome it was those pesky spores, and a little more of Kirk’s goading.
Now in Journey to Babel, Amanda makes a pretty good case that Spock, although abused by bullies, held his emotion in and refused to cry, which negates the whole idea of Kirk rattling Spock’s feathers so badly.
I think one thing some Trek fans are struggling with is how to position this film. It is important to remember that the Trek team have been careful to not give it a simple definition (refusing to say it falls into the category of ‘reboot’ or even ‘prequel’).
Regarding Nimoy
Not sure if Bob will elaborate, but when he and I did our panel at Grand Slam last year he stated that having Nimoy in the film was the ‘key’ to making the script work and that Nimoy was ‘the only way to resolve continuity issues’ and to allow an ‘appropriate transfer of the soul’. Maybe that helps.
Another clue lies in the new Prequel comic book to the new Star Trek movie (due out in two months). We have reported that it takes place in the post-Nemesis TNG era and focuses on Nero and (Nimoy) Spock: Orci described it thusly: “it is about how you connect the Next Generation era to our continuity, inspired by when we last saw Mr. Spock in “Unification” ”
I am not sure if Bob will agree with this or not, but from what I understand this film does not exactly fit either of the recent models:
- it is not like Star Wars Episode III where it is a straight up continuity prequel that ’slots’ right behind Episode IV
- it is also not like Batman Begins, where it has no continuity link to the Tim Burton films whatsoever
So what is it? well that is the fuzzier question. But again going back to the well of things Bob has said, over a year ago he noted how one of the key episodes that they looked was ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’.
I think when you look at all of that together you start to see a pattern emerge.
Spock at one point while being acting captain gives the conn to Uhura and leaves to transport down to Vulcan to save his parents and the high council of his homeworld, clearly emotionally distressed…
788. YARN – November 16, 2008
Ummm.. do you remember Amok Time? Remember him smashing the computer.. throwing the food into the hallway… he was very violent in that episide. AND.. see his emotion when he notices that Kirk is still alive????
There are quite a few episide that show that Spock isn’t fully in control of his emotions.
Anthony, don’t you mean transfer of the “katra”? >B-D
Lord, how did I leave out Amok Time?
Like I said, Anthony, I’m betting the bulk of this film actually occurs after the events of The Cage, somewhere from 2258 to 2260.
[804] Looks like its time to call Whoopi, Anthony ;))
This is NO canon in Star Trek.
There’s also little nods to continuity in the dialogue, if reports of press screenings are to be belived. Scotty apparently says he messed up transporting ‘Admiral Archer’s Beagle’ – Archer would be about 140 years old by Trek XI but Bones lived this long, didn’t he?
I think if this film isn’t a straight reboot, then I as a canonista will be very pleased, when they could have very easily just done a pure reboot. I will be grateful for that, and will be very optimistic about the film as a whole. The fact that the comic book bridges events from ‘Nemesis’ is more than I hoped for. Even though Nemesis was cack.
No trailer at Valley View Mall in Dallas, Tx
I just wish Uhura from the series had taken her shirt off back then!
Nothing, and I mean nothing that they show me in this movie will invalidate or make irellevant TOS. They can change it all or they can expalin it all with an alternate timeline, I don’t care. I love all forms of Trek and all I want is a good movie. I’m excited and hopeful for the future of Star Trek. If Leonard Nimoy gave this movie his blessing, than that’s good enough for me.
@803
It’s one thing to be abused by people you “just have to live with.”
Its another thing entirely when your friends, or at least people “you” personally like turn on you.
I think that we will see Spock gaining a certain respect for Kirk, whether through interaction or Pike talking him up, and then for Kirk to proverbially “kick him in the Jimmy” (upon Spock Prime’s advice) will send him literally into another point. Spock Prime will do this realizing that this may be an important point in his own life, and for young Spock, he will realize, “Wow, I really need to watch out for this type of thing, because my human half responds really poorly to this.”
Which is why later, Kirk has to pull insulting not Spock, but his mother to get him irritated.
:)
Okay, I’m stretching, but the Rum helps.
815. Redshirt96
best post ever. I wish more people had your attitude.
Admiral Archer could be Johnathan’s son, or Grandson for all we know…
[791] It is no cameo. We will see Spock Prome start his journey, and then he will appear in the snow in time to save Kirk from that creature that attacks him in the trailer. Together they will walk to the outpost where they will meet the scotsman.
Sorry, Spock Prime of course…
BTW, I’ve just thought about it, young Kirk could have always done the full “James Tiberius Kirk” (a point he might have made in his log, which is why it was used during his trial, as a lawyerly ploy to disarm him a bit.) but at a certain point he goes, “Naw…that sounds goofy, I know, I’m James T. Kirk.”
D -well indeed, my point being this mention of Archer’s Beagle is a nod to ENT, and therefore to canon.
726. Jax Maxton – November 16, 2008
Understand completely.
The only advantage we have over everything else, like Superman Returns and the new Star Wars, is that we are the recipients of whatever lessons can be gleaned from all that has come before.
An open mind is all we ask.
Re #816, oh he insulted Spock, his mother, and his father.
You could be right. Kirk’s attack could come off as a competely inexplicable betrayal which cuts on so many levels that Spock can’t process it fast enough.
I can agree that Spock’s character IS emotional, even though a large majority of the time he resorts to reason and logic to express it in non-emotional ways.
Much like Spock, in “The Undiscovered Country,” when dealing with Lt. Valeris or imploring another crewmate to “Dammit, you will try,” Mr. Spock is indeed emotional.
You guys are getting to the “meat and potatoes,” which I find very interesting. The plot of this movie piques my interest even more. I love a good plot I can sink my teeth into and chew on…for awhile.
This very fact makes this film even more important, especially when dealing with characters as are in Star Trek. I have faith that this new movie will bring tears to the hard-core fan’s eyes when they realize the magnitude of thought which has gone into this film.
Just by reading some of Anthony’s observations tells me that this film is nothing to sneeze at and offers us some great story, with additional side-benefits of sucessfully rebooting an entire franchise.
No, No, Mr. Trek Fan, this isn’t some hasty thought up sequel like “Lost in Space,” which has the facadical exterior blown off at launch, like the overcoat protection of a psuedo Jupiter 2. I am even more fascinated now, than I was before. I want to see this movie, and I want to see it badly. So, the journey begins and it will only get better from here.
Thank you all for your expert critique and observations, and I have the utmost respect at the commentary presented here from people that care, if this were some other movie, we would not have this much, indeed, we would have had our comments deleted due to our “heated debate,” by an uncaring moderator.
HERE HERE!!!
Sincerely,
Trekwebmaster
If we learn a lesson from Superman Returns it’s to put more than one cool action sequence (the shuttle / plane sequence) in a movie that’s over two hours long.
Have seen the trailer in the theater. (Dig the new Bond!) Also can’t help but watch on line a few more times in the last day or so. My mind is open to the possibilities of what this might be. Thinking back to all the STAR TREKS they were always having time messed with and it seems like you could make cases for alternate streams opening up. I still can look at this as a reboot hooked in with a continuity in some respects. One could looked at THE NAKED TIME from the old series where at the end of the show the Enterprise got knocked back in time a few days. Would there not be two Enterprises now? The one at that present time with the one from a few days in the future or has a new time line been created? I love that in DS9 they talked about some of these time mishaps and how Kirk was involved in some. I think I am remembering that right. Anyways I can only wait till I walk out of the theater in May of 2009 to make my final judgment. There are elements from the trailer that do look cool and others I am not totally sold on yet. I will just wait and see how it all plays out. Should be interesting and hey it is just a movie in the end.
I just take that because for the longest time, I used to go by both my first and middle names, but when I became an adult, and away from my parents, I finally just went by only my first name. It never came to a head until my wedding, when one of my inlaws referred to me by my first name and my mother got all indignant and said , his name is “First Name/Middle Name”.
It still raises Caine, but I’ve made it clear, I am the name I choose to go by, regardless of what my parents think.
#819, So was saving Kirk from the monster (which does look like a Cloverfield parasite, btw) altering the timeline or restoring it?
Oy, I got a headache.
Love the trailer! Dont like the arguing on this thread though, kinda anti-trek. That is unless you are a tellarite.
[829] I was speculating about that, only Bob knows the truth ;))
I know what you mean #828
What say you, Akbrit of Earth? How do you vote on Coridan?
823. Boborci
I believe I can manage an open mind…
I think we all should stop focusing on this “reboot.”
What I think is when the “powers that be” saw what they had created, they realized it COULD and POSSIBLY would “reboot” the franchise, and then they put the idea out there, it was not them that took the “reboot” bone and ran with it, it was us that did.
Well, I hope it does re-invigorate the franchise, “revamp,” “reboot,” or “restart,” isn’t that a term meant to clear up errors or “pull it up by the bootstraps” when a new addition is added so it can work correctly?
Hold your station, Lt., on my mark,” …and yet the “mark” hasn’t been said yet, that day is May 08, 2009.
Trekwebmaster
#830. I take it you’re Andrian
Errr, Andorian
As long as I don’t leave with an open wrist.
Remember when it was rumored that Matt damon was going to play Kirk, long before JJ Abrams came on board? I miss those days.
804: To Anthony Pascale:
I concur completely. It is obvious that this film is VASTLY different than any Star Trek any of us has seen, and the many mentions of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” confirms that this CAN BE Star Trek at the same time of NOT being it. Giving it a fresh start, perhaps, and a chance to reboot itself but having a good explanation of how and why it can be done by usurping the canon of the past 42 years using the previous universe as its explanation. If it works, it will be brilliant. I really hope it works.
823: To Bob Orci:
I will do my best to come into it with an open mind. At this point, in seeing by the trailer how different it is, I really see no alternative. I love Star Trek and given the depth you have shown as to how you feel about the franchise, I trust that you can do all of us justice.
deleted by admin
And the “insulted by your friends thing” I came up with…
Personal experience, about Star Trek, in Junior High School.
I almost beat a man whom I still consider a close friend to a pulp that day.
839. Kirk’s Girdle – November 16, 2008
“As long as I don’t leave with an open wrist.”
Tell me about it. Think I wanna go down as one of the guys who killed Trek?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxCqP_7HH8I
Maybe old Spock tells new Kirk the line about the dog faced boy?
[843] Relax, Bob, after what I saw you kicked it back to life…
People need to stop bitching about the shipyards being on Earth. Yes, in the original canon, they were built in space, but it would make perfect sense to build ships in a gravity well to test structural integrity. Space is not always weightless–there are countless numbers of gravitational anomalies that will affect a ship’s design. Anyhoo, thats my two cents–love the trailer!!!
Re: Boborci,
You’ll end up sucking down Meisterbrau’s at the corner bar with Rick Berman.
#823 Roberto Orci, como estás? Te cuento que acá en Argentina, Star Trek nunca tuvo mucho éxito, pero muchos de mis amigos ahora después de ver la colilla, están entusiasmados por verla, realmente gracias por traer de vuelta a la vida una de las mejores serie de todos los tiempos!
De paso, Transformers, ESPECTACULAR
804. Anthony Pascale
Thanks for that explanation. I am not someone that has looked for every interview, description, what have you of the new Trek movie. I really haven’t given it much thought till I saw the picture of the Enterprise. If they are doing this film in the way you’re saying, then I can definitely breathe a little easier.
Do you think that maybe Paramount has screwed up a bit in how they’re marketing Star Trek? Granted, I haven’t really seen much but the Entertainment Weekly article, and they just don’t seem to be explaining themselves very well. Perhaps they started the big push of publicity a bit too early? It just seems that the publicity hasn’t really done much to make fans happy, and I would think that would be a major concern for Paramount, no matter what JJ Abrams or anyone else says.
I don’t know. It’s easy to second guess when sitting at home watching football.
@ Boborci
HAHA! Do you really think you, a mere mortal can “Kill” Star Trek.
You may shove it into “weird, strangeness, obsessive compulsive” mode, but the majority of the world already views it like that.
Star Trek is like a Cockroach now…it can be reduced to a mere handful, but it will endure a nuclear holocaust.
Afterall, my two year old son only knows about Star Trek from the series, the movies, a handful of Youtube videos, and the Johnny Lightning toys. He refuses to go to sleep without one of the Johnny Lightning toys in his hands now.
My wife said it best, as a non-trek fan, “Good God, you’ve created a Monster, Frankenstein.”
To which I replied, “It’s Fraenken-shteen!”
843. Boborci
You guys can’t kill Star Trek. It was pretty much dead before you guys (And that’s coming from a big fan of “Enterprise”). If anything, at least you guys have brought interest back to this floundering franchise.
All i can say is WOW!
This is just awesome. Im a long life fan of TOS and i was horrified when i heard that they were going back to the old characters but this trailer gave me goosebumps.
Its going to be MASSIVE. icant wait another six months!!
Thank you JJ. from what ive seen its classic Trek.
Greg
UK
#804 Let me try.. Where does Star Trek (XI) fit? (conjecture)
Trek Universe A= ENT,TOS,TOS movies, TNG, TNG movies, DS9, VOY (in chronological sequence).
Due to post-NEM Romulan interference in the past, Trek Universe B is formed after ENT and before NCC-1701 design/ construction. ( I think it happens even before the Kelvin attack. since her design isn’t quite early TOS either.) Likely post FC. This universe is a splinter of A, but does not replace Universe A, but runs “along side it”. I think the formation of B is an unforeseen side effect of the Romulan attacks in the past. They force the B-Federation into speeding up the quest for better defense technologies, thus newer looking starships, beyond A-TOS. The timeline of B becomes radically different than A. Post-Nem Spock prime finds out about the Romulan plot to destroy Vulcan of the past and is sucked into Universe B trying to stop it. Only he knows of this change because of experience.
This is likely full of huge holes, but I think this movie is a sequel. All events, Trek pre-history, ENT through NEM, needed to happen for this new universe B to exist. Events from A caused B to happen.
And, I’ve set aside a model kit, the Special Edition Enterprise-A with sound effects, with a special note.
“Projected Started 1994, ended 20**: To be assembled by a father and son, with undying love and affection.”
1994 being when my dad picked up the model (as best as I can remember) and 20** with a blank for when Myself and my son finish the model. My dad started construction, but stopped because I had gotten into the box and kept “test fitting” the sound board to the point I severed one of the electrical connections. I plan to fix that, (simple sauder job) and put it together with my son. 3 generations of Trekkies in one kit.
847:
Ouch!
853 Xai:
Your theory is exactly what I have been thinking/stating for some time. At least there are those around that see this theory as the explanation. It really nixes all canon issues (except for extra-galactic concerns).
I had no idea this was the Star Trek trailer until the actor said “I’m James T…” then I knew. It was a pleasant surprise before the Bond movie.
And I credit/ blame Closettrekker for quite a bit of #852
Please let this be the final comment on where the Enterprise was built.
Jeffries design looks like tubes and sticks and cylinders and a saucer put together. This is not a reflection of the overall grandeur of the final design, but he probably thought about components being flown into space and assembled by astronauts.
Consider the analogy of Apple Computer products which say “Made in California, Assembled in China.” It was finalized in space, certainly, was it not? Does this not work as a compromise? People, it was built on earth AND in space. Please let this issue rest when there are so many other Trek issues to discuss.
Bob Orci, Bob Orci… what about MY question???!!!
787.
LOL
I hope in this movie we finally get the combination to Kirk’s safe that he keeps his medals in.
You people who are doing all the complaining should wait until it comes out. There is nothing you can do to change it at this point. I think the movie is probably being made primarily to introduce characters to a new generation with a few nods and winks to the fans of the original series.
What is canon anyway? There was no mention of Carol Marcus in any of the TV episodes. The TV show very clearly mentioned his love at the academy was Ruth.
I put the trailer back up on Youtube this time….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSgvAHu3IEI&fmt=18
Since Vimeo booted me off their site for putting up the trailer there ;)
Starfleet uses artificial gravity, Ensign Ruiter. The Ship will lift itself into space on launch day, after somebody smashed a bottle of champagne against her hull…
[861] Of course you don’t expect Jim Kirk to have just one girlfriend in the academy years, Bill?
Boborci – No worries, dude. Everything is going to be fine.
As I’m sure you know the passion associated with Trek is a phenomenon pretty much unique in entertainment. I’m not sure anyone really knows how far it reaches. Some of these threads are evidence of that passion but are not anything in the realm of a scientific poll. In short, to a lot of people Trek is a lot more than entertainment. They get excited and emotional about it. That’s what it does to people.
Obviously yes something had to be done. Trek was dying a long slow, ugly death.
You guys chose a route after careful deliberation I’m sure. You also had to know you were playing with fire. That said, no matter what happens you know you went boldly in the true spirit of Trek. But I’m not worried. I’m sure it’s going to be HUGE, ultra-boffo, etc.
They’re reporting on the huge success of James Bond this weekend. Evidently biggest Bond opening ever. Wonder what the stats are on how much of that business was due to interested Trek fans.
@123, Kostas:
You are not alone my friend. Star Trek gia panta!
I keep reviewing the trailer and more and more I think this is going to be a great story…new Enterprise is slowly growing on me.
Truly, I thought the car chase at the beginning was a Coke commercial. The Cops foot stepping into frame was excessively cheesy. The trench that young Kirk falls into is OBVIOUSLY some kind of mined trench. The whole TOS crew getting together down to the very last character is stretching credulity. Trek storylines choose the Time Travel option WAY too often. On the Spock showing emotions debacle, Kirk has always known exactly what buttons to push in Spock to put him over the edge so that’s all right. That’s probably what makes them such good friends. Spock respects Kirks insight into people and what makes them tick. As far as Uhura showing her lingerie and Kirk doing the horizontal hula, as long as it’s pertinent to the characters who cares? All they need to do is get the Kirk-Spock-McCoy Triad right and the rest I’ll let go. Bones being the constant navel gazer and Kirks conscience and Spock doing the cold calculations in stark contrast to McCoys sometimes timid hang wringing. Some of the best dialogue in the TOS series was 2 or 3 of these characters sitting down in a plain room on the Enterprise and discussing the philosophical ramifications of their actions. I hope the writers didn’t leave that out, if they did Star Trek is “Lost”.
The trailer makes the movie look like something I’d watch even if I wasn’t a Trekkie (in fact I’m more of a casual fan than anything), which I suppose is exactly what the production was aiming for since they needed a reboot capable of attracting new audience.
My girlfriend is 21, has never seen an episode of the most recent Star Trek series before, doesn’t exactly like sci-fi and has always considered TOS an archaic and unintentionally comedic cheesy TV show characterized by cheap-ass special FX’s with people pretending to be astronauts whilst wearing silly pajamas (truth being told, ST has never been a success in our country, I had to rely on 3 AM reruns to watch a few episodes of DS9 and VOY while ENT was taken off the prime time after just a few seasons due to the lackluster ratings), however, after taking a look at the trailer, she said she’d like to see this movie when it comes out because it looks “cool, exciting and epic in a sort of way”.
I think JJ and his team have done a pretty good job this time around.
btw we’re italian.
An explanation for the gash in the earth:
The Xindi Weapon’s effect? A tip of the hat to ENT?
Just a thought.
First of all: Im impressed how many people have nothing to do.
No wonder ths US economy is criplling.
Second: Hey, this is science FICTION!
and its free!!!
you DONT have to see this movie. You are offered the opportunity to walk into the cineplex next to you and watch it, but you dont have to do it.
And last thought: You can open your dirty mouths as much you like, but no one will listen to your or anyone´s ideas here.
JJ did the movie and thats it. Not you and not me or anyone else.
in the past i thought trek fans were a modern free thinking state, which would certainly elect obama. but now ive got the feeling trekies are mostly fat unemployed dreamless conservatives who would eiter elect shatner president or if this aint possible mccain.
im dissapointed of you.
Didnt the Xindi weapon attack ONLY Florida?
And that landscape is in no way part of Florida.
As for the Corvette sequence – I think it was well done, and perfect for establishing Kirk as long as its a limited sequence. Just MHO.
IT’S A PARADOX:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLIVbm0lm80
” 732. Anthony Pascale – November 16, 2008
I am all for people expressing their own opinions, but I also want to remind people that there is no ‘right’ way to be a fan. No one has the market on the right point of view, we may not agree on all, but we are all star trek fans.
Also, with Regards to Gene Roddenberry. I have noted a number of fans who believe they can speak for Mr. Roddenberry and think they know how he would see this Trek. Well unless you are a psychic, or at the very least knew him personally, you cannot speak for him. I suggest you let him speak for himself. Here are a couple of informative articles we did about the man a few months ago:”
I think that Gene would be against this film, from what has been seen so far, due to one piece of evidence which has not been mentioned here- When ST 6 was going to come out he saw the film and then promptly called his lawyer to have Nick Meyer take out the militaristic and violent elements in the film, but, before that happened Gene died. Also, he called the events of ST 6 apocryphal at best. He did not like Trek to be militaristic or to show his characters as less then perfect in regards to social equality,etc. And ST 6 showed a somewhat racist crew in regards to the Klingons.
[874]
Xindi, with space nazis, hehe, that was really great stuff. No surprise that Coto killed that storyline as fast as he could.
It was the soulless and lackluster try to copy the amazing world created in Farscape.
According to the Trek Wiki, the Xindi prototype’s first attack started in “Florida” and killed some seven million people. Ran a trench all the way down to Venezuela. Problem is that Iowa and Florida do not lie along the same longitude. This is a bit of a reach, but I thought I heard that ENT was going to receive a hat tip from the movie producers.
OTOH, it could just be a long quarry in Iowa.
Again, just a thought.
Anyone know when the trailers going to be in the UK and with what picture. I can’t bear waiting anymore, I have seen the boot leged version through my hands, but just wanna see and hear it as it’s ment to be seen
Post # 349:
NO!
804. Anthony Pascale – November 16, 2008
“I think when you look at all of that together you start to see a pattern emerge.”
A pattern? Are we onto Fringe now?
881/Orci
Yes!
It is my theory that Massive Dynamics built the Enterprise
873:
Go onto another site and whinge.
Judging by your limited English, and your obviously busy schedule, you have not had the time to read the thousands of posts and many differing opinions here.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we were….
Funny, I thought the Enterprise got built by the usual method: Appropriations passed by the Federation Council.
The rest is just details.
While we’re at it, maybe the Dharma Initiative is funding Nero’s little escapade.
I wondered about the huge Slusho logo on top of the saucer section…
[886] For a second I thought I saw a cloud of black smoke, whirring like a NYC Taxi Cab, on the Kelvins Bridge…
I actually loved this trailer, the Enterprise seemed really nice in those shots and the Red Alert give it that familiar sense of home.
This seems like Trek getting one hell of a makeover and rightly so, my girl friend even thinks it looks good lol
I look forward to see something of Mr.Nimoy
Make it so!
I can’t put out a good argument, but here it goes…
I’m sure many people mentioned this before, but TOS canon is going to be broken when we get new Star Trek!
Gene Roddenberry said that Star Trek could’ve taken place anywhere between the 21st to the 31 Centuries, until after TWOK and TNG came out, a timeline was established.
Sulu didn’t have a first name until ST IV: TVH was made…
..As well as Grayson and Tiberius from TAS
Off the top of my head, that’s all I can think of at the moment (I know; some Star Trek fan I am). Fans have been dying for something new from Star Trek to be made and now that it’s come: Us fans will have something to enjoy while new ones will too (since they’ll be amused by the pretty looking objects while embracing what TOS could be like). Good will come out of this and now I’m sure of it once I saw the trailer.
You ‘fanon boys’ may complain now, but whatever Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman bring to TOS canon, I’m sure you’ll defend it just as much as what was brought by Bennett and Meyer after this movie comes out.
Enjoy the movie next May. ;)
885. section9
In the new Trek, it’s part of a massive government bailout for Ford, who has the contract to build the new spaceships.
in #804 Anthony said: “So what is it? well that is the fuzzier question. But again going back to the well of things Bob has said, over a year ago he noted how one of the key episodes that they looked was ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’.
I think when you look at all of that together you start to see a pattern emerge.”
Which to me means that if we’re talking time travel, most every Trek TV episode that was in danger of “changing” the timeline, from “Yesterday’s Enterprise” to “Year of Hell” to “Time’s Arrow,” had everything “fixed” by the end of the story. If they are actually working within that sort of pattern, I think it would be absolutely killer (as I posited earlier) if we see the familiar TOS Ent at the end, after some temporal wormhole fireworks or a Romulan singularity reactor gets imploded at just the right moment. Hmm…who was it that was tasked with making timewarp calculations previously? Who could that have been? :)
892. Rick Sternbach
I took Anthony’s comment to mean that the Federation would be involved in an all out war with the Romulans, and that this war would actually be a bit of a continuation of “Nemesis” and “Unification”. Which is smart. The Romulans are the most underused Trek baddies around, yet in some ways the coolest. I think that in the alternate timeline, Kirk’s dad gets killed in a battle with the Romulans, which takes Kirk on a subtle downward slide. In some Trek books Kirk’s dad had a hand in designing the Enterprise, which could explain the differences.
Also, how cool would it be that Pike is a mentor of young Kirk cause Old Spock told him to be?
I’ve got a better one…we see Spock Prime sacrificing himself to same some semblence of the timeline…ie, one where young Kirk survives.
Knowing it will come down to a cycle, and perhaps even a Paradox, Spock finally understands Kirk’s words from the end of Star Trek III,
“My father says, you came back for me.”
“You would have done the same for me.”
“Why would you do this?”
“Because the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the many.”
I’ve noticed that ILM does a good job when it’s not George Lucas who’s footin’ the bill! The visual effects look amazing!!!!
FAN-FRIGGIN-TASTIC!!!
Can’t wait to see the full movie. It’s gonna rock. If the film, script and continuity issues pass with Mr. Nimoy, then I ain’t a worryin’ ’bout them.
Sincerely,
A loooooooong time, die-hard, trek/trekkie/trekker, geek, nerd, fan who has spent countless time and $$$$$ over the last 35 years on books, movies, dvds, conventions, merchandise, autographs, and other stuff.
*I meant save, not same
#873
Let’s keep politics out this thread. Glad you see you seem to have everything all figured out, though.
@ 847
That was pretty low dude.
The opening was odd, but other than that a fairly solid trailer.
Still have some questions/concerns, but it’ll likely all work out in the end.
I definitely like the *look* of it all.
By the way, I’m glad I waited to see this in the theater (QoS was very good too). Had to come on here and check it out as soon as I got back home though.
Impressive trailer.
Looking forward to the HD trailer.
Ohh I like this quote from Aintitcool News!
“I’ve seen the trailer and this movie will suck because I haven’t seen it yet!”
Hehehehehe!!!
OK guys, just to be clear, I was not leaking any explicit plot spoilers, although speculation is fun. Just repeating what is in the public domain already and noting the theme.
My point was that people naturally want to try and categorize things so they are easy to understand. Yet with this film, notions like ‘prequel’ and ‘reboot’ dont fit entirely. For those who imagined this film is supposed to be an Ep. III like prequel, it becomes more frustrating when trying to see how this all ‘fits’ I was just suggesting that people open their mind beyond the usual strict definitions of things like prequel, and so maybe things can be different and ‘fit’ at the same time.
Maybe those who wrote the script of this movie did it in the same spirit as those who wrote the original episodes, not as something as part of a 40 year legacy…but as just another part set within a loosely defined parameter.
And as far as nods to “TOS” for Roddenberry’s sake, the uniforms were a huge concession…
22. rationaloptamism. – November 15, 2008
Boy I hope you’re right!!
Love the trailer, lot of fun, some big action, some supremely delivered lines. BUT couple problems.
First, that Enterprise being built out in a desert… yeah, again, 22, hope you’re right. It is ridiculous that it’s already put together – which was the only thing that redeemed the original idea of it being built on Earth with the first teaser. Just hope there’s something really crazy going on.
Second: this sticks in my ear EVERY time! “You’ve always had a hard time finding your place in this world… Never knowing your true worth… you feel like you were meant for something better, sum’in special.” THAT is one of the greatest sins in Star Trek– when people don’t say complete words. Picard never turned an ED into an A. Argh. I don’t hate Wussley at all, in fact I sort of liked him in TNG, but he couldn’t get his words together. And now, here we have the original captain of the Enterprise slurring “something” into “sum’in”. Argh! It fires me up!!
And Third: I think the space battles are too colourful. That won’t kill a movie, but it kind of bugs me. I understand bad guys in Star Wars used Red lasers and good guys used Blue … but seriously, Star Trek could rise above that. Anyway.
Great trailer nonetheless. Looks great. Geekgasms were had.
899 re: 847.
Agreed. Excuse me, Kirk’s Girdle, but have YOU written any high-profile screenplays lately that you’d like us to dis sight unseen?
Bob Orci is a game & courageous fellow to engage his fellow nerds on our turf, if you ask me. I’ll give him the open mind he asks for.
I was afraid that this one was really going to be the one to break the camels back and ruin Star trek forever but now I see I was GLADLY mistaken. THAT LOOKED %*#@!% AWSOME!!!!
#903 – With time travel in the mix, absolutely anything can be -made- to fit, and if we only saw bits and pieces, we wouldn’t fully understand how it all fit until we see the entire film. If you only saw bits of Voyager’s “Year of Hell,” (like in “Next time on Star Trek Voyager…”), you’d be confused as hell if you saw things that didn’t fit. As it was, we saw two chunks of 46:30 where most of the story ended up not even “happening” because the weapon-ship was blown to dust in the end. Like Dennis Miller, I could be wrong.
Re: 870: ” All they need to do is get the Kirk-Spock-McCoy Triad right and the rest I’ll let go.”
I mostly agree — but, I still need a good story.
On the time travel aspect — Though I understand the reasoning for it (to get Nimoy) and hope it works — I sincrely desire that this is the last for a while (IF there are more sequels) — 3 times in 11 movies is enough.
Oops, I meant “sincerely.”
Good thing I haven’t been attacking anyone’s grammar.
#910
Me, I love time travel plots — all the philosophical and existential head-trips involved. Ever since I read Heinlein’s “The Door Into Summer” as a kid, I’ve really gone for stuff.
Assuming it’s done well. If it’s full of plot holes and incongruities, then that’s another matter.
#892
Rick that would be VERY cool indeed.
Let’s keep our fingers (and toes) crossed that it plays out similarly to what you describe!
Invader
I honestly hope it’s not a Voyager-esque ending where the events of the movie “never happened” and the crew have no memory. When this happened in Voyager, the time-altered versions of the crew were a lot more interesting than their unaltered normal versions eg Harry Kim in timeless, Janeway in Year of Hell, and yes I’m trying to forget the final ever episode… ;)
Xai speculating about First Contact got me thinking. When the Enterprise E returns to the future after Nero’s tampering, they’ll get a second shot at restoring the timeline back. All they have to do of course is set their ship to the same settings as the Borg Sphere and “recreate the vortex”.
Ok first of all are you Rick Sternbach from voyager? If you are, then that is really awesome.
But do remember that one of the best (in my opinion) time travel stories was in Yesterday’s Enterprise, because even though at the end of the episode everything was put back to normal, things still changed in the timeline that allowed Tasha Yar to live and have Sela as her daughter.
Fury in Voyager is also a good example, since at the end of the episode in the timeline that was created by Kes going back through time, B’lanna (don’t think the spelling is right) never died, and Kes decided to end up going back home to Ocampa.
909:
Rick:
That would be terrific.
It would sort of be a tribute to how Trek always rights itself.
But I think JJ and the boys need to clear the TOS timeline to create a clean slate for the future.
If everything flashed back to perfect canonical Trek once the “time” issue is solved, many would jump for joy. But many many more wouldn’t care. There’ll be some kind of middle ground.
What’s interesting in the trailer is that Kirk’s story is completely different than what we already know, while Spock’s is 100% on target.
Anyway, JJ & Co love to play with our minds, so I’m sure all of us are wrong ;-)
Bob Orci, if you’re reading.
While, as a fan, I was very distressed over the new design of the Enterprise…and questioned whether I really felt as enthusiastic about the movie as I had originally been, I have taken the time to put everything in the proper perspective.
As I’ve personally felt all along, this is a new interpretation of Star Trek…and that’s good. Bold changes…also good.
Watching the teaser, it didn’t feel like any Star Trek movie I have seen before. What I saw of the characters, I bought into…even though they weren’t behaving as I knew them.
This will be new, this will be different. I’m looking forward to it.
I just had a thought, while watching the remastered version of “Operation: Annihilate” on Itunes…
Perhaps this is not Star Trek as reimagined by someone with 40+ years knowledge, but someone doing a reimagining based upon the first season of Star Trek.
There are lots of “incogrinuties” (bleep bloop made up word accomplisment) in the first season, but imagine then going back and making a movie based upon that.
Simply put…imagine having the BSG opportunity with Star Trek…a one season show to redo.
Can’t wait. I love the look and the pace. Really excited now! Trek Lives! good job to J.J. and Bob and Alex, etc. If Nimoy signed off on it, I have no worries.
903. Anthony Pascale
I was reading my post and realize I made it sound like you were giving some story points. I really meant my little story idea as an example of what you were saying, not that I was taking any actual story points out of your post. Sorry about that.
Speculation is fun, though.
I think what we all also need to recognize is that Trek is still a huge franchise for Paramount, and I doubt they’re going to let the creators do anything TOO crazy on this film. I’m sure it was written and directed under some restrictions and following some rules. I would be really surprised if the creators had complete free reign to play in the Star Trek original cast universe. I could be wrong, however.
NEWSFLASH: Due to overwhelmingly positive fan response to the upcoming “Star Trek” reboot another Hollywood studio is looking at re-imagining “The Right Stuff”. Shia LaBeouf will star as Alan Shephard, Hayden Christensen as Chuck Yeager, Jake M. Smith will play John Glenn and rounding out the cast will be Beyoncé as Gus Grissom and Anthony Hopkins as Gordon “Gordo” Cooper. The story is a re-telling of America’s race to the stars with some twists. At the point the movie opens the American military is desperate for a way to “get back” at Russia for developing the atomic bomb and ending World War II. President Johnny Kennedy and his elite task force, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, have developed a super-secret under-water launch facility near Bermuda from which they will train and fly their Mercury XL-5 hyper-space dimensional rockets to defend America from the Red Threat.
Okay, this is my last post on this particular thread.
I think that what is required to enjoy this particular movie…is a “Kohlinar” ritual…a shedding of all previous emotional devotions to attain a “pure understanding of the Logic of Star Trek.”
This means shedding emotional attachments to things such as canon..
In basic english…take this movie and view it as an NBC executive viewing a pilot for a new show by a young director promising you a “Wagon Train to the Stars”….in contemporary 21st Century terms.
Excellent trailer. One thing at 1:29/1:30
Whats an Arachnid from Starship Troopers doing in it?
@Reimagine this
Haha, very funny, but one simple fact.
Real history, though often rewritten, is often done through blood.
Fictional History…hell, I’ve rewritten that dozens of times.
Watching this, I think it would be a great action flick. But sadly, it’s not just “not your daddy’s trek”, it’s probably not my trek too. I’ll watch it. But I can’t help but feel like it could become the Attack of the Clones of trek…
From the kid saying “I’m James Tiberious Kirk” to seeing young kirk on a bike near the construction site, something seems wrong. And the Enterprise interior still seems white as a medical facility.
I do hope very much that the actual movie will change my mind. I very much hope so. I want to like it. I really do.
And curse you for causing me to break my promise….
Nuclear weapons for you all.
Reporter: “Let me guess… You were built in outer space.”
Enterprise: “No, I was built in Iowa, I only work in outer space.”
Just out of curiosity Bob Orci, how are you guys feeling about Anthony posting the bootleg? Oh and anthony, just wondering, what is BOTF? Are you refering to Back to the future? cause if so its BTTF not BOTF.
Actually, I have a farm in Idaho…
and we actually have a cliff like that…and a 66 Corvette in barn…
There’s a giant Romulan Octopus-ship in our basement.
And being from Iowa is bad how?
Hmmmm????
Apparently we make dam good starship captains AND starships.
How many starship captains did your state produce??
Huh? huh?huh?
(Still trying to figure out the giant rip in the planet over by Riverside… not showing up on Google maps…)
Oh i got a cool nickname for Abrams Orci and Kurtzman: A-OK for each last initial of you guys. Just a random thing i came up with.
Forgot to mention…. I liked seeing Vasquez rocks in the trailer. Nice touch… even if they are in California.
While I am no expert on Gene Roddenberry, as a sociologist and a professor, I have researched the archives at the University of Iowa’s Nicholas Meyer collection, which includes many of the actual memos by Gene Roddenberry voicing his opinion of the versions of Trek by directors such as Meyer and Nimoy in his role as Executive Consultant.
His words in these hundred pages of documents do not reveal the kind of problems that some here are claiming on his behalf. For example, he does not state in any of these memos that he hated Star Trek VI at all. He had some problems with dialog (the Nixon reference, for example), yet Gene Roddenberry’s main concerns were usually about character, not narrative or technology (although he occassionally corrects the science or words used in scripts in his memos).
This is merely my opinion, yet it is based on Gene Roddenberry’s own words from his memos. His memos were more concerned with meta issues such as character integrity and not with more petty concerns such as ship designs or uniforms.
In fact, my favorite quote of Gene Roddenberry not from these memos though is from a Dan Madsen interview. Gene Roddenberry states that
“I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, “Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!” And that would please me!”
This certain implies that Roddenberry wouldn’t have minded changes, because obviously for someone to say “Now this is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!” he is acknowledging change. I hope his comment is prophetic, and the new Star Trek is great. I hope this is a Star Trek that my son will love, so that as he grows, he can have some of the fun and adventure, some of the thoughtful commentary and sociology, that I experienced at his age. If it is pleases me, the 40 year fan, then great. But I think it needs to be more my son’s Trek than mine. And I think Gene Roddenberry might agree based on his comments.
Thank you for reading my notions.
http://vimeo.com/2254797
Better quality.
Yes, it is sad in a way that people constantly complain about the little details being different in the movie, when they seem to be overlooking the idea that Star Trek is about exploring new worlds, and boldly going where nobody has gone before. It’s based on the ideal that everyone can coexist in humanity and that a massive federation can be created with many different worlds and people. In the end it doesn’t really matter why the uniforms changed from gold to red between series, or why the transporter effect is always different, it matters that this is Star Trek.
935. John Tenuto
Nice take. And to think I just about gave up on reading anymore on this board and was going to wait for tomorrow’s “official trailer” posting. Thanks for your insight.
937. voyager
Maybe try thinking of the complaining as therapy. How can we move on without letting go of the old. That’s not easy for some people, me included.
#323 I think is going the Alternate time line way with this film, It would be way to get rid of the canon baggage that hampers the film, you could be right of course.
@932
No, I was just enjoying a personal fantasy that somehow, JTK was somehow affililated with DAG, from Idaho…a fantasy I’ve harbored since Star Trek: Generations.
Were I to seperated everything…
Uhm, hello, WWIII, what other cause for a giant gash in Iowa could there be. I mean, take a Solar Energy Collecter and turn it into a ray beam…wahla…giant gash in Iowa. The intended Earth bound receiver has long been destroyed.
914 (and others), what if the proper timeline was, and always has been, the one that is the main focus of this story (i.e., the one in which Kirk is portrayed by Pine, Spock is portrayed by Zachary Quinto, etc.)?
How could this be rationalized? Quite easily. When Kirk and Spock failed to save Edith Keeler, the proper timeline (1) that gave rise to Pine-as-Kirk (and eventually to the Federation) was disrupted. Instead, the timeline (2) that generated Shatner-as-Kirk was created. A predestination paradox was created (or avoided, depending on how you look at it), since Shatner-as-Kirk had always been predestined to fail to save Keeler in any timeline in which the second timeline existed. (In timeline (1), Hitler was nevertheless defeated, but only after occupying the United States. A resistance movement in this country ultimately formed to defeat Hitler through uniting most of the countries of the Americas and in the process accelerated the civil rights movement. As the result of enlightened government, the Cold War and the costly war in Vietnam and other quasi-imperialist ventures were avoided, allowing the world to devote full energies to development of advanced technologies. Ironically, this was to lead to the creation of Khan Noonien Singh’s super-race and the Third World War. It was also to lead to the creation of the Federation — the only timeline in which it was to exist in the form we know.)
Timeline (2) resulted in the conversion of all instantiations of Pine-as-Kirk into Shatner-as-Kirk, leading to the timeline — ultimately a dead end — in which we live today. The sole remnant of the proper timeline was the result of the implantation of Star Trek (TOS – 1966-1969), which was to lead to the creation of Star Trek (2009) as the progenitor of a new World Soul. The implanter, of course, is a certain ambassador from Vulcan….
Simple.
How many times has teh timeline been changed in TOS? We know that it was changed in Yesterday’s Enterprise. We know it was changed in First Contact. How many times did Voyager change it? Even in DS9, they changed the time line. All this… especially First Contact… affected the time line and changed things.
After watching it several times (in this poor resolution mind you), I must say this may be the best trailer of the decade. I’m more pumped than I’ve been for any movie that’s been released recently. This may very well trump the Dark Knight!
How in the world are they going to explain how the Klingon’s have ridges AGAIN??
So, they go from Ridges (ENT Season 1-3), to no Ridges (ENT Season 4), back to Ridges for the new movie, then they lose their Ridges again for TOS, but wait, the Ridges return for TMP and the rest of Trek?
Makes no sense whatsoever. I just wanted to vent that…..since only one of my friends likes Star Trek, I have nowhere else to get it off my chest!
I’m hoping that the alternate timeline rumors are true, which would set my mind at ease, but I think someone else said it best when they said that they would rather see the “real” telling of how things went down.
#941
Ok, it’s a start.
Take it further… where’s the slag or charring?
Bob Orci (bob, where are you?) suggested (flippantly?) that there was an earthquake…
or a quarry… which I suppose could happen. Vast Dilithium vein found adjacent to the Midcontinent Rift that runs though Iowa at a very great depth? (The rift is real, Dilithium.. well maybe)
This a reboot more then it is a prequel.
I just got back from seeing “Quantum of Solace” and I can tell you that the trailer plays much better on the big screen than at home.
The response from the audience was somewhat muted. The trailer for “Angels and Demons” seemed to get a bigger response from the audience.
Star Trek is going to have it’s hands full at the box office. It is going to have some stiff competition. It seems that many of the summer “blockbusters” are front end loaded this year.
X-Men: Wolverine (5/1)
Star Trek (5/8)
Angels and Demons (5/15)
Bruno (5/15)
Night at the Museum II (5/22)
Terminator IV (5/22)
I really question if Star Trek is going to have the time to find an audience. It’s stuck between two sure blockbusters (X-Men and Angels and Demons) and will have to face off against a new Terminator film in it’s third week.
It seems to me there would have been a lot less direct competition at the box office if it came out this X-mas season.
I just saw the trailer for the first time today between plane flights and my initial thoughts ranged from cavalier (I half expected Kirk to look down at the camera and say “Yipee Kayay, mother f—–”) to pure anxiety (upon first glance it looked more like the “Battlestar Galactica” reboot than “Star Trek”). I’ve seen it a few more times, and I plan on watching it again in HD so I can pause the crap out of it. Overall, I’m starting to like it. As a dedicated fan, I’m not concerned about the little things that other fans seem to be freaking over (the Enterprise being built in space, Kirk being able to drive a car, etc;). This is going to be interesting, and I think Pine is going to make Kirk his own. This should not be compared to what came before (i.e. The Ultimates/The Avengers)
Let’s hope that word of mouth keeps it going in the weeks that follow release, rather than just a built-in audience which dries up in a week or two.
Well…..it looks like Kirk didn’t know how to drive a car, since he almost drove it off a cliff =)
The Enterprise being built on ground would kind of violate physics….I’m not sure why they decided to show it being built on Earth, strange decision.
sequel
#433 – “I want to see Trek continue, and the only way for that to happen is to attract new fans, not to make the movie for the minority of narrow-minded fans who would rather see the franchise die than to see it evolve.”
I agree with this statement. But I do not agree that evolution means throwing out continuity.
Evolution can, and should, mean new filming approaches, new set designs, new stories, a modern feel to the movie. Absolutely. But it does not require changing backstories or telling people that a well-developed fictional world suddenly doesn’t matter anymore.
#464 – “I think a “reboot” (good term) of Star Trek is needed.
It was a success with Bond and BattleStar Gallactica.”
It was fair-to-middlin’ with Bond, but I don’t think it was nearly so successful with Galactica. The minute one went beyond the basic 30-second pitch, it changed the world of Galactica profoundly, and IMHO, not for the better.
#520 – “From startrek.com which is CANON:
Launched in 2245, the original and illustrious starship U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth. The Constitution-class starship was previously captained by Robert April and Christopher Pike, before coming under the command of Captain James T. Kirk.”
Umm…. I care about canon (or, really, internal continuity) probably a good deal more than the next guy, but let’s be real. The website is not in and of itself canon. Nor are the reference books, except where they’re providing information established in filmed material.
#529 – “Reboot = good.
Cannon = evil.”
“Strike that! Reverse it.” – Willy Wonka :)
#559 – “…Romulan incursion into the past. Now, this is a clever way to reboot, and make it part of the ongoing saga, however to me at least that still means I am not seeing the origins of the characters I grew up with, but rather the origins of new versions of those characters. That may be great, and it may turn out to be a great film. Changing the timeline does predispose me against it however.”
Nicely put. It does mean that TOS will *still* have an untold origin story awaiting film treatment. ;)
#578 – “I am waiting for the first schematics of the new movie Enterprise, as well as some of the other new ships we’re going to see. I hope that someone at Pocket Books is working on it as we speak.
John Ordover, are you still reading these boards?”
John’s actually not been with Pocket for a few years now. I’m not sure if Marco Palmieri or Margaret Clark are reading here, though.
#582 – “We know that Kirk is a maverick who constantly broke rules.”
We really don’t know that. We know he’s been caricatured as that, but in reality, he was not constantly breaking the rules, and when he did, he had a darn good reason, like saving his best friend’s life.
@ 927 / D.. ( A bright white light envelops the world around us all ) !!!SIZZLE!!!
Permanent orange afros all-around.. Whee!
History is a wonderful thing- paying attention to it.. heeding the lessons of the past can have welcome benefits.. ignoring them can have less welcome results. For instance.. Brannon (We don’t need no stinking continuity) Braga.
: )
I was hoping to see the trailer on the movie screen prior to Quantum of Solace. Alas, I was disappointed. They played trailers..teasers, too, for upcoming movies by Columbia. Bummer.
Why is an emotional Spock so bad? I mean hell in TMP he FAILED his kolinahr trial, which means he was too emotional. Emotional Spock? Never!
Thanks, 953 (Alex). Didn’t know Ordover has been gone that long. Seems like only yesterday he was talkin’ Trek….
914 et al – I’ve never been completely satisfied with every time travel story in Trek, but I’ve been able to suspend my disbelief for most of them, and just have fun with it. “Time’s Arrow” was particularly fun. The Borg thing was of course a bit wacky, since if they could go back once, they could certainly try again and again. Same with the Nexus, just click your heels together and have a do-over. :) But if a time travel story is done cleverly, and remains internally consistent, the way the best SF and fantasy is, it’ll work. When the audience starts mentally clattering away on contradictions and what-ifs, then you lose them.
This one’s for you Xai
Rock Quarry in Iowa pic
http://quarriesandbeyond.org/states/images/ia/ia-quarries_1906/images/ia-1906_pl_lxi.jpg
http://quarriesandbeyond.org/states/ia/iowa.html
There are a number of Roc Quarries in Iowa, read up on it apparently it has a rather rich deposit of Limestone. BUT Iowa’s geology is a bit different in that the Limestone is extremely close to the surface so there are not alot of the really deep chasim like quarries found around the country. But there are a couple. So if young Anki-Kirk was indeed ripping through Iowa he drove his papy’s Vette into one of them.
I want a g*d damn gold star for this one
James Tiberius Kirk that’s what I’m talking about
I must have blinked during Shat’s cameo
Maybe in the movie they explain why the Big E is built on earth, or at least its frame
Just a little note to all the negative ones on this site. You’ll see this movie regardless of what you say here. Most will see it to prove to themselves “how awful” it was. Some will see it even after pissing and moaning that they won’t give “J.J. Abrams any money”.
Sorry to say it but you will see this movie.
Whether you end up hating it or loving it (not that you’ll admit it) remains to be seen.
As for “changing the time line” hasn’t it already been stated that we’ll see a “Yesterday’s Enterprise”-inspired alternate universe that Old Spock goes to fix?
As long as there’s no reset-button madness which voids the entire movie I’ll be fine.
Oh, also wouldn’t it be cool if when McCoy is first asked to step onto a transporter platform he has no problems with it? Then while beaming there’s a problem and his atoms are almost scattered across space thus giving him his dislike of the machine?
That’s what I’m talking ’bout.
962- Pete 359 I think that’s my issue. If they are going to reboot, OK, let’s reboot, but don’t play it in halfsies. If we do it, do it, no reset back at the end. May as well hold out for the next film then…
963, that reminds me. There is a philosophical theory that every time you use a transporter (you know — like the one you took when you stepped out for lunch; that one), the universe you stepped out from is slightly different from the one in which you stepped in.
Actually, I think I just made that one up. But it would make a strange kind of sense, from the idea that transporters actually destroy the original subject during the process of teleporting them. If the subjectivity is lost (as it would if transporters did, indeed, kill their subjects in the process of successfully teleporting them — which I fervently hope is not the case in Trek), then there is nothing to stop one from theorizing that the new subjectivity that emerges is sufficiently different such that the universe as a whole is also different as measured by the new subjectivity. This would be considering the universe as existing in a mind, and all that.
It’s almost a Daoist thing.
Or Spinozan.
Or not.
All I can say (like anyone will even read this after 960 posts) . . . is that I am SO glad we saw this on the big screen today!! We all clapped after “James Tiberius Kirk.” Then . . . WOW.
This afternoon I re-read Anthony’s original interview, and his thoughts are spot-on. It was a surprisingly emotional experience today. I can’t wait to see the HD version tomorrow, and May feels like an eternity from now.
Considering that the Kelvin incident changed history compared to what we know, EVERYTHING from that point on (basically the entire trailer) is already being set in a different timeline. Even this can possibly explain why the Enterprise was being built on earth and not in space, along with a lot of other things that everyone is stuck on.
saw it befoire QOS at 10:45 in frisco Tx…great detail of Enterprise. Snuck out of Madagascar at 11:15 and went in another viewing of QOS to see it again….15 minutes of crap and no ST….strange
958:
One question, Rick, is does the General Public understand time travel?
First Contact spoon-fed the explanation to the filmgoers, as did TNG in many cases.
I think “Back to the Future” showed that they can comprehend the general concept of altered timelines. Zemeckis made it fun and zany, and allowed any confusion be part of the fun.
Hopefully Abrams won’t throw to much ambiguity into the final resolution. If we were the total audience, bring it on.
But we’re not.
I hope they change the Transporters explaination sio that it is now an effect generated by a Starship’s Warp Drive.
That way they would have to use the shuttles a little more, when the main are down.
929. Police Android Unit 924 – November 16, 2008
“Just out of curiosity Bob Orci, how are you guys feeling about Anthony posting the bootleg?”
I wanted to see it as much as anyone!
Voyager in 967- I think it is still possible our dear Nero changed a bit more than just that. Perhaps the destruction of the Kelvin alone was enough to militarize Starfleet enough to delay and bolster the design of the Constitution Class. I wonder if they went back to the Romulan War though… Was the construction of the Enterprise moved to Earth to limit space-borne surveillance?
962 – Just a little note to all the negative ones on this site. You’ll see this movie regardless of what you say here. Most will see it to prove to themselves “how awful” it was. Some will see it even after pissing and moaning that they won’t give “J.J. Abrams any money”.
Yes, I will probably see it someday… but not at the theaters… and not until the DVD hits the bargain bin at Dollar General sometime in the near future. And if you think I’m kidding… then know that STVI was the last Star Trek movie I paid to see in the theaters. Just because something has the words “Star Trek” on it doesn’t mean that IT is “Star Trek”; at least not in my universe. I don’t part with my money that easily. You want me to pay… then make it worth my while. So far, this new movie has not delivered enough to make me open my wallet.
In all honesty, couldn’t one make the assumption we’ve already seen a “different timeline” in the remastered series…after all, all the SFX look different from the “As Aired” TOS.
Who is to say that the “blue hulled” 1701 and the remastered “Aztec 1701″ are not, in fact, different universes.
971. Boborci
Bob. Good luck with the new movie!
A word of caution from a long time Trek fan. It is now taking me about 48 hours to digest this new (and facinating) version of the universe that i have loved for so many years.
So please do not be put off by any harsh first night reviews. More specifically, do not be put off by harsh critiques by some of the “hard core” ST fans. IMHO, alter a few views and alot of consideration for the general plot, this IS looking GREAT!
It REALLY looks like this movie is going to go the distance. And on so many levels too!
Congratulations Bob!
#662 – “The Enterprise is obviously much larger, as if the ship needed to face a bigger external threat.”
I never got that. the details I’ve been able to recognize ion the new Enterprise seem to me to suggest a ship similar in size to the original. Look especially at the primary hull, which looks very comparable in size to the TMP primary hull.
#673 – “I think those who are raising issues of conflict with canon really really need to come to terms with the reality of the situation. It’s a retelling, and its a FICTIONAL franchise. More or less every second of this movie will break canon on some level. What does that tell you, either consider it a reboot, and this canon does not apply, or simply learn to live with it. Because the other option is to allow the movie to be crippled by ‘canon’.”
The flawed premise here is that “canon” is in any way crippling. I think it’s not merely flawed, it’s false. As I’ve said before, simply waving the word “fictional” around does not relieve oneself of the responsibility of some fidelity to the source material.
#727 – “When did Earth become “Paradise?” I know its referred to this way in TNG, DS9 and VOY., but maybe when Kirk was a lad it was still a little bit rougher around the edges?”
That was one of those ideas that Roddenberry had always had. He deliberately avoided going back to Earth in TOS itself, but Trek ended up dealing pretty directly with Earth on a regular basis. Roddenberry’s descriptions of Earth as a paradise (or nearly so) go back to background material in the ’60s.
#794 – “I know, that’s why I’m scared, because it was described as Kirk meeting Spock and Scotty. Spock tells Kirk what to do and then transports himself away. He better show up more than that.”
Remember, we’ve only heard about a few fragments of the movie. I think there’s a whole lot else we’ve not seen yet, and we’ve already been told about more stuff with older Spock.
Concerned and wary about this film I may be, but let’s not get so crazy we lose sight of the fact that we’re still reacting to a very small bit of the movie revealed to date. :)
#835 – “I think we all should stop focusing on this “reboot.” ”
I guess I tend to focus on that aspect because for me, it’s really the only make-or-break element. Recasting? I can live with that. It’s the only way we’ll ever see those characters on screen again in a live-action setting, and I’ve had it proven to me–thanks, “New Voyages/Phase II”!–that it can work. New production design? Also, that’s a necessity for a modern production, and they’ve done an okay job of it.
But fictional continuity? That for me is *huge*. See, when I embrace a fictional world–not just Trek; *any* fictional world–I embrace the whole of it, not just one small bit or a few characters. It is the ongoing integrity of that world and all that it encompasses that I become enthused with. And in the case of Trek, I’ve been enthused with a fictional world for 35 years! Maintaining the consistency of that world, in terms of its storyline–its history, if you will–is a critical part of my enjoyment, and no matter how good the individual story, it does suffer for me if it truly fails in that basic aspect.
I can understand that some people don’t see it that way. ’s all cool. But it is very important to me, and I make no apologies for that.
I wish people would get over themselves. Since when was it their place to decide what happens with Star Trek?
Re 939: “How can we move on without letting go of the old.” (stet)
I don’t think it means letting go of the old, it means understanding the creative nature — for an artist to accomplish something HE (forgive the masculine, English could use a neutral pronoun) likes when adapting someone else’s creation, he must, for the moment, make it his own. If he does this, then he can at least like what he’s doing. If the changing of canon is part of this, if the artist does it with respect, there’s a good chance it might be a good piece of work.
Let’s take The Seven Percent Solution as an example (the book, not the movie). Nicholas Meyer (some of you know of him) was/is a huge Sherlock Holmes fan and what he did with that book was to start with a Doyle story and state that Watson completely made it up to cover what really occurred — then went on with his story, which I loved.
Did I have to give up on the original Holmes stories? No, it made me go back and read the complete collection.
We just have to wait and see.
976- Alex
“I never got that. the details I’ve been able to recognize ion the new Enterprise seem to me to suggest a ship similar in size to the original. Look especially at the primary hull, which looks very comparable in size to the TMP primary hull.”
See, I think that makes my point. The external proportions are exactly the same, yet the Bridge interiors are much larger. If the interior is larger, the external bridge detail must be proportionately larger, and ergo (concordantly, vis a vie) the rest of the exterior must also be proportionately larger. In the trailer, the helm console alone looks as wide as the original bridge (ok, that’s hyperbole, but it is pretty big).
975. TrekMadeMeWonder – November 16, 2008
I was aware of hat I was getting into as surely as you would be.
Thanks for the encouraging words.
Great trailer…..
945. Wilson7777 asked, “How in the world are they going to explain how the Klingon’s have ridges AGAIN?? So, they go from Ridges (ENT Season 1-3), to no Ridges (ENT Season 4), back to Ridges for the new movie, then they lose their Ridges again for TOS, but wait, the Ridges return for TMP and the rest of Trek? Makes no sense whatsoever.”
AGGGH!! This kind of thinking drives me insane! (And it’s not just you, Wilson, so I’m not picking on you; your post just triggered my response.)
Why must EVERY Klingon look the same? We have humans with attached earlobes and humans with detached earlobes, not to mention all the variations in skin color, shape, size, height,weight, etc.
Sure, the smooth-headed ones were explained away with a virus, but when have we known a virus to affect EVERY member of species?
So, there are Klingons with ridges, and there are Klingons without ridges, all at the very same time. There. Makes perfect sense, unless we expect the Klingons to all be clones of each other.
Bob Orci,
Thanks for your patience and kindness with an extremely, um, cantankerous bunch of fans. :) I don’t know if y’all are going to pull off the Trek rebirth we all hope for, but it seems like you’ve made a genuine 100% effort, and for that I thank you.
I haven’t been this excited about Star Trek since 1979’s TMP premiere. Well, maybe the TNG premiere in 1987, but that excitement was quickly overshadowed by the disappointing pilot episode. (See the captain of the Enterprise surrender the ship–twice!!!)
So, more than anything, thanks for helping me feel like a 9-year-old kid again, looking forward to his old friends on a new adventure.
Nick Myer, Save The Franchise, We Need You.
982. Paul B. – November 16, 2008
There is a lost episode somewhere to explain that.
I know DS9 tried.
984. MAT – November 16, 2008
“Nick Myer, Save The Franchise, We Need You.”
Ran into him at lunch the other day. When I see him again, I’ll pass along you’re request.
986
Correction — You’re should be “your”
984. MAT – November 16, 2008
Nick Myer, Save The Franchise, We Need You.
Not after the character-twisting travesty that was STVI. (I know I’m almost alone on this opinion.) Meyer did a great job with TWOK, but TUC was almost more insulting than TFF. At least TFF was obviously bad, but TUC wrapped dumb science, dumb jokes, dumb politics, and dumb characters in a veil of seemingly decent filmmaking. Every character was twisted to fit cheap dialogue (Chekov’s “inalienable human rights” line, for example–dumb, dumb, dumb) and basic logic and science went out the window. (So, a moon blows up and the Klingon EMPIRE is going to die? That’s just stupid!)
Nick Meyer had no love for Trek, but it seems that Orci and Kurtzman have the love and respect for Trek that any true fan feels. That gives me more hope than Abrams, a big budget, or Uhura in a bra…
#945, 982
Everything was fine until Enterprise decided they just *had* to explain it all. I was perfectly happy with Worf’s joking reference in ‘Trials and Tribble-ations’. It was a nice way for the producers to replicate the original episode yet acknowledge the change. Oh but then Enterprise had to come along and create some silly reason for it (and that some ancestor of Noonien Soong created the technology to boot!). It reminded me of some of the Trek books (Shatner’s imparticularly) that try to tie every single character and event into another. It just kills my ability to enjoy it.
#843 – “Tell me about it. Think I wanna go down as one of the guys who killed Trek?”
Bob, I’m sure you don’t. :) Rest assured, at the least, that I have no doubts about your integrity, and rest assured as well, that I don’t think that, even if the movie doesn’t work out so well, Trek’s going to die.
But, as I just posted a bit ago, even if the movie is spectacularly successful, one thing I fear is that its fictional world will not be the same as what has been, for the most part, a consistent thing for 40+ years, and for me, that will sort of kill it a little bit.
That said, I also know there’s a whole lot we haven’t seen, and I’m trying to keep an open mind, even while acknowledging my concerns.
Am I making sense here, Bob? Can you see where I’m coming from?
#890 – “Sulu didn’t have a first name until ST IV: TVH was made…”
Not quite correct. He’d had one in print for a number of years. But it was first mentioned on film in STVI:TUC.
#945 – “How in the world are they going to explain how the Klingon’s have ridges AGAIN??
So, they go from Ridges (ENT Season 1-3), to no Ridges (ENT Season 4), back to Ridges for the new movie, then they lose their Ridges again for TOS, but wait, the Ridges return for TMP and the rest of Trek?”
Ah, hah! Finally, an easy question. ;) The answer is, at no point did the entire Klingon species change. There were ridgeheads, as always, and then Dr. Antaak’s virus got out of control and created the mutation of a large number of Klingons, establishing the smoothheads living alongside the ridgeheads (more or less, but that’s a topic for another time). So in the timeframe of the movie, showing either or both version of Klingons would be entirely within bounds.
#967 – “Considering that the Kelvin incident changed history compared to what we know, EVERYTHING from that point on (basically the entire trailer) is already being set in a different timeline.”
Unless of course the incident had actually happened in the original timeline, too. Y’know, like a malfunctioning orbital weapons platform that just happened to blow up at 104 miles above the Earth’s surface in 1968… ;) After all, even in traditional Trek, the oft-quoted non-canonical backstory was that Kirk’s dad had been lost at some point, also, and since it was never canonically established as to when that was, this event could still be that incident.
Of all the potential continuity pitfalls this film might run into, I just never saw the attack on the Kelvin as one of them.
987. Doesn’t matter Bob.
But that was Ironic and very funny!
986. Boborci – November 16, 2008
Haha. For the record, I’m excited about what you’re doing with this movie, Bob. Thank you.
Hi Bob.
Sorry for being the one to get the trailer online and all…
Bob,
did you guys talk? Did you talk trek?
The Irony about Meyer is that he knew nothing about Trek when he came to it. And there is no way to deny that he changed trek with STII (some would even say ‘reimagined’ it). That film looked and felt totally different than TMP.
BTW, my favorite bit of trivia for the Meyer and the new team…he attended JJ Abrams Bar Mitzvah. Doing the math, that would have probably taken place in 1979. The same year as ST:TMP. Little did anyone know that Nick would be reinvigorating Trek 3 years later and little JJ would do it again 30 years later.
993. voyager – November 16, 2008
So you’re the one being served with the copyright infringement lawsuit? ;-)
986. Boborci – November 16, 2008
984. MAT – November 16, 2008
“Nick Myer, Save The Franchise, We Need You.”
Ran into him at lunch the other day. When I see him again, I’ll pass along you’re request.
Oh. Well please tell him I said hi. :)
#979 – “976- Alex
“I never got that. the details I’ve been able to recognize ion the new Enterprise seem to me to suggest a ship similar in size to the original. Look especially at the primary hull, which looks very comparable in size to the TMP primary hull.”
See, I think that makes my point. The external proportions are exactly the same, yet the Bridge interiors are much larger. If the interior is larger, the external bridge detail must be proportionately larger, and ergo (concordantly, vis a vie) the rest of the exterior must also be proportionately larger. In the trailer, the helm console alone looks as wide as the original bridge (ok, that’s hyperbole, but it is pretty big).”
I see what you mean, but what I think you’re not accounting for is that the upper superstructure, at least as seen in the trailer, looks a bit larger than the comparable superstructure on the original ship, which could account for a larger bridge. I’d need to get a better look at the upper part of the ship to be certain, but that’s been the read I’ve been getting so far.
#988
Wow Paul. I will agree with one thing you said – you’re definitely in the minority when it comes to that view of TUC. ;)
One minor quibble – Praxis was not only a moon, but a ‘key energy production facility’ in orbit of the Klingon Homeworld. The movie itself explains that the Klingons had overextended themselves in numerous wars, and that the double-blow of the loss of a significant energy source coupled with the lethal pollution of their home planet had put them in the position they were in. It would be like Earth or Vulcan being destroyed or devastated – the Federation might not fall, per se, but would experience a significant loss (especially with Starfleet HQ being located on Earth). Plus, the Federation wasn’t an empire in the habit of making enemies on the order of the Klingons. It’s not such a far-fetched idea is all I’m saying.
What is goin on at 1:34.
Is that the Lost in Space Jupiter 2?
Or, do we finally get to see a TOS style Captain’s ‘Yatch’, or perhaps the new ‘Battle Bridge!’
959. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar – November 16, 2008
This one’s for you Xai”
Thanks bud, but I am already familiar with the material and the mid continent rift.
It’s possible it’s a quarry, but dam it’s deep. (and I was trying to get the skinny from Orci..lol)
You get a gold star anyway.
Trailer looks awesome but Kirk’s destiny is that he ultimately gets smashed up on a rock. lol. At least his journey started well from the trailer dialogue.
I went to see QoS again tonight… I was blown away the first time. Was at the same cinema but in a different theatre. The forst time there was no Trek trailer.. tonight there was!
Let me tell you.. Wow.. what a difference on the big screen. I had watched it over and over since it was posted online.. but tonight was absolutely incredible!
As soon as young Kirk said ” My name is James Tiberius Kirk…” there were lots of claps and ‘woo’s’ from the crowd. At the end of the trailer.. there was a lot of clapping. All the groans were for the Valkyrie and Angels & Demons trailers.
Ugh… Mission Impossible 3 meets Battlestar Galactica. I’ve been looking forward to this for a long time now. But this was horrible.
I just wished more people went to see Nemesis so they’d do a TNG movie. Have Frakes direct again and they’d rock our socks off.
Oh well, that won’t happen. I hope this brings back the Roddenberry vision of a perfect future.
This looks like a great popcorn action movie, but it doesn’t look like Star Trek. Maybe it really is dead.
1003. joe
Let it sink in Joe.
And post here again in two days.
A question for the pro-canon people:
In “The Wrath of Khan,” when Kirk is going through his mid-life crisis, do you think that the man we see on screen is thinking, “And what about the time we met Abraham Lincoln in space?”
And how do you feel about Gene Roddenberry’s claim, in the opening pages of the novel for “The Motion Picture,” that the original series itself was not canonical, but a mythical, 23rd century fictionalization of what really happened…and proceeded to argue that the world of “The Motion Picture” was the more authentic take on the future?
Well there is the difference. Star Trek TOS was mythical and had just barely enough writing, acting and direction to pull it all off.
Mr. Orci, if you are still out there.. can you clarify that this kid is saying *T*Iberius and not *S*iberius? There seem to be a few people who think he’s saying “S*iberius and we all know how fussy some people can be over the smallest things.
Thanks
This post is to all of the posters (no need to single out any one in particular because there are so many of you out there) who have tried to make the point that all of the perceived canonical discrepancies are in fact explainable because of the time travel aspect of the movie’s plot.
Let’s assume you’re right. Are you really happy about that? It means that the most loved show in the history of shows is being retroactively aborted. It will be as if the events depicted never happened in the ongoing fictional universe. Sure, when Bob Newhart made an entire series a dream it was funny. Dallas’s dream sequence season was funny… unintentionally. Star Trek deserves better.
“Did you guys ever WATCH the show?!?”
- Guy Fleegman in Galaxy Quest
BTW, I hear *Tiberius,* and common sense says it’s “Tiberius,” but apparently that’s not enough. So without an “official word of comfort* for a few of those people well…
#1008
It won’t be ‘retroactively aborted’. It simply will be changed, for this particular film series. JJ can’t steal all your TOS DVDs, so there’s no way to erase the adventures you’ve grown up on.
Saw QOS last night, Irvine CA. No trailer!! Lame trailer for The Spirit, however. I can’t believe they chose to include that and not Star Trek.
QOS was very good though. I didn’t at first, but now really like Dalton as Bond.
Do we know the next movie that the trailer will be with? Hopefully a Paramount release so we are guaranteed to see it??????
#1008 – “Let’s assume you’re right. Are you really happy about that?”
I have no problem with it one way or the other personally.
“It means that the most loved show in the history of shows is being retroactively aborted.”
They’re messing with Seinfeld? Noooo!!!
“Star Trek deserves better.”
After Berman, it’s getting it hopefully.
Ok everyone , for all those who truly love “Trek” , this will be a amazing moment, it’s a new way to look at Star Trek . Like looking a a new verison to a James Bond movie.
For those who love TOS , god bless you all , not everyone can be pleased.
The fact is this movie is for the new generation who never really grew up on Trek like alot of us did. Also it will give more background insight about Capt . Kirk , Spock and the crew of the Enterprise.
The bottom line, i feel that more people will love the new Star Trek than hate it.
I saw QOS last night and we didn’t have the trailer, either (lots of trailers for films I don’t want to see, however). QOS was great, I have no idea what people were complaining about. Perfect continuation of Casino and Craig *is* Bond. My dad saw it (he’s 64 and loved the original series with Sean Connery) and said that this – along with Casino – was the first time he felt like he was actually watching a Bond movie in a long time.
1005- Oooh! I’m a pro-canon person, can I answer?!!
Kirk’s midlife crisis was not only about Abe Lincoln in space, but also wondering if he’d been better to Spock’s brain when it was out of his body if Spock would have had to go find Kohlinahr…
As for the novelization of TMP, it has to go in the category off all the novels regardless of authors. Cool, insightful, but not official.
To be fair, there’s plenty of Roddenberry Trek I would sooner ignore (the first season of TNG- remember the ads for “TNG Actionless Figures?”). However, it made the screen, and gets covered. There are issues in all the shows, but there is a remarkable consistency as evidenced by the Chronology being very coherent. Yes, early TOS wasn’t thinking beyond the end of the week, much less 40 years in the future, yet overall it’s pretty coherent. Far more than the comparable shows of the day.
All stories get better with time…
the kid says TIBERIUS… NOT Siberius. It’s clear as a bell.
1008. Red-Shirted Monkey – November 16, 2008
Two words: Quantum Mechanics.
1008. Red-Shirted Monkey – November 16, 2008
“It means that the most loved show in the history of shows is being retroactively aborted.”
“Did you guys ever WATCH the show?!?”
YES! YES! YES! Many times a week.
And your right. It was a show. Not a Major Motiion Picture.
Star Trek has to be new and fresh this time. To bring in the old and the new, and perhaps a few extra viewings too.
I’D REALLY LOVE to see Star Trek TOS again as a one hour show. But that is not being persued now by CBS or Paramount (or whomever has the rights.)
Surely they must realize how much money a direct to DVD or web-based series could draw.
Why pass up the millions???
#1005 – “In “The Wrath of Khan,” when Kirk is going through his mid-life crisis, do you think that the man we see on screen is thinking, “And what about the time we met Abraham Lincoln in space?” ”
Maybe not at any particular moment, but I’m sure it crossed his mind from time to time…along with lots of other memories that any person who’s lived a full, active life would have.
“And how do you feel about Gene Roddenberry’s claim, in the opening pages of the novel for “The Motion Picture,” that the original series itself was not canonical, but a mythical, 23rd century fictionalization of what really happened…and proceeded to argue that the world of “The Motion Picture” was the more authentic take on the future?”
Interesting, but what words did you interpret that way? I didn’t see anything–and I just reread it to make sure–that suggested a disavowal of the events that the series portrayed. At most, I saw in “Admiral Kirk’s” comments, the humility of a true hero who perceived himself as painted more glowingly than he really was.
#1007 – “Mr. Orci, if you are still out there.. can you clarify that this kid is saying *T*Iberius and not *S*iberius? There seem to be a few people who think he’s saying “S*iberius and we all know how fussy some people can be over the smallest things.”
For what it’s worth, I heard it as “Tiberius”, also. I think there may be some confusion due to sound system issues, even more than the kid’s actual pronunciation.
1010. sean – November 16, 2008
You’re mistaken. Once this movie becomes a success, it will very much be like “Yesterday’s Enterprise” or even Back to the Future, where things kind of fade into the new reality, like with the newspaper headlines changing and Tasha Yar suddenly being there. All the TOS DVDs will morph so that the new Enterprise design appears in them, Kirk will suddenly have blue eyes, and Sulu will be Korean. Mark my my words.
#1017 Boborci – Ok, you made me laugh! You’re still going to get my $10 and probably another $50 from Mrs. Monkey and the troop. Still, when the studio executives come to you about STXII, don’t forget about wanting to run with the “Pigs in Space” idea you liked so much.
1007
Tiberius.
James Siberious Kirk is from the universe where Kirk grew up in a future Soviet Russia, like the Superman Red Son series.
everyone has gone crazy
#1017 – “Two words: Quantum Mechanics.”
I’m not sure that’s reassuring. ;)
One thought that occurred to me: If part of the tale is Nero going back to change history, and Spock going back to try to either stop him or correct things, then–leaving aside the usual trap of time travel, i.e., well, if it doesn’t work, just hop back earlier and try again–if there are permanent and major changes, it would suggest that Spock fails in his mission. I have to wonder if the intent would really be to tell a story of a huge failure on Spock’s part. If not, there may yet be more to all this than we know.
I say the kid said “Riberius” and that would explain the James R. Kirk gravemarker from WNMHGB.
I’m in the mood to wax poetic, so let me throw something out there…
My name is Dan, and I am a Trekoholoc… Oh wait, not what I was going for. I like to think of myself as a Trek lawyer. I have been studying the ins and outs of Trek for decades, and I love to “get in the courtroom” and argue Star Trek. I can quote line and verse to make my points- why Gary Mitchell was First Officer in WNMHGB and not Spock; how the warp scale changed between ST:III and ST:V; whether or not families made it onto the Enterprise E. I love the letter of Trek law, and I would prefer that all Trek followed said law.
The law is not justice. Justice requires interpretation. I am willing to wait and see if the new film does Trek justice. If it does, I will be the first (bandwidth dependent) to admit justice was done and that there can be no justice when laws are absolute (Boo yah! Trek quote!). If it does not, look out Mr. Orci! I’ll chase you ’round the Outer Nebula and ’round Antares Maelstrom and ’round perdition’s flames before I give it up! :)
I love Star Trek. I was raised in a socially backward region of our great country. TOS taught me how not to be a racist hick, and to look for ways to make myself better. In return, I have championed it. Yeah, a lot of us canonistas take what is basically a TV show too seriously. But a lot of us have our reasons for it, and it is truly near and dear to us. Forgive us for sticking a bit to the Law and forgetting about justice. In May, the film will validate our arguments, or assuage our doubts. I expect the former, but I hope for the latter. Is that so wrong those of you on either side of the argument?
I must say…having checking this site daily since it began, it’s VERY cool to have Bob Orci and Chris Doohan occasionally post, almost always with a great sense of humor and reassurement of what they are undertaking.
My earliest memories are of my dad and I watching TOS in the early 70’s and after viewing the teaser and trailer, this thing we love is in very good hands. We’re going to see a huge Trek resurgence and it will be especially great for those of us who have enjoyed the previous 40 years and are able to share this new version with new generations (so to speak).
Too… many… comments…. cannot read all.
1) Saw it in front of QoS today, and thought it rocked.
2) 100 years ago, there were barely any machines capable of flight. We landed on the moon 60 years later, and today we explore other planets remotely by robot, and are imaging alien solar systems from earth-based telescopes. Anybody who can authoritatively state that the transporter technology seen in the trailer is too advanced, or that building a starship on the ground is too impractical… well, let’s see your time machine, then. No violations of canon from where I sit, and even if there were… I don’t care.
1017. Totally Agree. *dancing at the thought*
I would add:
About bloody time that you said it.. Not to stoke the fires, but the small but very vocal portion of the opposition will I hope, come around once they see it.
An origin I can believe in.
My only complaint – a wee bit frenetic. And maybe an extended internet trailer at Christmas?
Xai
Thanks Bud !!! To think the lengths I go to, Geology homework on a Sunday night for this beloved site!!!!
Orci
Did I find the find THE limestone mine chasim in this obscure B&W photo from the Iowa limestone mine website
http://quarriesandbeyond.org/states/images/ia/ia-quarries_1906/images/ia-1906_pl_lxi.jpg
http://quarriesandbeyond.org/states/ia/iowa.html
Me and Xai need to know!!!!!! LOL
Launching Constitution style ships from the graound probably did not last long after the first disatorous mishap of a starship’s launch. Imagine a Warp breach within the Earh’s atomosphere.
Perhaps after the Alternate-Federation’s early encounter with the Romulans, certain environmental laws were changes to expedite the building of the huge vessels on terra-firma. You know how in times of emergency regulations are laxed to get things done quickly.
Looks like the Fed is at War in this one.
#529
“Reboot = good.
Cannon = evil.
Mindless fandom will kill off the thing it loves ”
Most fortunate you can’t say stuff like that to anyone’s face.
#1032 – “Launching Constitution style ships from the graound probably did not last long after the first disatorous mishap of a starship’s launch. Imagine a Warp breach within the Earh’s atomosphere.”
I always thought that the most obvious mechanism of bringing such a ship from a ground construction site to orbit wouldn’t involve the ship propelling itself, but rather would involve a series of service craft or tugs equipped with industrial antigravs, able to just lift the ship into space. It could then be powered-up and checked on-orbit.
Egads! Somebody’s talking about a TNG movie. What a not good idea. They had their chance, they made one really good film, two not-so-good films and one crummy one.
I love TNG but I don’t want to see the older chunkier crew screw up another movie. And this is coming from an original fan, who is older and chunkier. I want to see a new approach to all of this. Old Trek had its time, I want to see New Trek. It’s time.
And we have Leonard to see it off. I think that’s awesome, giving him the spotlight after being second banana all these decades. He earned this.
Ok, I have a worry.
In the TOS episode The Balance of Terror, they state, several times in fact, that it has been years since anyone has encountered the Romulans and that no one has ever seen a Romulan.
Interesting to find out how this is still holding to canon.
Just a thought
I wonder if Spock-Prime has a chance to mind-meld with the younger Spock-Q.
Now that would be some Quantum feedback!
1027
Wow. Very well said. And very articulate for one raised in such a “hickey” environment. And I really feel some kinship with your third paragraph. I too learned a lot from Star Trek and hold it very dear today for many reasons.
On another note….I’d still be real curious to see how much James Bond business was due to Trek people this weekend.
1036- Altered history, it’s all up for grabs.
A big concern of mine is that we will never see the Prime origins for Star Trek and all the crew. If we are left with things returning to normal at the the end, where will the inspiration be to revisit the original origins?
Looks like Trek will have to keep on with the new timeline. The general public will not go for another origin story in the sequel. I guess they will have to pick-up after things resolve in this movie.
An interesting conumdrum indeed.
The ship being launched from the ground is just JJ’s macguffin for getting Kirk onto the ship in the first place via Bone’s Engineered Virus. It violates cannon, common sense, and all engineering standards, but its a macguffin, what did you expect, hey at least its not a crystal skull :)
Its definitely geared toward the younger crowd, without much reference to cannon because JJ doesn’t know cannon, like Kirk not knowing how to drive stick. We shall see, just hoping another fond childhood memory isn’t raped by a reboot.
#1038 Andy Patterson “for one raised in such a “hickey” environment”
That would be high school, right?
1042- Only when I was REALLY lucky…
Hmmmmm
Apparently JJKirk is an expert antique car driver even as a lad but in “Piece of the Action” he was clueless as to driving a stick.
I guess Nero changed that too.
1044. The Angry Klingon
I don’t think the average American driver of today could drive the jalopy in Piece of the Action. JJKirk looks to be driving a somewhat automated vehicle with a simple lo-hi manual drive. Looks alot simpler to me.
1027. Weerd1 – November 16, 2008
Cool post.
Bob, when do we get a chance to hear a bit of the “real” musical score?*
*(and please don’t say May 2009!)
Gods, this looks good. I keep running the bootleg (it’s okay, I saw the real deal in the theater). Can’t wait for the high def and the stills for play by play.
#1032
Despite this being science FICTION, I’m sure if we really built star ships on earth, we might think not to activate the antimatter generators or warp core before getting the ship to orbit.
Federelis:
Oh, in that case, let’s shall :) I don’t know, honestly, whether to be more amused or dismayed that Abrams has specifically talked about avoiding the Galaxy Quest vibe on the one hand, while what (still scant) evidence we have suggests that he may well have made Galaxy Quest II in a sense.
Of course, I’m still rolling from the explicit assertions that the movie isn’t cheesy. That the movie with a bald Romulan villain named Nero hatching a time travel plot … isn’t cheesy. Even before this trailer showed us a few new slices of potential cheese, we already had that core, fundamental dairy aspect.
And at the same time I feel guilty for taking so much amusement from it instead of just being sad, but honestly, I think the deal is that I made my peace with the loss of Star Trek so many years ago, that now any new Trek that appeals to me would just be a bonus. I don’t need it.
To those who argue that the life of the franchise is paramount (ha! is funny!), I just can’t buy into that … I know fanfic tends to be awful and tie-in stuff tends to be weak (I know that latter one intimately; I’ve WRITTEN some of that weak tie-in stuff) I still think all of that is better than what the “franchise” has provided, for a very long time. So I think the death of the franchise could be the best thing … or at the very least, the most dignified thing … that could happen to Star Trek. Better a fondly-remembered friend cooling in the grave than a corpse on strings being painted and danced around like a macabre puppet.
Okay, that imagery was more gruesome than I intended in a post that started on the Galaxy Quest angle :)
Not to oversimplify, but why couldn’t they just build the ship on Earth and then beam it into space, effectively installing the antimatter generators and warp core components after the fact?
Saw QoS tonight, and enjoyed it very much, but the trailer wasn’t attached. Gave in and watched this bootleg. Looking forward to the official posting tomorrow morning.
1041. ARealEngineer – November 16, 2008
Regardless of whether JJ knows canon…he didn’t write the script. Orci and Kurtzman did. And seriously, why do people just throw the term “rape” around so casually?
#1050 “Better a fondly-remembered friend cooling in the grave than a corpse on strings being painted and danced around like a macabre puppet”
Why am I suddenly picturing Kirk dying in Generations and then Denny Crane in Boston Legal?
Harry:
Now that’s just creepy! ;)
I’m really looking forward to the official release of the trailer, because reloading this page is taking a long time, and if we get the official release, there will be a new, shorter, lets-talk-about-the-trailer page we can move to :)
1050:
What are you smoking?
Mr Orci, A quick question if you can answer, in the trailer where it appears Nero Kills two klingons, are they two klingons? Also I hope you get invited to the Vegas convention next year so that you can talk about getting to write this movie, no matter how it turns out it must have been quite a rush, especially when Mr. Nimoy said yes.
Bob Orci,
If the rest of this movie is written as nicely as the trailer, I’m definitely going to be pleased. I used to watch star trek for the action, and sit down with Star Trek to think and explore philosophy and understand the world and my place in it… So action is great, but I need the writing too. And this trailer certainly promises that. So good for you!
Also, since you’re around I have a quick query. I posted earlier about the quote from Captain Pike and the way he slurs the word “something” … and I’ve watched it a few times since then, and I’m starting to think that’s not an error. I mean, I suspect now that part of his speech was probably cut out and they just put the phrase “some special” onto the end of what he was saying. Is that what happened? It would really give me a sigh of relief.
Did you hear the one about the two Klingons and a Ferengi who walk into a bar?
But I digress…….
#1058 sorry, correction — Star Wars for the action
Star Wars for the action, Star Trek for a piece of the action, right?
1058. Pinky – November 17, 2008
Have to go back and read what we wrote for Pike, but I do believe it is edited for the trailer.
[892] “Hmm…who was it that was tasked with making timewarp calculations previously?
Spock in Tomorrow is Yesterday
Hi Bob, what race is that alien sitting between Uhura and Jim in the Bar?
About ground construction of Enterprise: obviously, this is a movie way of saying “look, Kirk and Enterprise grew up together, they’re like brother and sister, there’s a very special bond between them”. However, looking at it from an engineering perspective, is it really that hard to imagine? I mean, why don’t we construct ships or submarines in water in the first place? We could have trained divers putting the thing together right there… Simply, ease of construction. I could imagine constructing such a large vessel on ground would mean less trouble. You can have factories supplying materials right there, you can have construction crews live in nearby city, not in space, etc. It simply requires MUCH less logistics to build it this way. If you didn’t need ground (planet), then why were the largest spaceship construction yards always in orbits of settled planets (Earth, Mars, Vulcan,…)? Put the yard into the middle of nowhere or into an asteroid belt for all I care.
Take a look at International Space Station. It’s segment-built, parts completed on Earth, then lifted into space. Why is it constructed in such a way? Because, quite simply, we don’t have power to lift the whole structure in one piece. If we did have such power, rest assured the whole ISS would be built right down here and then lifted up into orbit. Now look at Star Trek tech – antigravity technology, subspace, warp, teleportation, you name it. They have all the necessary technology, so why bother with logistics.
In a way, we can see it as an extension of space program – first we build parts on ground and assemble it in space. Then, we build the whole thing on ground and do the finishing touches in space. Then construction yards are put into space and ships can be assembled right there from transported parts. And eventually, whole factories are built in space and ships will be constructed, built and assembled right there. Makes perfect sense to me.
The only thing I AM worried about is the ship itself. Let’s face it, the ship looks much more high-tech both on the inside and the outside than it did in TOS. In real life, this makes sense, after all, CGI and special effects have come a long way since that first episode. Even the difference between Enterprise D and E (which canon age-wise wasn’t more than what, 20 years?) or TNG and DS9 is most obvious. But how do you explain going from a bright, spacey bridge full of touch-screen systems to filled up grey design with smaller screens than even my laptop?
What we have to accept is that TOS is obsolete. Its story may hold, but its design was flawed. Even Roddenberry himself for instance stated that Klingons were always supposed to have ridged forheads, but TOS budget didn’t allow for such advanced masking back then. Think of it like a gray photo – what’s shown on it can be true, but how it’s shown can be a matter of interpretation (or technology). It’s just that then we have episodes such as Trials and Tribble-ations (DS9), where Enterprise is shown in a new series with the old TOS layout. That’s the point you start getting a large question mark above your head. And that’s why I generally dislike time travel :)
[1065] Of course you are right, Tufy. When Jesko von Putkamer suggested the consruction in space he was just extrapolating the technology of 1975.
Another matter is the dramatic impact the Enterprise has on jim Kirk, and is a much stronger moment to have him ride down there to she ship and make his decision to follow Pike offer.
And then, the scenesof the finished Enterprise in spacedock would have looked too much like TMP, maybe.
If this movie is about changing timelines and alternate universes, my question is: what is the purpose of those changes? Not in terms of story, but for the writers/producers.
I mean what do they get out of it to change things like Kirk not living on Tarsus, maybe Kirk not meeting Carol Marcus, Kirk getting command of the Enterprise on their maiden voyage, maybe blowing up Vulcan, letting the Enterprise crew see Romulans before the series, having the Enterprise being built in Iowa instead of San Francisco etc.?
Was the original backstory not interesting enough?
I believe no one would have cared if they would have stuck with the original timeline and modernized the look of things, I don’t mind if the Enterprise looks more modern than in TOS of if some small things are not consistent with canon like Kirk not meeting Pike at his promotion to Fleet Captain etc.
But robbing us of everything that made those character who they are and robbing us of the original timeline and all the series and films we grew up with is devastating – for me. This is even worse than not including William Shatner as old Kirk.
I am not willing to trade off the Star Trek I grew up with for this.
I wouldn’t have minded if the movie modernized Star Trek, showed the origin of the characters, even took some small liberties with canon so long as everything – every series, every episode, every movie – stayed intact afterwards…
The Enterprise looks cool being built on Earth, but aside from having it fit into the story somehow with Kirk seeing it built, it makes no sense. The original Enterprise probably has the most uneven weight of all of them so it would be pointless to build it on Earth. Plus, that’s kinda breaking cannon there. First, the NX was built in space, a century before this ship. Also, the Enterprise E was built in San Fransico Ship Yards, same as this. So for one, it cant be built in Iowa, wrong part of the US, and lets face it, having it built on Earth pretty much violates cannon. Lets just hope thats the worst cannon violation of the movie.
Bumblebee, I have no clue what story this movie will finally tell, but it will never ask for you to give up your original timeline…
Well, in some ways this trailer feels a whole lot different from the old TOS. On the other hand, it seems as if this movie is going to fill wide gaps. So we get a much younger version of the old TOS. Plus we will no doubt get the thorough background we’ve been missing all this time. To me the original series, its characters and the actors portraying these parts is an almost holy matter in itself because of its religious cult character.
But this is no reason no to try something new with it. The Star Trek XI team did the right thing by beginning where the phenomenon started. It started with the original crew. And I suppose after several layoffs only the original crew, the original series, truly prevailed in the fans hearts.
About the new cast, well, I had my doubts about one actor in particular, that is Chris Pine. Ironically it was he who made this trailer so convincing to me. That IS a positive outlook all by itself. What I like so much about Pine as Kirk is what a great chemistry he seems to have with the other characters and his ego appears not as overbearing as Shatner’s used to be which only will add to the quality of this movie. He plays the sort of hot-headed square jawed, reckless wannabe Hero on his way of becoming a loving leader. Bravo Chris Pine! You were one positive surprise all by yourself.
Who didn’t surprise me at all was Simon Pegg. I expected no less than a humorous, smug very Caledonian Scotty from him. Looks as if that’s what we’re going to get. Wonderful!
The only thing that I sincerely hope we will not get to see would be a romance between Kirk and Uhura. As a matter of fact, I hope we will not see a romance between any of the regular Crew ever. That’s fanfiction stuff. We like to fantasize about it. We don’t necessarily want to see it happen though.
If they show us how the characters came to be what they were in the 60s show and how they formed their friendships and bonded, well, then that’ll perfectly do. That and a lot of well dosed (hopefully not overdone) Space Action with fresh, young ideas.
I think that’s what we’ll get.
The Star Trek XI team took quite a few risks with this movie. That alone you have to like. Thanks, folks, for making the effort and for believing in the true spirit of the this show.
I, for one, am looking forward to see the whole thing and then I will form a whole opinion. So far, the journey with the new old Crew has been fun. Pine, Urban, Quinto, Zoe, Anton, Pegg, Eric Bana, Chris Doohan, JJ, Bob Orci and everybody else, thank you folks for sharing with us fans.
Beam me up Star Trek XI
Spot, maybe the worst cannon violations of that movie are mounted on the Kelvins turrets…
;))
According to “The Making of Star Trek”, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space.
Although a book and therefore not canon, it was if I remember co-written by a certain G Roddenberrry.
I think that leaves us in as muddier water as before………
Well, Sarah, I see quite the possibility for a Kirk/Uhura romance…
@1073 thorsten
Me too and it scares me to death. Not that I’m all against it out of principle. It just makes me feel uncomfortable, this idea. I don’t know…
Sarah, I agree with your assessment in the main, it’s about where I stand on the movie. I believe that the movie will not feature Kirk/Uhura romance, and that the trailer editors juxtaposed the shots together to get people all astir over the lurid possibility of such a tryst. Trailers pull this kind of deceptive trick all the time.
@1075. 4 8 15 16 23 42
Well said. I suppose you have a point there. :)
Regarding the things between Uhura and Kirk, at their first encounter he got beaten to a pulp after flirting with her, and when we meet them again three years later on the ship she says “Kirk, what are you doing here?”
So maybe it stays with the teasing, which makes it easier for them to work together later ;))
Once again. This is an Alternate time line. The E could be built on Earth in an alternate reality.
Funny though. That was one of my primary complaints in the closing of one of those early Star Wars movies. The Star Destroyers (?) took off from the planet pretty easily. Just how do the Star Wars ships levitate themselves?
That sure marks a difference between the ST and SW. The Science.
Trek should have solid science behind it. At least a visual que. Like a spherical lightening storm going off between the Ships field bubble(?) and the Earth’s surface.
Seeing the E rise into space will be a sight to see. Hopefuily it will covered in one continuous shot.
[1068] Last time I checked, Enterprise – E was built in San Francisco Fleet Yards in orbit around Earth. Unless you’re trying to convince us that San Francisco somehow expands into space in the future (last time I was there, the tallest skyscraper was still quite a few miles from space ;)), we can easily have those yards be named after the city or even be a name of the company that owns those yards.
We know for the fact that Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards has ground facilities even in 2370, even though we also know that major drafting and construction work is performed in space (one of the TNG episodes, can’t remember the name right now, but it was mentioned Galaxy class was designed and built there).
And last but not least, was NX-01 really built in space? We know that the Warp Five complex was in Montana. Just because the ship is eventually completed in a drydock doesn’t mean it was built there from scratch. At least the engine originated on earth and god knows how much of the superstructure too. To be completely honest, the relatively flat frame seems perfect for ground construction.
@1077 thorsten
Right. Teasing would be welcome. And a teaser is supposed to tease, isn’t it. :D
[1078/TMMW] I expected the Jedi to lift the Star Destroyers into space, using the force. No, just kidding. I bet we see some antigravity tugs lift she ship…
1078 TrekMadeMeWonder — I’m a fan of both Star Trek & Star Wars, so I can tell you. I think you’re referring to SW Ep.II: Attack of the Clones, and it’s called repulsorlift. This from the Wookiepedia entry on repulsorlift: “The repulsorlift or repulsorlift engine, often referred to simply as a repulsor, was an anti-gravity technology capable of levitating an object. It was created from subnuclear ‘knots’ of space-time made by enormous unmanned power refineries encompassing black holes. [...] Repulsorlifts only worked within a gravity well, as the technology required mass to push against. [...] Ships as massive as the Clone Wars era Venator-class Star Destroyers … were only able to make planetfall with the aid of massive ventral repulsorlift suspensor units.”
Trek has broken “canon” many times for the convenience of its stories. You guys quoting “canon” are simply telling your own version of what you think Trek should be. There is no canon in Star Trek.
In regard to the suggestions that the Enterprise could be built whole on Earth and beamed up, I think the power expenditure would be prohibitive. The transporter can’t escape E=MC^2.
I think the Enterprise could be built in segments — saucer, secondary hull, saucer, nacelles — and lifted or tractored up by cargo vessels, then assembled finally in space. For dramatic effect that construction is depicted with all the parts being constructed together, while in “reality” they would be built independently. Then, the Enterprise being modular, is taken apart and taken up in separate pieces. Does that strike anyone as plausible?
Dear Bob Orci,
2 small requests that I would like assurance on.
Firstly, I hope you have not made this film a military story. We see enough of that on the news every night. I would like a story that focuses on space exploration and discovery of new worlds, maybe with some drama, but not with overt military posturing and space battles.
Secondly, Star Trek is about more than action. I hope you have made an SF film with a real philosophical core and real heart. The market is desperately short of thinking SF. Please do not let the commercial pressures of Hollywood lead to a film written for the “lowest common denominator”. Give your audience something to think about. Do not just leave us giddy with special effects, explosions and chases.
Thank you. That is all I ask for. Will I be happy?
#1070 : Hallo, reality call! This is a movie, TOS was al television series! I do not think you can call this religion! The caracters are fictional!
I realy like Trek and I love watching it (almost all incarnations). But is still is
a television series. Let’s keep that in mind people.
I still hope the movie does well so that we can enjoy more trek. Perhaps it is different from what we are used to, but who says that’s not OK?
[1083] come on seven, that is like saying there is non canon in tolkiens work and that del Toro can have his totally own vision for “the hobbit” because its a reboot of what Jackson did, and a prequel. We are living in times where shows have tighter knit canon than ever before, just look at Lost…
but there are other shows that reference earlier plots and background info, all being influenced by the release of whole seasons as DVD sets…
[1085] Kerr, maybe the reboot of “The Day The Earth Stood Still” with Keanu Reeves is something for you…
Things i get from trailer:
-seems like Nero has employed some klingon thugs from kirks timeline.
-Krk sleeps with green girl
-Krks mother and baby kirk crying for George Kirk to leave the ship with them.
-Nero has made himself look human (as we can see from a number of shots) so he doesn’t affect the timeline and so he can be easily disguised.
Ok these are some things i have picked out which may or may not be true..open to interpretation!
1088 – Maybe. I LOVE the original. It is the kind of SF I adore, so I do not know if the remake will measure up or not.
#1086
Last I checked, obsession over fictional characters was one of the key features of any religion.
[1090] This time Klaatus intervention is triggered by the looming eco catastrophy, opposed to the thread of nuclear armageddon in the original…
Ah, well, the threat of course ;))
to be honest I am never one to write on these things… but from i have seen from the trailer is that JJ and Paramount have put more money and effort into this film then they have done for any film since say star trek 6. The story sounds great, the cast look great, the effects look amazing and yet all you guys seem to be bothered about is where the enterprise was built. Well I am not an expert on star ship design and I am guessing that none of you lot are so who are any of we to state how the enterprise was to be built cos as much as Gene was a god I am guessing he was not too. Seems everyone wants to knock it down rather than priase it. The X Men get reimaged all the time even by their own creators so has batman so why can’t Star Trek do the same.
People said they should have kept it 60’s looking but I am guesssing in 3 hundred years time the inside of the enterprise would not have looked like it did in the TOS. So JJ has done good to keep the style but make it look more in date.
1092 – Sounds interesting. Will probably give it a chance but I don’t think anything could top the original.
Nevertheless, I would love to see Trek also go down a philosophical line in this film and move well away from military overtones. Don’t know if that will happen – the money invested in the film means the studio is looking for a big box office hit to return on the investment and this generally means action/explosions/lowest common denominator stuff.
I just wish they could move away from the military overtones of Starfleet and write a good exploration film with a philosophical heart. Sure, have Nero and friends as villains and obviously have the chase to capture them before their evil plot hatches but please give the film a lot more depth than just that and let us have a real glimpse of a Roddenberry utopia without a military.
Agree 100% Kev
[1094] Kev, for the hardcore fanbase, and they are frequenting Anthonys site, these things are important. It is like bringing the Beatles back with some totally different blokes, and make Yoko into the person who created the band…
That said, I am still convinced that Bob, Damon, JJ and everybody else did their best to make this into a fantastic movie.
[1095] Kerr, we talked about this before, while I don’t think that there will be much philosophy and exploration in that movie, rather a coming together and save the universe flick, the Enterprise is no warship. Pike is no military commander. It was not like with “Yesterdays E”, where everything changed into war mode. The Kelvin attack did not throw the federation on a 30 year track fighting the “Galactic War On Terror”…
#1094:
While it’s understandable (these threads are huge) you’re obviously skimming if you think “all you guys seem to be bothered about is where the enterprise was built.” There’s quite a lot of variety on both the pro- and con- side to the trailer reactions.
I just remembered that I missed Court Martial when it was on TV the first time, and I was playing with a friend in the back yard who saw it. I bothered him all the time to tell me which way the ship landed on the Starbase.
I was 7.
;))
1098 – Okay, thanks.
Sure, Kerr, there is only so much you can do in 120 minutes…
[1084] Beamed, definitely. However, as much as I happen to know of fictional subspace and warp technology, the warp bubble effectively “sinks” the mass of the ship into subspace, allowing high speed travel (as much as subspace allows it, i.e. making warp 10 unreachable by TNG standards). Who is to say the same bubble couldn’t be used to help antigravity field similar to the one used for gravity generation in ships, inertial dampeners or even the cybercop’s bike in trailer lift the whole object up? We have seen ships of Constitution’s size land before – after all, even Intrepid (Voyager) is slightly larger and we’ve seen it made planetfall before.
Let’s be realistic – we don’t know if there’s anything like subspace in real life, so for all we know, we may well be stuck with speed of light. We also know that there’s only one real physical way of tearing the atoms apart and convert them into energy, as transporter seems to do – namely by heating the object up to insane temperatures. How you will precisely copy that object (heisenberg uncertainty) and reassemble it at the target location (a vast majority of target locations has no reassembly device) is beyond me. But that’s what modern science tells us – who cares if a magical subspace can solve all those issues and cook you a tasty coffee each time you desire it as well?
The point is – we’re dealing with a sci-fi. And if there’s one rule about sci-fis, then that rule is: there are no rules. Yesterday’s future may well not exist anymore today and something that was easily doable two days ago will be mission impossible tomorrow. All that remains is that hardcore fans come to terms with their favourite show changing. Some of us can, but some will be left utterly disappointed. It’s the way of things, you can never please everyone.
[1103] who cares if a magical subspace can solve all those issues and cook you a tasty coffee each time you desire it as well?––
Warp 5, brought to you by Starbucks with your Grande Cococa Soy Latte, excellent!
;))
seeing the trailer a bunch of other movies come to mind…
mad max (during the vette chase)
back to the future (i thought young kirk’s gonna say, im marty mcfly)
superman (voice over specially during vulcan scene)
its not a movie but the “new” transporter effect reminds me of the tazmanian devils spining motion.
spiderman and superman returns (ok all we saw the uniform before the trailer, they look like leftovers from thes movies)
the hulk (seeing eric bana in a greenish hue)
lastly the space battle scene reminds me of none other than revenge of the sith, muched hyped battle scene months before its released which turned out to be a big yawn.
1103 tufy — Oh, yeah, I forgot about the cybercop’s bike! It looks like STXI may indeed be making use of its own brand of “repulsorlift” (see my entry @ 1082 in response to 1078 TrekMadeMeWonder), based on the concept of subspace, as you say. In fact, the way you explain it, that sounds about the most plausible (tee hee, I said “plausible” as if we were talking about real science) means to build the Enterprise on the ground and elevate it to orbit for the finishing touches.
1102 – Yes, understood. However, lots of films can integrate some philosophical themes, like aforementioned Day the Earth Stood Still, Solaris, 2001, etc. No need to dwell on them.
However, your assurance that “…the Enterprise is no warship. Pike is no military commander. It was not like with “Yesterdays E”, where everything changed into war mode. The Kelvin attack did not throw the federation on a 30 year track fighting the “Galactic War On Terror”…” gives me enormous heart, as I would refuse to see a film like that on principle. Anything else, I am fine with, but not a military story, for moral reasons. That was why I was seeking extra assurance.
Anyway, there is so much more to the SF genre, particularly in written texts, that the number of military-oriented films coming from Hollywood over the last 30 years is very disproportionate and maybe says a lot about the commercial film industry and aspects of US culture.
In more general terms, as a few other people have mentioned on this site, let us hope that more of the great SF novels by Clarke, Asimov, Aldiss and so on, can be adapted into faithful and literate film renderings by Hollywood at some point in the future.
[1107] Kerr, the problem remains that while you want to tell a great story you have to keep in mind that you have to lure lots of moviegoers in on the first weekend… Pixar proves time and again that this is possible, the last time with scifi and phylosophy in Wallie…
I am sure that we will have a discussion about moral, at least between Spock, Kirk and McCoy, in the movie. Still, these people are explorers, not warriors ;))
[1106] Numbers, I still believe that they tried to avoid to repeat the iconic sequence of The Motion Picture by having the ship build on the ground…
Kerr, Star Trek and 2001 moved me into hard SF, but if you like it philosophical, have you ever tried Ian Banks?
Kirk standing at the replicator.
Kirk: Hi, I’d like a venti soy latte with no foam.
Replicator: Ok that’ll be…oh crap! No money in this century.
1108 – Yes and that would be fine. Yes, I realise that any film has to be a compromise given the huge crews and logistics involved in making them and obviously, the bigger the budget of a Hollywood film, the more commercial it has to be so that it does not make a loss.
Anyway, as you say, I hope the film does emphasise that the characters are explorers.
Haven’t seen any Pixar films ever – may look at one. I tend to watch smaller budget foreign language films these days but of course, there doesn’t seem to be so much sci. fi produced in non-English speaking cinema.
1110 – No, I haven’t read Ian Banks but I have heard a lot of positive things about him. I will check out some of his books. Thanks for the tip and for taking the time to have this interesting and helpful conversation with me! :-)
1109 thorsten — That may be so. It also looks pretty impressive in the shot in the trailer, though. Nothing like having the POV from the ground to get the sense of scale.
Paramount is betting the barn on that movie, there was no other way to handle this… But the thing is in good hands with Orci and Kurtzman, and the total canon geek Damon Lindelof.
Ian Banks books are heavy euro arthouse stuff, going in the direction of Lem and the brothers Arkadi and Boris Strugazki…
Saying that Spock’s being violently emotional in behavior toward his peers (i.e., attacking Kirk) is no big deal would be like looking at a re-booted Sherlock Holmes who “doesn’t care about clues” and saying, “Meh, no big deal. You canonista sissies need to shut up. This is the sort of stuff that makes Doyle fans look like idiots! Look, there was once a Doyle story where Homes was not really interested in a particular clue, so it is all good”’
As I have stated before, we need to differentiate between those who are believers in the original Roddenberry vision and those who are believers in anything jj abrams does. The latter seriously and undeniably seem to hate the original gene roddenberry outline and vision for star trek. I have no idea why they even want more star trek if they hated it so much. Oh, they keep proclaiming they want trek to be ‘cool again’ or ‘hip again’ or ‘to appeal to mass audiences again’ but there is no evidence that trek was ever anything but a niche market that attracted the central niche crowd. The next generation is a perfect example.
It probably had the best ratings of viewership of any of the series before or after, and yet it was the most ‘geekified’ of them all. The fact that it garnered so many viewers is not because it appealed more to mass audiences, but that it expanded its already existing niche market to include more niche viewers/geeks/trekkies/fans. And it did this by becoming as far out and socialistic/roddeberry as possible. Bottom line is the niche market always consisted of those who crave something different than todays world, and never to do with those who wanted a basic reshaping of what is already out there in the action movie domain and even political domain. Any attempt to make trek seem as if it is other than genes original vision has failed miserably and will fail repeatedly ad infinitum.
[1114] Absolutely, numbers, that totally works for me. Jim riding down there and checking out his destiny… totally awsome
#778
‘Saying that Spock’s being violently emotional in behavior toward his peers (i.e., attacking Kirk) is no big deal would be like looking at a re-booted Sherlock Holmes who “doesn’t care about clues” and saying, “Meh, no big deal. You canonista sissies need to shut up. This is the sort of stuff that makes Doyle fans look like idiots! Look, there was once a Doyle story where Homes was not really interested in a particular clue, so it is all good”’
As I have stated before, we need to differentiate between those who are believers in the original Roddenberry vision and those who are believers in anything jj abrams does. The latter seriously and undeniably seem to hate the original gene roddenberry outline and vision for star trek. I have no idea why they even want more star trek if they hated it so much. Oh, they keep proclaiming they want trek to be ‘cool again’ or ‘hip again’ or ‘to appeal to mass audiences again’ but there is no evidence that trek was ever anything but a niche market that attracted the central niche crowd. The next generation is a perfect example.
It probably had the best ratings of viewership of any of the series before or after, and yet it was the most ‘geekified’ of them all. The fact that it garnered so many viewers is not because it appealed more to mass audiences, but that it expanded its already existing niche market to include more niche viewers/geeks/trekkies/fans. And it did this by becoming as far out and socialistic/roddeberry as possible. Bottom line is the niche market always consisted of those who crave something different than todays world, and never to do with those who wanted a basic reshaping of what is already out there in the action movie domain and even political domain. Any attempt to make trek seem as if it is other than genes original vision has failed miserably and will fail repeatedly ad infinitum.
Yes I agree that I was skimming on that comment but generally alot has been said about the look of the costumes and how the sets should reflect that of the 60′S. But as I said we have to think about when they were developed and how that look would be different had the TOS been created today. So it’s about bringing the two together yet keeping in with the theme of the origional series. I mean you only have to look at the difference in the eneterprise in the TOS to the motion picture how different it was yet it altough there wasn’t that huge a gap in “star trek” time yet the sets, equipment looked a hell of alot more advanced, due to budget etc.
I do agree with canon and all that I have watched every episode of star trek there has been but with fantasy as what star trek is, there has to be some room for movement. it’s not like someone is writing a film bout the second world war and telling a story that is not in keeping with our time line. I just think we need to look at it as a new chapter in Star Trek that hopefully somehow fits in with canon as I am sure it will in some way (and it will somehow be explained) just as the borg appeared in ENT and starfleet knew of them even though in TNG no one had head of them and in Voy the stories surrounding 7’s family. That kind of thing. I am not saying people are wrong I was just making an observation. Pople are free to comment on me and dissagree with me as I would not say that I am in the right. I am just giving an opinion.
There’s an interesting tidbit. Because of a timeline change in the movie Star Trek First Contact, the borg were able to be known by the federation many years before they originally were supposed to have been.
#1116 sez: “As I have stated before, we need to differentiate between those who are believers in the original Roddenberry vision and those who are believers in anything jj abrams does.”
It might also be useful to recognize and respect the VAST (vast, vast, vast) number of Star Trek fans who fall into neither category.
Thorsten, you’ve piqued my interest in regard to Iain Banks by comparing him to Strugazky brothers. One of my top 10 favorite movies of all genres and periods is Stalker by Tarkovsky, so of course I read Roadside Picnic.
—
Databrain, I seriously think the Kirk / Spock altercation will be satisfactorily explained away in the unfolding of the movie’s plot. It’s cut into the trailer for sensational effect, but is probably not as big a deal as it seems. It is the job of trailers to generate hype, and they often do so at the expense of distorting the true scope and sequence of events in the story.
One of my pet theories is that old Spock tells young Spock to fabricate a row in order to avert disaster in the timeline… or something like that.
I also do not subscribe to the notion that Kirk spies on Uhura or that they have a fling. I think the trailer insinuates that through deceptive juxtaposition.
Only a few more hours until the “official” trailer hits, folks.
Bob,
Thanks for taking the time to reply to people’s posts. Mighty kind of ya.
Peace out.
Voyager – that’s my point, you can always have a way to bring a story so that it fits in with canon lol
I do agree with canon and all that I have watched every episode of star trek there has been but with fantasy as what star trek is, there has to be some room for movement. it’s not like someone is writing a film bout the second world war and telling a story that is not in keeping with our time line.’
This is license to walk all over the work of an author, gene roddenberry and the contributing writers of the original series. No one would do this to tolkiens work, as someone earlier pointed out. So why can the same amount of respect not be awarded to Roddenberrys original vision of the future? We all know that spocks character, as outlined in the pilot episode, was not fully developed and that when he became fully developed throughout the first season, his fully developed character become a rock solid figure of canon. That is the spock everyone grew to love, not the spock in the pilot episode. We therefor need to respect the fully developed characterization of spock and not subject him to the indignity of emotion when canon has established that he had already learned to successfully suppress his emotions by the time he had joined starfleet (with the exception of amok time, and the Pon Far), despite the fact that he had not completed the Kolinar till several years later.
‘I also do not subscribe to the notion that Kirk spies on Uhura or that they have a fling. I think the trailer insinuates that through deceptive juxtaposition.’
I assumed such as well. But there is no explanation around the removal of Uhuras shirt. That is just a blatant sexification that did not help enterprises ratings much when they did it there.
I’m not too keen on gratuitous bra scenes myself, but suppose that Uhura is having a final night on earth with her boyfriend or something….
In short, I am giving the movie the benefit of the doubt for now because trailers are so devious. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been led to believe one thing by looking at a trailer and found out it was all clever editing.
Last week or so, we saw the trailer for TWOK. It splices scenes from the Kobayashi Maru test into the battle scenes between the Reliant and the Enterprise later in the movie. Imagine what viewers thought before the movie came out, “Oh my god, does Uhura die at her post in this movie?!”
Databrain, I was hoping you would say that.
“I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, “Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!” And that would please me!”
-Gene Roddenberry
After rechecking with the trailer, whoever is with Kirk in bed, it’s the room in which Uhura undressed…
hmmm…..the trailer for Nemesis look great too….that’s what trailers do…..they do
Databrain, I was hoping you would say that.
‘“I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, “Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!” And that would please me!”
-Gene Roddenberry’
I do not think the abject sexification of Uhura (sexism at work) equates to having any relation to that quote at all.
Nor the complete muddling of spocks character into some false bermanesque vulcan (think t’pol).
[1131] I was referring to the first line of 1127…
In other news, intreresting comments from EAS about ship, bridge and canon here…
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm
If those are the only things that are making you upset about the movie, then you’re never going to be able to enjoy a star trek from now on that somehow takes on every aspect that the original did.
A majestic ship built on Earth is unusual. And unusual is often intriguing and interesting. Star Trek is full of ships in drydocks. Boring.
1125 & all the others that can’t accept this new vision.
Too bad.
It’s done.
Get over it.
Move on.
Mainly what I am saying is that if this film is 90% action and/or a trendification of a basic nucleus set forth by gene, and/or if it has no adherence at all to the established canon with respect to developed characters and how they act, the things they do, their nuances, etc etc. no one will remember it. Thus it will fail and fail well.
‘1125 & all the others that can’t accept this new vision.
Too bad.
It’s done.
Get over it.
Move on.’
^^^^ perfect manifest example of the type of person who hates the original roddenberry vision of star trek You have to wonder why these people are demanding more of it. or are they just JJ abrams fans carrying over from lost or other projects? *raises eyebrow*
#1137
You are right.
A lot of people are bashing the movie for the action sequences but, what about First Contact? A zombie/action movie. The only Trek moments were the relationship between Data and the Queen and the Phoenix launching in space. Picard was totally out of character (I don’t get the revenge obsession, sorry, it’s not the reflective Picard I know) and the time travel premise was forced as hell.
Why on earth would anyone who hates the original gene roddenberry vision of trek want anything to do with any manifestation of star trek in any time, place or situation? Why would people who like primarily action films have any interest at all in something that was essentially a geek phenomenon? Please answer this question logically.
Star trek IS genes vision. Anything outside that philosophical equation is NOT star trek. No mater how hard the marketers of imitation trek try to convince you otherwise.
[1138] DB, while JJ outlined Lost on one weekend with Damon Lindelof, he is not into the daily production of the show. The showrunners are Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, famous for “Nas Bridges”…
‘A lot of people are bashing the movie for the action sequences but, what about First Contact?’
I am not bashing the film, because I have not seen it. What I am saying is IF all we surmise comes to pass, then it will fail.
What about first contact? It wasn’t 90% action. Maybe 60% but there was still a lot of humanity in it, a lot of dialogue and integrity and adherence to genes original vision, especially where canon is concerned.
‘Picard was totally out of character (I don’t get the revenge obsession, sorry, it’s not the reflective Picard I know) and the time travel premise was forced as hell.’
Maybe next time you are abducted and assimilated by a species of drones you might understand. I don’t think he was out of character, I think his reactions were logically adherent to his previous characterization. But you are talking about taking something back to before the time of established characteristics and abolishing them. Spock is a sacred figure in many peoples minds, he deserves respect for the inspiration he has brought to the human race.
Wow, EAS’s article actually frustrated me heavily. I really don’t like it when people can’t see over their ideal Star Trek so they just discredit everything that they decide they don’t want to call canon or anything they don’t like.
Databrain, have a little faith. I can’t imagine Nimoy praising the script and signing on unless the integrity of Spock’s character was not largely preserved. I do expect younger Spock will experience growing pains in regard to his human emotions versus logic, however, not so much as to destroy the fundamental, most recognizable aspects of the character. As a matter of fact, Spock may be one of the most stable elements in this work — certainly what I know of the plot suggests that much: Spock will be the touchstone for whatever continuity they keep with TOS.
Dude, Databrain, just because someone wants to change it to make it more appealing (hell I love the new Enterprise, the old one was way too boring), doesn’t mean that they hate everything that Gene Roddenberry stood for. How do you know that Gene wouldn’t approve of this movie if he were still alive?
[1143] well, I can understand that Bernd has problems fitting the changes into his structure… and that he calls it “proto-canon limbo” for the time being.
Something else came to my mind, Neros ship was described as not made for time travel… maybe he fell in a rift, like in “Yesterdays Enterprise”…
No, his time travel was intentional.
Through all the flash-bang excitement of the trailer — and I am hardly immune from the thrill of a fearsome starship ruckus — I still see the distinct silhouette of a character-driven story… the story of what makes Kirk Kirk and Spock Spock. In the end I may be wrong, but even with a little canon trampling, Star Trek XI already looks to me like it promises to AUGMENT Roddenberry’s vision of Star Trek, not ride roughshod over it.
#1146 – #1147
As for First Contat, it seems that every regular modern starship can travel in time. The Enterprise has no problem going back home at the end of the movie.
Jesus god almighty.
Can’t people just be happy for the fact that there is a new freaking Star Trek movie coming…? With the same characters from the original television show…?
You’re not gonna love it 100% because it won’t meet every single requirement you have in your heads but COME ON.
I don’t get it.
Kirk: Are you afraid, or aren’t you?
Spock: I will not allow you to lecture me.
Kirk: Than why did you stop me?
Because he won’t allow you to lecture him maybe?
Databrain… the lord of the rings trilogy is something completely different to the star trek universe in a respect that you could not just inject something into that story where as the star trek canon has a lot of gaps in the time line where stories have not been told. The books don’t always fit in perfectly with canon but still add to the star trek story. Gene roddenberry was a great man and although people seem to be against the vast action sequences that appear to be in this film as long as they’re important to the story then why not. People talk about the fact that star trek is all about a better future and exploration and should focus on, well rememeber all though that is what star trek is about, that kind of better future was about humanity and the ideals of the federation and not people like the klingons, dominion and some bitter Romulan from the future. Mixing action with a great story makes for a good movie. I could not see any star trek movie being a great one with more dialogue than action.
ps on the trailer how cool does the action look being seen through the view screen.
4 8 15 16 23 42 and Voyager seem to be the only enlightened ones on here where as soom just seem to want to piss on everyone elses opinion. At the end of the day we all have our own vision of what Star Trek is about and with Gene unfortuantely not about we’ll never know if he’d like it or not but it certainly is not our place….. as some people seem to think on here to speak on his behalf. Even if the film was just based on the idea of star trek. From what I have read and seen it looks to be a great movie
In this movie we will see a lot of beginnings. Seeing Spock a bit emotional and seeing him learning to control his human side is something that really excites me! A lot of new things, and imo this is very good.
1151 – he said ‘don’t’.
[1147] quote: “They travel through time in a ship, but the ship is not necessarily built for time travel.”
No, we know now, its built for drilling, baby!
;))
What came to my mind:
Let’s assume this is an alternate timeline story (I hope and pray that it isn’t).
The attack on the Kelvin changed the timeline, so Kirk is not the person we know. And Spock isn’t, too – for whatever reason (but the Spock in the trailer cannot be the one we know. Even in Pon Farr and even when he is torn between his Vulcan and Human side, he would never attack a member of Starfleet. Spock is an officer in Starfleet, he would never ever risk being thrown out of Starfleet for attacking an officer (or cadet or whatever). This would destroy everything Spock has worked for. So he must have changed due to the alternate timeline, too).
Therefore Kirk and Spock hate each other.
In order to bring the timeline back on track, old Spock mind melds with young Kirk and young Spock so that they become friends and defeat the Romulans. Wouldn’t that be awful? A friendship not based on experience, caring for each other etc. but on a mind meld? I hope that this will not be the case…
Admiral that seems to have the story make sense I’m afraid lol hopefully not though
Hi JL (1150)
The majority of griping is coming from TNG fans, many of them using multiple identities. TNG is where all this ‘Gene’s vision’ stuff comes from. A lot of obsessives worship Rodders and his revisionist TNG continuity in a disturbing, almost Hubbardian way.
Real fans of TOS are aware that Rodders provided the spark that created the original Star Trek and the likes of Robert Justman, Gene Coon, John Meredyth Lucas and Dorothy Fontana had a lot to do with fleshing out the universe. Moreover, real TOS fans know that TWOK through TUC were run by a completely different creative team – among them Harve Bennett, Leonard Nimoy and Nicholas Meyer – with a very different approach and Rodders hovered on the outside trying to get his way, but fortunately not succeeding! Could anyone look at Star Trek the same way knowing Spock was the man who murdered President Kennedy in Star Trek IV?!
Now, once again we have a fresh new team, who have consulted Leonard Nimoy, a man pretty much regarded as a wise honorary grandfather of all things Star Trek, and featured him in the film.
Different teams with different approaches have characterised the original Star Trek from the outset.
That over forty years after the original pilot was made a hot property team like Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci have come along and dared to do something fresh with Star Trek speaks volumes for the concept’s appeal.
The fact that a bunch of dweebs are freaking out all over the web actually shows that the team are doing something right! Star Trek was hijacked years back by a self-righteous, pompous, quasi-religious cult of fans obsessed with creating a weird fascist utopia. Star Trek ceased to be Star Trek.
When I see this film, I see a Kirk, Spock and McCoy that are recognisable as the characters I grew up with. Yes, history is a little different, but this is a movie being made for 2008. It’s as ridiculous to think that they should make the Enterprise look like a 1960s model as making a TNG film look like a 1980s TV show.
The original Trek was a sexy action adventure sci-fi western meets high seas epic of gunboat diplomacy! The new Trek appears to amping that up to maximum. I’m thrilled about it, as are most people. I’ve shown the bootleg trailer to non-fans who now want to see it! This is a big turning point for Trek. It’s got its fous back on the mainstream and not on a dweebit, nerd audience. Not to mention, the new timeline means that TOS is back as the ‘current’ incarnation of Trek, meaning that anything can potentially happen in subsequent films!
The official release of the trailer tonight is going to be a great moment for me!
1144 the Spock we see in THE CAGE is more emotional (grinning at the singing flowers, panicking at one points, shouting ”THE WOMEN!”) if some of these scenes are set around that period, it may be this earlier, less controlled Spock we see.
That would, after all, be consistent with canon. Ahem. : )
[1157] No way,
Admiral_Bumblebee.
No mind meld.
I am not even convinced that the Spocks meet.
Why should Spock Prime ask Kirk never to mention their encounter?
I really like that post, really puts things in perspective. It’ll be nice to have some new fans back who just want to see the movie because it looks like a damn good movie.
Dom I have to say well said…. you typed everything I meant but in a way that made a lot more sense.
Cheers.
Every time I look at the trailer and the new Enterprise I get so much more excited. The ship really does look great.
1159: Hey Dom. I think you hit it on the head for the silent mojority of Trekkies just thrilled to have her back after all this time. Well said!
1159
Dom, I agree with every word there. And yeah, I realize that without Harve Bennet and co. we would have gotten god-knows-what for Trek II instead of the amazing WOK.
That is why I have been keeping an open mind with this re-imaging (or whatever it is you decide to call it). Young minds, fresh ideas!
There are many factors, but part of why TOS worked so well and made so many of us happy is the fresh sense of perspective we got with each episode. Yeah, so some of the main sets were the same, but they always managed to take us somewhere new and exciting each week!
And THAT is what I am hoping for with Trek XI: bring back that spark and take us somewhere new and adventurous!!
#1159 Dom
Amen to that.
Can I just say how much the trailer has re-assured me about the new E? Every time it appears on screen my mind screams “Enterprise!” Whatever about the specific changes made, it still keeps the essential sillouhette that every TV viewer in the world knows down in their gut.
Speaking of people behind Trek and different perspectives, I don’t know about anyone else but my favorite TOS director (by far) is Marc Daniels. He directed more than a dozen episodes of TOS aparently…
@1169
I like him and Joe Pevney
Among the producers (aside from Roddenberry of course who created it) I liked Gene Coon the best. Boy did he know what Star Trek was about. And such a brilliant writer he was.
I saw the trailer on the big screen and I’ve been watching it quite frequently since then by…alternative means.
I’m enthralled by the thing. It reminds me of watching “The Doomsday Machine” when it was first aired on NBC – you know, as a fourteen-year-old kid in that era I didn’t notice (nor did my two or three friends who alsp watched it) that “Star Trek” was being limited in any way by its budget or TV formula. It seemed quite extravagantly designed and produced – and I remember watching “Doomsday Machine” in particular at a friend’s house and we were just berserk about what an action-packed, fast and intense ride the episode was. Big in scale (to us) – it was like a sugar rush.
One gets older and more sophisticated, exposed to a lot of entertainment and the world moves on…and by the time “Star Trek” comes back as a film it’s expensive and nice-looking but it’s playing catch-up with inspired properties that were designed for the big screen, and whose youngish creators more fully understand the technologies they’re using, modern commercial film design and direction, and have a keen sense of the audience.
As a result, I’ve not seen a version of Trek since TOS on NBC that really gave me that kick of being a real gosh-wow ride out into this place that seemed both extravagant and kinda real and exciting. Well, this trailer does that for me. This is sort of what I imagined I saw when I watched Trek on a 19-inch screen in 1967.
Can’t wait for the movie now.
Just like its ignorance to try and talk about a subject you have no knowledge about, it is ignorant to say that the new movie tosses continuity out the window or blindly re-imagines everything without waiting and watching the movie.
Ignorance.
That said, this movie looks wonderfully exciting and fun and I can’t wait.
Nice to see some positive energy. Man, sometimes it is depressing to come to this site. Although at least it’s not as brutal and juvenile as a lot of the posts on AICN
‘Dude, Databrain, just because someone wants to change it to make it more appealing (hell I love the new Enterprise, the old one was way too boring), doesn’t mean that they hate everything that Gene Roddenberry stood for. ‘
Listen to your words. ‘make it more appealing’ which implies, to me, that you are saying it wasn’t already appealing as genes original vision. In which case I can only ask why you or anyone else would want anything further to do with trek, since it primarily will always be genes primary vision of the future. The non believers don’t need to ‘get it’ if they don’t get it already. I am of this generation, and to basically undermine my intelligence by saying I wouldn’t get it unless it is dumbed down is just pathetically insulting.
I’m no longer worried. The E looks perfect.
I really think these guys are going to give us a great movie!
1174
“Dumbed down” is *your* interpretation of what the film will be. Not mine.
1175
I think so too. All indications are pretty positive so far and my gut tells me this is going to be a whole lotta fun.
Ah, new trailer – albeit ShakyCam until later tonight!
Hmm… lots to be thinking about…
OK, first things first. I have been a bit outspoken in my criticism of the new Enterprise; however, it looks much better in the trailer than in the picture. I still don’t like the nacelles, though ;-)
Second – I love what I’m seeing of Kirk’s backstory! It really fits with the character he later becomes.
Third – I LOVE what I’m seeing of Spock’s backstory! It has been a continuous theme that Spock has always been a ‘child of two worlds’ – torn between Vulcan logic and human emotion. Sarek tells him in the voiceover that he must ‘choose which path to follow’ – which of course, Spock doesn’t. He chooses his own path, somewhere in between the two. Like he says to Valeris in ST:VI – ‘logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end’. He sees things from a human perspective as well, which is why he goes to Romulus to encourage reunification.
It is therefore LOGICAL (ha!) to assume that he has had some dealings with human emotion, and that he wasn’t just born ‘cool and calm’. And what with Vulcans aging so well, it’s also reasonable to assume that he was still in some kind of emotional adolescence, even when he joined Starfleet.
Thirdly, McCoy. WOW. I thought it was DeForest Kelley. It gave me goosebumps, and in all the right ways.
Fourthly (is that a word?), Kirk/Uhura. SO WHAT?! So they (might) get laid. WHO CARES? Just ‘cos we’ve seen no indication of it previously doesn’t mean it HASN’T HAPPENED. It doesn’t mean that it conflicts with canon. And this is from a canon freak. Guys, don’t worry about it.
Gun turrets on the Kelvin… the more I think about this, actually, the more it makes sense. A starship should really have 360-degree phaser coverage, so that it can’t be attacked from any blind-spot. This was achieved in TNG and beyond by phaser arrays – strips that ran along the hull that could point a phaser beam at pretty much any point in 3D space.
However, these were conspicuously ABSENT from pre-TNG ship designs. Assuming they needed the same degree of phaser coverage, the only way that could be done is with rotatable phaser turrets. So I have to say that I’m for that.
All in all, it looks cool. Don’t worry about canon – it’s never been totally inviolable. It’s not the letter of the law – it’s subject to interpretation. Like history. We’ll be seeing a new chapter in history. It might change what we know. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If it is true to the spirit of the original, the idea of Star Trek, then it’ll be good.
‘Canon is the beginning of Star Trek, not the end.’
- Spock (attrib.)
;-)
Databrain, you can have whatever judgements of the movie that you want, but you really need to realize that the Star Trek that was originally created is now done and over with, and this new one is getting it’s chance. If you don’t like that, then you don’t have to watch the movie. You’ll be missing out on a chance to open up to something that isn’t in the cult view that most of the fans currently have, and who knows, if you see it then maybe you’ll like it.
Just remember that things never can look good for you unless you look at them with the glass half full.
Ok, I need to give my two cents about the Kirk character.
People have been upset about Kirk being portrayed as a womanizing maverick, rather than a bullied bookworm gone responsible leader. Also, Pine’s comments about being inspired by Harrison Ford have led people to worry about the beloved captain being reduced to a Han Solo-type screwup. Furthermore, people cringe at the obnoxious kid Kirk stating his full name to the robot cop.
IMHO, all of these things are actually in character. Kirk is, first and foremost, a WINNER, and everything else is secondary.
He hates to lose, and as Pike observantly points out in the trailer, he’s always known that he’s special. Whatever Kirk does, he does it to win or to get ahead. He never backs down from a challenge, whatever it may be – conquering women, getting the best grades, free-climbing or becoming the youngest captain.
From “the enemy within” to the later TOS movies, there’s nothing more defining of Kirk than his ambition and drive to win and be the best.
When kid Kirk proudly states his name in the trailer it’s because he already _knows_ in his heart that it will be legendary. No doubt, this made him less than popular with some other kids, and he probably got his fair share of bullying back then. However, by the time he ended up in Starfleet academy, he would have learned to hold back, fake a bit of humility and have developed the signature Kirk charm that helps him get away with being so full of himself.
When Kirk is down, it’s because he’s unsure about his definition of winning. Does his Starfleet career, his decorations and legend really mean that he won? Or would it have been more of a victory to be a family man, raising children and thereby ensuring a “real” legacy? I hope that any “emo” moments he has in this movie will be amicable to a similar interpretation.
With all the talk of the Star Wars prequels, it’s amazing that people don’t recognize that we’re not looking at Han Solo, but Anakin! Yes, you heard me, Anakin Skywalker! They’re essentially the same character, only Kirk never turned to the dark side. He could have, though, just like Anakin could have been the greatest Jedi hero ever.
So, to sum up – the Kirk presented so far in the trailer goes straight to the core of the character as we know him. While the sequence of events we’ll see might not be consistent with canon, there’s nothing in this trailer that indicates unfaithfulness to the _character_.
Btw, all of this naturally only applies to what is seen in the trailer. That’s all I’m saying, and I’m totally aware that the full movie might go completely bananas with regards to the Kirk character. Still, somehow, I have a good feeling it won’t.
1171 Dennis Bailey — “Doomsday Machine” is still a strong episode, I enjoy watching it. I also agree, however, that this movie looks promising — to me, it looks exciting as well as potentially strong as a story.
Why is it I am reading from fans with such extreme points of view. Am I really in the minority for believing that appreciation for 1966 vintage Star Trek and excitement over 2009 vintage Star Trek are not incompatible?
Why does it either have to be “Gene Roddenberry was a wingnut on par with L. Ron Hubbard” or “Gene Roddenberry’s conceptualization of Star Trek is as sacred and inviolable to true fans of Star Trek as a Papal Bull is to Catholics”?
ARRRRGH!
Went to see QoS at the Malco Paradiso in Memphis, TN and NO TRAILER!!!!
Been viewing the bootlegs over and over. Can’t wait until noon!!!
# 806
“788. YARN – November 16, 2008
Ummm.. do you remember Amok Time? Remember him smashing the computer.. throwing the food into the hallway… he was very violent in that episide. AND.. see his emotion when he notices that Kirk is still alive????
There are quite a few episide that show that Spock isn’t fully in control of his emotions.”
Ummm… yeah I do. do you remember the part of the post where I said “Maybe it will all make sense in context, but on its face this is a concern, especially when we are looking at a “think outside the box” reimagining of the franchise.”
Sure, if Spock randomly slips into Pon Farr or is subjected to mind control by aliens on the bridge, it might make perfect sense for him to lunge at the Captain. If not, it won’t.
And AGAIN Spock momentarily smiling and saying “Jim!!” (after he thought he had killed his captain and best friend) is a damm sight less radical than lunging at a peer after being goaded “Nyah, nyah, why don’t you make me do it Muppet Baby Spock!”
Spock does not attack people when verbally goaded (unless his character is radically compromised by the context).
I can’t believe people are actually arguing this point.
If you want to hold out for a context that makes sense of it, FINE. On the other hand, if you want to say that it makes sense ON ITS FACE that Spock would attack a fellow Starfleet member after a taunt, is desperately reaching (No, it’s still Trek!)
If you have a negative opinion of the movie that’s fine, but it would be nice if you would stop attributing it to JJ alone. Remember that it was also written by two people with a lot of knowledge and passion for ST and even JJ himself said he has become a Trekker and grown to love the characters themselves.
1181 Patrick — Oh my, by comparing Kirk to Anakin, you’ve really opened a can of worms. Personally, being a fan of both ST and SW, I get where you’re coming from, but it’s a bit of a stretch…. At bottom, Anakin is a troubled boy with too much skill and talent for his own good — he can’t handle it, ultimately. He can only be redeemed by his son. Kirk, on the other hand, knows how to temper his skill and talent with foresight and diplomacy; he may go out on a limb, but he knows how far he can take it. And he’s got Bones and Spock to help him. Kirk would never get sweet-talked into destroying democracy by Palpatine/Sidious’ heady, faux-Nietzschean moral fables.
[1186] I did not mention Anakin with his bike on Tattooine in EP 2 with a purpose ;))
We should all just thank our lucky stars Hayden Christensen is not playing Kirk! Yeech!
On Spock being goaded, if rumour is true, is Vulcan not being attacked at that time in the film, with the whole planet including his mother and father in danger?
I think that Leonard Nimoy showed that Spock was never in 100% control of his emotions, maybe 99% but that 1% might be all Kirk needs to push “young” Spock over the edge.
@1186
I absolutely agree with you.
Anakin comes to a point in his life where he decides the rest of the world is evil and that makes him evil.
Jim Kirk is a troubled kid who grows up to become a good, loving leader.
glowing rocket exhaust from the warp nacelle endcaps?
are you freaking serious?
http://aqua.mysfdb.com/nggallery/page-19/album-4/gallery-12/page/360/
http://aqua.mysfdb.com/nggallery/page-19/album-4/gallery-12/page/352/
this isnt star wars, could someone explain to jj how the warp nacelles work?
they are not rockets, jj…
sheesh…
the kelvin looks a lot like one of my old designs, for a starfleet destroyer/corvette:
http://jefferywright.com/star-trek-enterprise.shtml
last thumbnail on the bottom right.
thanks to aqua.mysfdb.com for posting those awesome stills!
1186, 1190 – well, you’re sort of right, but that’s mostly about circumstances.
Fortunately, Kirk didn’t have awesome magical powers that he couldn’t handle. Fortunately, he didn’t go through enough pain to bring him that close to the edge. Fortunately, he didn’t have Sidious finally pushing him over it. Fortunately, he didn’t end up in a pool of lava after fighting Pike with lightsabers :) If he had, isn’t it quite possible (or even probable) that he would have decided the rest of the world is evil?
I still think that they’re basically the same kind of personality , with similar intrinsic character traits, both with potential to end up either good or bad.
Anyway, the comparison was not my main point, just a sidenote.
[1
191] Don’t worry, Jeffery, I even saw concept drawings where the wings on the nacelles split open and reveal warp plasma…
[1192] It’s always the father issues, Patrick…
986. Boborci
“Ran into him at lunch the other day. When I see him again, I’ll pass along you’re request.”
Look at you. Droppin’ names/ :)
RE: 1191
Really? This is what you’re worried about? That to you it appears there is rocket exhaust coming out of your beloved fictional warp drive nacelles. Come one folks, this is silly.
Is it a good story? Does it have that wagon train to the stars feeling? Does it look and feel like a film instead of an extended television episode?
But mainly, is it a good story?
This trailer has done it’s job: it’s generated excitement. It’s a kick butt trailor.
I don’t care about what the warp effect looks like, or the transporter effect, or any of that.
1196
Thank god for rational thinking.
That’s right because that 40 years of history was crap. Star Trek has got to start kicking butt.
“People have been upset about Kirk being portrayed as a womanizing maverick, rather than a bullied bookworm gone responsible leader”
Kirk a bullied bookworm?? No way. As a young boy, maybe *he* was the bully.
Databrain the whole point is not about changing what star trek was to make it better….. it’s about taking the idea of what star trek was always about and putting that idea across in away that shows everyone what Star Trek is about. You seem to just be very narrow minded and not open to something new and seem hellbent that your opinion is the right one. Considering Star Trek is based on a future of being enlightend and about accepting change you could not be further from that. You’re one of the people that give star trek fans a bad name.
What is wrong about being a womanizing maverick?
The one will not work without the other ;))
1171. D. Russ B-Flav™.
Sums it perfectly. And thats the core thing guiding me here… not stressing over particulars of canon. DOES this Star Trek make you feel the way that Star Trek has in the past?
I’m with you 100%, baybeeeeeeee. The trailer is exciting, and compelling. I’ve seen this bootleg version a million times now – and I just keep watching it and getting that same feeling. Cannot WAIT 2.5 hours for the HD official version.
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
Damon Lindelof: I think for us, it is mostly about capturing the world of Trek. A world in which there is a Federation of Planets. The characters are sort of interchangeable in that world. For me, I would get into a very lengthy debate with someone who says ‘I love The Next Generation, but I hate The Original Series.’ Why is that? Both of those shows function in the same universe, abide by the same rules, are set in a future that is optimistic and adventurous, and they are exploration shows.
‘Databrain, you can have whatever judgements of the movie that you want, but you really need to realize that the Star Trek that was originally created is now done and over with, and this new one is getting it’s chance.’
To even say that reveals you have no respect for genes original vision. Because if you did, you’d realize the messages it contains are timeless and never ‘done and over with’. Further, if you really think a film that could be potentially 90% action and 10% namesake is really any sort of representation of the meaning and purpose of why star trek was created in the first place, you have no right calling yourself a star trek fan. Maybe a fan of JJ but not a fan of real trek. Again, please answer the question why you want anything to do with star trek if you hate genes vision. Otherwise your responses are ad hominem semantical escape from direct answers.
‘If you don’t like that, then you don’t have to watch the movie. You’ll be missing out on a chance to open up to something that isn’t in the cult view that most of the fans currently have, and who knows, if you see it then maybe you’ll like it.’
Stop turning it around and trying to make it seem like the geek factor are the close minded ones. It’s like saying to a mathematician ‘get over quantum variables, open yourself to multiplication’. Thing is, been there, done that. Stop trying to make it seem like we haven’t.
“The original Trek was a sexy action adventure sci-fi western meets high seas epic of gunboat diplomacy! The new Trek appears to amping that up to maximum. I’m thrilled about it, as are most people. I’ve shown the bootleg trailer to non-fans who now want to see it! ”
Well said Dom. In fact, I’ve been to a lot of the non-trek sites featuring the new trailer, like EW and Chicago tribune and there are posts after posts from people who say they never watched StarTrek yet they want to see this film. All based off the wonderfully different and exciting tailer. One guy even seemed to be amused that this movie might turn him into a fan of the original show. Bottom line…the trailer is doing what it is supposed to do. It’s working.
Well done JJ and company!
Can’t wait to zombie out in front of the HD version this afternoon.
THE WOMEN!!
http://dir.salon.com/story/sex/galleries/2002/09/06/nimoy/
1200
Agreed. These people can really go overboard with the pessimism.
And although you are entitled to your own unique opinion, Databrain & others (wouldn’t have it any other way), I think it’s the close-minded mentality that is the most disappointing. Yes, rather than to have a hopeful attitude, some people are hell bent on ripping down anything fresh or new.
The original cast and creatives are either dead or very old. Since they cannot be ressurected or given the fountain of youth elixor for this film, this is one of the choices they had.
It’s almost as if no matter what the new team did, they would never be able to meet the expectations of some close-minded individuals.
You can either come along for the ride and take a chance on something which may be great or stay there whining and miss out. Your loss.
1198. …40 years of history was crap?
then you simply dont like star trek. it is what it is, and what it is not is star wars.
1196. don’t care about what the warp effect looks like?
the details is what sets trek apart from the pulp sci-fi like star wars, stargate, etc…
ignoring the details puts star trek on par with childrens adventure stories and fairy tales like stargate, xena, andromeda, star wars, etc…
warp nacelles do not ever, ever, exhibit rocket / thruster exhaust like the cliche’d sci-fi spaceships like we see in star wars, a childrens fairy tale series.
didnt jj have any consultants on staff who knew anything about star trek?
not a one?
‘Databrain the whole point is not about changing what star trek was to make it better….. it’s about taking the idea of what star trek was always about and putting that idea across in away that shows everyone what Star Trek is about.’
You cannot show someone what star trek is about by making it into something that is isn’t. That is like saying, let me show you what a computer chip is by showing you the inside of a furnace. It won’t work that way.
‘You seem to just be very narrow minded and not open to something new and seem hellbent that your opinion is the right one.’
I simply asked why haters of the original roddenberry vision wanted anything to do with trek to begin with. And all I have thus far come into contact with are ad hominem non answers and unrelated JJ abrams praises.
‘Considering Star Trek is based on a future of being enlightend and about accepting change you could not be further from that.’
let me reverse the spectrum for you a little. how does this sound. Those who cannot grasp a concept in its intricate form, are never going to get it by simplification of said concept. What would keep them from getting it is, you guessed it, their closed minds. Now you are basically saying that to embrace the need to appeal to such closed minds by extracting all meaning and relatedness from the original concept is, in fact, close minded. I would say this qualifies pretty much as semantical masturbation.
‘You’re one of the people that give star trek fans a bad name.’
And you’re one of those people who makes it obvious you never were a star trek fan. Maybe a JJ fan. But either way, have a nice day.
1204
GENE’S VISION! GENE’S VISION!
It has been well documented that it was not only Gene Rodenberry involved with the shape the original series took. I’m not going to go on and on – you know the names – but suffice it to say, it was not “ALL GENE” that made the show great.
“…you have no right calling yourself a star trek fan. Maybe a fan of JJ but not a fan of real trek.”
According to *you*. IMO you’re a disgrace as a Trek fan for saying that. What a joke. I’m not even going to continue this, it’s like talking to a wall.
Wow.
Out of 815 people polled, 546 of them actually saw the trailer attached to QOS.
Of that 546, an overwhelming 85% of them (464) liked it, and 350 of them said it was ‘fantastic’.
Only a mere 73 people said that they were ‘disappointed’.
Some of the “louder” complaint posts aside (many of them made by fans who had already made up their minds to hate it), the trailer seems to have had a very positive effect. Fans who frequent trekmovie.com enough to participate in the poll seem to have a very good impression of it.
1207
new and open minded?
then why not recast the original crew with hobbits & greys, and redesign the 1701 to be a big metallic space dragon that uses magic to jump from place to place?
hows that for new and open minded?
why not?
I wanted to correct one thing..
I said..
Now you are basically saying that to embrace the need to appeal to such closed minds by extracting all meaning and relatedness from the original concept is NOT, in fact, minded.
I forgot the not earlier..
#1204—-What exactly is it that you have either seen or heard that gives you the impression that “Gene’s vision” has been compromised?
Let me tell you something.
“Gene’s vision” was one born out of the horrors he and men like Gene Coon witnessed in the Second World War. They witnessed first hand a point where Mankind was at both its worst and, at times, its best.
Star Trek was a ‘beacon’ during the height of The Cold War.
Star Trek’s vision is that Humanity does not destroy itself. Instead, it unites to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the “final frontier”.
I have seen nothing—-I repeat—-nothing….which indicates to me that vision has been compromised…not one thing.
What is it that has suggested that to you?
1208 “warp nacelles do not ever, ever, exhibit rocket / thruster exhaust like the cliche’d sci-fi spaceships like we see in star wars, a childrens fairy tale series.”
So Star Trek is about nacelles and warp fields? I give up… ;)
#1191
That’s the secondary hull, not the warp nacelle, if I’m not mistaken. Also, the other picture is just of the warp effect. Did you never watch the films? There’s always some crazy light show going on when they go to warp.
‘And although you are entitled to your own unique opinion, Databrain & others (wouldn’t have it any other way), I think it’s the close-minded mentality that is the most disappointing. Yes, rather than to have a hopeful attitude, some people are hell bent on ripping down anything fresh or new.’
Please refrain from using reverse semantics to make the geek factor look like the closed minded ones. I will quote myself as saying..
‘Now you are basically saying that to embrace the need to appeal to such closed minds by extracting all meaning and relatedness from the original concept is NOT, in fact, minded.’
See my point is you cannot comprehend the intricate design and concept of something by cutting down on its details. And IF this film consists of 90% action and 10% namesake, it will have no conceptual relation or meaning in trek context, as per genes vision. yes I am drilling genes vision into the equation constantly because it is the ONLY reason trek has survived for half a century. Extract that vision and what you are left with is an empty shell that might as well be called LOST in space.
‘What exactly is it that you have either seen or heard that gives you the impression that “Gene’s vision” has been compromised?’
I keep emphasizing the ‘if’ factor. Not saying anything permanent. IF IF IF.
At 1 minute 5 seconds, pause and take a look at that starbase. A nice little nod to classic Trek design. A book entitled “The Star Fleet Technical Manual” first published in 1975 had drawings by Joseph Franz of various ships, bases, equipment, etc. There’s an entry in there for Fleet Headquarters. The starbase in the trailer looks like an updated version of that Fleet Headquarters design.
@1212:
LOL!
Ah, the age-old battle between the ‘canonistas’ (who came up with that?) and the ‘open-minded people’.
OK, message to the open-minded people:
Canon has been and always will be (ha! – Spock) important to us. It is what distinguishes Trek from other sci-fi. You cannot ask us to just forget about everything that has gone before ‘for the sake of the story’. You might argue that it’s fictional, and therefore not important, but quite frankly, that’s just going to annoy us. ‘Cos we know it’s fictional. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not important to us.
When we pick on what we perceive as errors, we’re genuinely concerned. We care about Trek, and don’t want to see it bent and twisted into something that it’s not, or rather, shouldn’t be.
OK, message to the canonistas:
Seriously, guys… I think it’s going to be OK. I don’t think there’s going to be any glaring continuity errors, and we can accept a few. We’ve been accepting a few all the way along. It might not be exactly what has gone before. It might change some of what we know. It might add to it. But that’s not necessarily bad.
We’ve all heard Bob Orci. Even from the few snippets he’s posted on this site, it’s obvious (to me, at least) that he knows his Trek. He’s not going to have stamped all over it. He’s one of us!
Would Nimoy have even associated himself with this film if he thought it was going to be a heap of shite? Would James Cawley be giving it good press if he didn’t think it was true to Trek spirit?
As for ‘Gene’s vision’…
Star Trek ceased to become Gene’s vision a long time ago. It has evolved way beyond the imagination of one man. It exists in all of us. We all have a slightly different take on what Star Trek should be. Personally, there’s things I’ve seen of the new movie that I don’t like. There’s things that I do like. And I’m prepared to give it a chance – because what I’ve seen of it that I do like strikes a chord… and it reminds me of when I was five years old, watching a TV screen in something akin to rapture.
My three-year-old son and my two-year-old daughter saw the bootlegged trailer for the first time today. They both pointed and said ‘Kirk’ and ‘Spock’. And ridiculously sad and pathetic though it sounds, I welled up. If this new film can bring that same hope, that same fascination, that same dream to my children as it brought to me…
Enough said.
[1209] Databrain, who do you think are the Haters here? Hate is a strong word…
I wonder what D.C. Fontana thinks about the new movie, though…
#1215
well, if trek is just story and character interaction, why not cast the crew as sentient robotic hamsters who somehow found themselves in england during the dark ages?
why have starfleet at all? oh, i see, now star trek is just about starfleet? who needs starfleet at all for a trek movie?
why be set in the future? is trek just about the future? its character interaction, right? optimistic vision, no? they dont even need spaceships… sure the 1701 is an important character… she could be portrayed by a steam locomotive, for all anyone cares about continuity.
robotic hamsters in the dark ages who use a trans-dimensional steam locomotive named enterprise, to explore space and time…
sounds like star trek to me.
By the way, comment #5 suggests it’s silly to build a ship of that size on Earth. Really…
Ever seen an aircraft carrier? Do they build those in space?
Go here to see a size comparison between the carrier Enterprise and the starship Enterprise from the original series:
http://www.cloudster.com/sets&vehicles/STEnterprise/eplan03.JPG
I think everyone is getting far too carried away about all this. Turn off the computer, stand up, and go about your lives until May…and stop debating the ‘realities’ of a late 60’s television series. Aren’t there slightly more important things we could all be putting our energies into?
[1220] Canonistas, coined by the honorable Jeffries Tuber…
I’m waiting and waiting and waiting for the trailer in HD… So in the meantime I worked on a funny Scotty story.
-A young engineer makes his way from Earthbound to Exile hehe
Here it is, if you care for a read to pass the time:
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4660898/1/In_the_Cradle_of_Destiny
With best regards to Simon Pegg, a great young Scotty and a great honorary Scot.
Sarah
#1067 – Spot-on, Admiral! Nicely said. :)
#1150 – “Can’t people just be happy for the fact that there is a new freaking Star Trek movie coming…? With the same characters from the original television show…?”
I think one concern here is that they may not be those characters, but a set of people who look and act a bit like those characters, and not much more.
I don’t know the truth of it; I haven’t yet seen the film. But there are already a lot of questions of verisimilitude here.
#1161 – “No mind meld.
I am not even convinced that the Spocks meet.
Why should Spock Prime ask Kirk never to mention their encounter?”
Haven’t both Mr. Nimoy and Mr. Quinto described playing at least one scene together? I think the meeting of the Spocks is a part of all this, just not among the scenes so far previewed. Remember, there’s still a lot of movie not yet seen or described, and it is risky trying to extrapolate the plot from so few fragments.
#1220—-” If this new film can bring that same hope, that same fascination, that same dream to my children as it brought to me…
Enough said.”
Precisely. That’s what it is all about.
It will be my children and their peers who determine whether this film is a success, not old “canonistas” like me.
With that said, Orci and Kurtzman have handed JJ Abrams a huge ‘canon’ loophole (the possibility of an alternate timeline being created by interference with the past has been ‘canon’ for over 4 decades).
This seems to mesh with what Orci told us from the beginning:
“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.
Anything which occurs “after” the attack upon the USS Kelvin (4 days before the birth of James T. Kirk) by Romulans from the future is subject to change from the way it played out in the original timeline.
Moreover, Nero and his cohorts come from the same timeline as Nimoy’s Spock. Everything must happen as it did in that timeline in order for the story to progress to the point where Nero decides to take action to alter the past.
It is therefore not a “reboot”, since everything in the timeline with which we are all so familiar is inherently relevant to the story. Nor is it a true “prequel”.
I would define it (at this point) as a very unconventional “sequel”, given that everything from ENT-Nemesis must occur before Nero and his vilainous accomplices travel back in time.
This should be alot of fun.
#1227—”Haven’t both Mr. Nimoy and Mr. Quinto described playing at least one scene together? I think the meeting of the Spocks is a part of all this, just not among the scenes so far previewed. Remember, there’s still a lot of movie not yet seen or described, and it is risky trying to extrapolate the plot from so few fragments.”
They have. However, that scene may or may not make it into the film.
[1227] Absolutely, Alex, I just mentioned that because Spock Prime puts very much emphasis in his plea while saying good bye to young Kirk…
1225. thorsten – November 17, 2008
[1220] Canonistas, coined by the honorable Jeffries Tuber…
I dunno, I’ve been using the word “canonistas” at least as far back as the first season of “Enterprise…”
#1222
Sarcasm apart, we are talking about non-existent science. If nacelles emit some kind of plasma, or… call it quantum-charged-particles… is this a problem. Technobabble, guys.
Come on, Star Trek is not about these things. As long as its “believable”, I will accept every kind of technology.
#1224 We’re just having fun. That’s all.
1223 – Big difference between an aircraft carrier and a starship. The carrier stays in the water! I think that we would build many things on earth, send them up, and assemble in space. I just don’t think the whole thing would be built down here. Again its a movie I suppose.
Clearly the biggest problem with the trailer for most people, is that we apparently were suckered by Sony. So they made more money on Quantum of Solace, due to Star Trek fans. We deserve an explanation to this mischief!
[1231] Sorry, Dennis, bad research on my part
;))
Anthony – with what you said earlier, about a pattern emerging, that sealed it for me: this movie will show an altered timeline (due to interference from Nero) of how our crew got to the Enterprise (at least differently than what some folks have concensus of), but they eventually get there.
Think of looking at a railroad track from the air; one straight and continuous main line. Then, a switch comes up and creates a second track as a siding, but still parallels the main line. Eventually, this siding switches back to the main line further on.
That is what I think this movie is going to do: create a siding somewhere in what’s been thought of as our characters’ past, but eventually ending up at the same spot further on in time.
And from looking at the trailer, and if you’re reading, boborci, I have to buy you guys a drink! It looks fabulous! Thank you for bringing Star Trek back!
[1229] Or maybe later at the end of the movie, Closettrekker…
“Nimoy started off asking about Heroes, and the character Sylar which eventually led to what was similar about Sylar and Spock, that they are both ‘conflicted’, with Quinto noting that in the film “Spock is really not in control of the line between his emotional life and his intellectual life.” Quinto then asked if it was easy for Nimoy to return to the role of Spock, to which he replied:
The thing that was difficult for me was my very first day on the movie, we have this complicated and very interesting scene together. And I didn’t feel totally on my ground yet, particularly with this kind of scene. I had never played with another Spock before, it was weird.
Quinto then noted that sometimes when you shoot a film you may start off by shooting the last scene in the film, however it wasn’t clear if he was speaking generally or about the specific scene from Nimoy’s first day. They also both agreed that in the end the scene worked and feedback has been good. Regardless this is the first time they have both spoken openly about having a scene together. Later when Quinto was talking about Simon Pegg (Scotty) he noted that Nimoy actually worked with Pegg more than he did, implying that we are going to see a good amount of Scotty and the elder Spock together.”
@1223:
Not meaning to be picky, but you don’t launch aircraft carriers into orbit.
In order to get something into orbit, it’s got to be travelling at AT LEAST 672kph, and accelerate to that speed at a rate of AT LEAST 9.8ms2. In other words, in needs to go really fast, really quickly. This requires building up momentum which is mass mutliplied by velocity.
Put simply, the heavier something is, the harder it is to get it into orbit. If the Enterprise was built on the surface of the Earth, it would be VERY difficult to get it into orbit.
Think of how big the space shuttle is. Think how much fuel is needed to get that into orbit. Now think how big the Enterprise is by comparison. Think how much fuel you’d need to get THAT into orbit. You’d need a rocket probably 20 times the size. At least.
It would make far more sense for the Enterprise to be built in segments on the surface and assembled in orbit.
I don’t typically post on here… but I do read through the postings just to get a feel for what the reaction is to one thing or another regarding this movie, and one common theme I keep seeing is this uber-fan inability to be 1. Objective, 2. Embrace even the slightest hint of change, and 3. A constant nitpicking over rather nonsensical details. I’ll cover each.
1. Objectivity.
J.J. Abrams was given the Star Trek franchise because of his success and ability as a filmmaker. Cloverfield alone made double it’s budget on opening weekend, it’s overall worldwide gross practically quadrupled it. His television show’s Lost and Alias are practically phenomenons that are still cleaning house in DVD sales. He knows how to make a film/show that is financially successfully … which ultimately is the BUSINESS in SHOWBUSINESS.
The key to that business is to put “asses in the seats,” and in order to do that you have to make the film as broadly appealing as possible. And in the case of Star Trek, that means leaning away from what made the franchise so detestable to the rank-and-file movie goer … and what made it such a farce; something to be poked fun at. These things are:
a. “White-bread” sensibilities… meaning TOO G-rated.
b. A reliance on it’s own laurels and brand-name recognition
c. The need for new viewers to have to learn an encyclopedia of information to understand both characters and basic plot design.
It seems, by reading these posts, that the Star Trek fanbase would be happier maintaining a formula that has, essentially, buried Star Trek in old science fiction parody. However, the base only makes up maybe 10 percent of the target audience. If J.J., Lindelof, and Paramount were to appeal strictly to that base, the film would not only lose millions of dollars but would hammer the final nail in the franchise for a very long time, if not forever.
Lets give J.J. Abrams a chance to not only bring a remarkable piece of Sci-Fi back from the near-dead, but also generate NEW fans. Let the film itself decide for you, not the trailer (which shows perhaps 2 minutes of a two-hour film), or what you THINK Star Trek should be.
2. Inability to embrace change.
If Apple drops a new iPod, or Intel a new, faster chipset … does anyone complain? If they did not release new products, but rested on their past products, do you think they would be as successful? Would you buy a modern car without seatbelts… like they used to make them in the 50’s? Would the company that makes seatbelt-less cars be as successful as businesses that do?
Star Trek is a franchise… which is akin to a business. If a business does not adapt to the needs and wants of a MODERN consumer, it will die. If we allowed the same people who opposed TNG to run the Star Trek franchise, we simply wouldn’t have one.
3. Nitpicking over nonsensical details.
This plays into number 2. Is it truly that important that Chris Pine has a different eye color than William Shatner? Is it a showstopper that Zach Quinto is not as tall as Leonard Nimoy, and thus can’t possibly play Spock? Is a potential new fan going to truly care whether or not Kirk served on the Republic or Farrugut?
No … on all counts. Let it go, people… seriously. We didn’t have a new Star Trek, especially one with iconic characters, until J.J. came along to deliver it. Let’s not sweat the small stuff!
I have been a fan of the Star Trek, typically the TOS movies, since I was a kid… and I am absolutely thrilled, to the core, that this is happening. I love the Enterprise in all iterations, I love the characters in all iterations. That love of something superceeds the small things… like how the new Enterprise looks (which I think is amazing!). That is the sign of a true fan.
#1230—”Absolutely, Alex, I just mentioned that because Spock Prime puts very much emphasis in his plea while saying good bye to young Kirk…”
I had similar thoughts. Although we do not know if “Spock Prime” ends up being put into a situation where he has determined that a conversation with Quinto’s Spock has become necessary to resolve the problem (or if the meeting occurs unintended), the aforementioned “two Spocks scene” would seem a bit contradictory to the scene described with Nimoy and Pine.
We shall see. Many things are shot on film that do not actually make it into the final cut in some cases.
[1238] That is right, James, but we are not talking Wernher von Brauns propellant here anymore…
#1236 – “That is what I think this movie is going to do: create a siding somewhere in what’s been thought of as our characters’ past, but eventually ending up at the same spot further on in time.”
That’s sort of where it enters a gray area for me. If it’s a relatively small siding, and then the rest fits together, then it’s easier for me to be accepting of that than a siding that just travels on for a few miles and eventually branches off onto a whole other long-haul track.
Again, thus why I’m reserving judgment.
1232 – It has long been a source of pride for the Trek production team to get the science correct. It’s one of the reasons I loved TNG. Unfortunately, science and scientific extrapolation has been absent from most Trek series and movies, especially after TNG. I don’t expect to see much in this film. It’s one of the reasons I hope that Star Trek will eventually return to television in some form, because that’s its true home IMO. I’m not talking about Technobabble, but just concepts. Other than trace amounts in Generations, a scientific idea has not been a main ingredient in a film since TMP and TWOK. I don’t count time travel, because it hasn’t been well used scientifically, as in Time’s Arrow or Yesterday’s Enterprise.
#1239
Amen to that, too.
[1240] And then there is the possibility that they meet, but Spock Prime does not reveal himself… white eyebrows and all ;))
#1239—-”one common theme I keep seeing is this uber-fan inability to be 1. Objective, 2. Embrace even the slightest hint of change, and 3. A constant nitpicking over rather nonsensical details”
Bear in mind that although those who you describe there are often some of the loudest on these threads, they are not necessarily representative.
I would direct you to the poll on the right. Compare these results to the tone of many of the posts here about it.
Out of 815 people polled, 546 of them actually saw the trailer attached to QOS.
Of that 546, an overwhelming 85% of them (464) liked it, and 350 of them said it was ‘fantastic’.
Only a mere 73 out of the 546 who said they saw it were ‘disappointed’.
While that particular poll was about the impressions of the trailer, it should give you some perspective on how insignificant some of the more negative reactions are on this and other threads.
#1243 “It has long been a source of pride for the Trek production team to get the science correct. It’s one of the reasons I loved TNG”
I truly respect your opinion, but I think that it’s the typical TNG-ish technobabble (LaForge and co.) that projected Trek in the geeks domain.
#1238 – “In order to get something into orbit, it’s got to be travelling at AT LEAST 672kph, and accelerate to that speed at a rate of AT LEAST 9.8ms2. In other words, in needs to go really fast, really quickly. This requires building up momentum which is mass mutliplied by velocity.
Put simply, the heavier something is, the harder it is to get it into orbit. If the Enterprise was built on the surface of the Earth, it would be VERY difficult to get it into orbit.”
Don’t forget, though, that in Trek’s world, control and manipulation of gravity is a fact of life. they have gravity-suppression tech, and as such, the idea that one simply has to thrust beyond 1 g to lift something doesn’t necessarily hold anymore. that’s why getting a ship like Enterprise off the ground isn’t quite as nuts as one might otherwise think.
#1245—Certainly.
“As your teacher, Mr. Spock, is fond of saying…there are always possibilities.”—-Admiral Kirk to Lt. Saavik, TWOK
#1246 …. You know, that’s a good point! I had seen that Saturday but didn’t take it into account. It’s unfortunately that the louder voices always seem the more negative.
Looks like a placeholder just went up on the Apple Trailer site — there’s no image but the words Star Trek Exclusive HD are there — if you click on it you still get the teaser trailer though.
#1247 … “I truly respect your opinion, but I think that it’s the typical TNG-ish technobabble (LaForge and co.) that projected Trek in the geeks domain.”
This is exaclty what I was referring to regarding needing to know the encyclopedia of Star Trek knowledge to follow the story. Great line!
#1238
What you are saying applies in a world where they have to follow Newtonian physics.
But in the ST world, they have anti-gravity devices which presumably allow them to overcome gravity’s effects. Thus, you’d only need to get the big-E moving and it would “float” slowly into orbit. There is no need for the fast acceleration of a rocket, because escape or orbital velocity maneouvers are not required.
Where’s Michael Okuda when we really need him. :-)
@1241:
No, but the same principles apply. It’s not like the Enterprise could use impulse engines for orbital insertion. Impulse engines are effectively ion drives, and as such, won’t work in an atmosphere. Well, not without serious damage to the atmosphere, anyway.
So the only thing it could use is some form of fuel propellant, something not too distantly related from what we use now (solid oxygen). The only thing the Enterprise has that’s similar is thrusters. And they’re probably not powerful enough to generate sufficient momentum.
Even taking into account leaps forward in propellant technology, a lifting rocket would be required. A BIG ASS lifting rocket. Which means a GIANT ASS launch pad. The infrastructure demands and costs involved in lifting such a massive object into orbit at once would be phenomenal.
#1248 – oops, missed Alex’s post. Good work! ;-)
Talking about Trek has never been so funny. Dear trekkers, I love you all, canonistas, open and close minded. Tribbles too. Live Long and Prosper.
Trek was a tv show and a pretty good one at that, written for the 1960’s, to appeal to a 60’s audience. While some elements of trek have dated well, others have dated horribly. The klingons for example were, at best two dimensional in the original series. At best. But it was great for its time and to those who loved it, timeless.
But a 60’s startrek is out of touch with the world we have today, and if gene’s vision (although i don’t know how we got to being on a first name basis with him) is not capable of change to engage the people of today, then its as good as dead, and rightly so i think.
The classic enterprise is a 60’s icon. But even back when they were doing TMP they knew that the series ship would not cut the mustard in a cinema for a variety of reasons, hence the ‘refit’. Why didn’t they keep the original lines of the ship back then, and just ‘up the detail level’. The diehards need to stop looking at choices made in the show as fictionally driven, and look at them as franchise or production driven. The enterprise did not require a ‘refit’ because as a ship it had served x years and needed to be brought up to modern starfleet requirements. It got a refit because it looked like something built on a tiny budget in the sixties from assorted crap in a shed, with interior sets and lighting very much the same.
As for negative comments on Abrams. Have you even watched any of the things he has done. Hove you even bothered? No matter what the subject, be it Lost, Fringe, Alias , MI3, Cloverfield, he has always made the story revolve around the characters. His works are almost nothing BUT character interaction.
And to be blunt. Who are we to decide who is, and is not a trek fan? Who are we to lay down the bar as to what a ‘real’ fan is. What arrogance. What a deeply misplaced sense of superiority. To leap on everyone who does not cherish every single aspect of the original series as if it was perfect like we are defending it to the death. To some, canon has become dogma, and any attempt to change it is nothing short of an attack on a religion, and such attacks are met by some with fanaticism.
Trek was good. It was by no means perfect.
If the new movies mean a lot of people unfamiliar with trek leave the cinema saying,
‘Wow, that was great, i gotta have that on blueray!’
then its making new startrek fans and securing the future of trek hopefully for years to come. Don’t forget that while the fans and the production teams may love trey like no one’s business, paramount pictures is not running a charity. They make shows to make money. Trek as of late has failed, badly and i really don’t think it can afford to any longer. The fans bashing the movie for the sake of it consider how close the franchise is to dying.
#1254—-It requires no more suspension of disbelief (and perhaps alot less) than transporter technology or functional warp drive, IMO.
@1248 and 1253:
You may be right on the anti-grav. I hadn’t thought of that!
Switching back into sci-fi, rather than just sci, I suppose the concept of a tractor beam should also be mentioned at this point…
The anti-grav thing would work quite well, thinking about it – no escape velocity, no minimum acceleration, bloody easy to implement (relatively speaking)…
its officially there!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
greets, Andreas
And 1258!
[1254] I totally agree, James. But the only way I can imagine the launch is by huge antigrav tugs… or the Ship has an AG unit we never heard about…
That’s the teaser. We need the trailer.
Looks like I got some reading to do, based on the amount of posts.
BUT, I couldn’t help but notice Roberto’s two words: Quantum Mechanics.
Either he’s referring to a MAJOR plot point that makes everything make sense, or the licensee of the movie’s prop reproductions ;)
Both would be nice!
@1264:
Quantum mechanics – how a quantum torpedo works.
ARGH!! CANON!! ;-)
#1189
“On Spock being goaded, if rumour is true, is Vulcan not being attacked at that time in the film, with the whole planet including his mother and father in danger?”
Is it? At that very moment? All I know is that ‘lil Kirk has the same plan (but not the follow through) of Thelma and Louise, and that future cops look like the Iron Giant.
“I think that Leonard Nimoy showed that Spock was never in 100% control of his emotions, maybe 99% but that 1% might be all Kirk needs to push “young” Spock over the edge.”
AGAIN, Spock simply DOES NOT lose his cool when a fellow starfleet member says “Why don’t you make me do it!” (paraphrasing here).
When Spock went totally off the hook (i.e., became physically violent) on the TOS it was only when his mind was being controlled by alien forces (alien spores, psychokenetic Greeks, possession by foreign consciousnesses, etc.) or when puberty decided to kick in. That’s it.
When under severe physical and/or emotional duress he might bark at someone (or smile), but that’s all.
Sure, the editing may be misleading. Sure, there may be a context tht is offered that makes perfect sense. That is, these sounds and images may just be a “teaser” to get us interested. On the other hand, this movie is not a typical Trek film. It is a (somewhat desperate) reboot of the whole franchise that has already announced plenty of deviations from the original. Our new Spock may be one of them. That is, scenes of Spock attacking Kirk may not be just a “Teaser”, but an “Announcement” of the new direction of Trek. If it is a teaser, then no bgi deal. If it is an announcement (i.e., there is some truth in advertising), then there is reason for fans to be concerned.
Spock simply does not wig out and attack coworkers. He does not yell that he will not be lectured. It’s too early to say either way, but the apologists for “emotional raw” Spock are stretching and reaching beyond what is plausible for the character.
#1220 sez: “[Canon] is what distinguishes Trek from other sci-fi.”
That seems awfully unfair to the (off the top of my head) dozens if not hundreds (if not thousands) of other sci-fi series that are likewise self-consistent (or make a sincere attempt to be).
Seriously, your assertion seems nonsensical. Are you suggesting (for example) that Frank Herbert’s “Dune” stories ignore one another? Or Asimov’s “Foundation” novels? Episodes of Babylon 5? “Pern” novels?
Any of these series may well slip up occasionally (as Trek certainly has from time to time) but I’m not familiar with _any_ sci-fi series in any medium that doesn’t at least make an attempt at a consistent canon.
ahhh, the site is there, but it’s still the teaser! sorry!
1267
“I’m not familiar with _any_ sci-fi series in any medium that doesn’t at least make an attempt at a consistent canon.”
Have you seen the new Battlestar Galactica? ; )
@1267:
Fair point. However, Dune, Foundation, Babylon 5 and other forms of sci-fi do not stretch over 40 years. Star Trek has managed that, with a large degree of accuracy, and arguably a greater degree of complexity.
The comment was not meant to demean other sci-fi series, nor to imply that they do not have canon. It was simply to illustrate that Star Trek’s canon does set it apart, both in terms of it’s relative consistency, and it’s complexity.
1246:
Closettrekker:
The poll is meaningless.
According to Anthony, thousands visit this site, and <10% post, and probably even fewer click on the poll.
#1269: Yeah, although I wish I’d stopped after 2nd Season :(
first impression: cool car thing at the beginning, but to action-heavy
have to admit, that this trailer grows on you
So, um, what happened to 10am Eastern? That’s when (I thought) the new trailer would be released. Did somebody at TrekMovie get the wrong time? Or did Apple/Paramount give the wrong time?
Anyway, now looks like noon eastern.
nope, 1pm eastern… just checked
#1266—-The bottom line is this.
Spock’s inner struggle has always been a major part of Treklore.
Watch his reactions during the conversation with his mother in “Journey To Babel”, his reaction to discovering that Jim Kirk is alive in “Amok Time” (after the “madness” had ceased), his smile in “The Menagerie”, his countless succumings to the temptation of goading McCoy or even Kirk with teasing or just plain “smart ass” remarks.
If his reaction to the destrustion of the USS Intrepid in “The Imuunity Syndrome” could be so profound, it is reasonable to conclude that he could be provoked into physically assaulting young Kirk while under the duress of knowing his home planet (and his family) might be in danger.
And yes, we already know that Nimoy’s Spock has instructed Pine’s Kirk to provoke him during the time that Vulcan is in danger from the decriptions of the 20 minutes of footage in the UK articles. He also indicates that, during this time in his life, it will not be difficult to do.
Spock, like everyone else, is an evolving character. Given his very human emotions buried beneath the stoic Vulcan facade, there are no “absolutes” with Spock. That is one of the very things that make him such an intriguing character.
I look forward to this story adding to some of the “Spockology” developed by the likes of D.C. Fontana and Leonard Nimoy over the years. He is my favorite character, and I trust Nimoy above all to decide what is beyond the line for that character and what is not. He apparently feels okay with it, and perhaps it may have even been one of those factors which he found so compelling in the script.
Well, nothing happened here, what is going on, the kicked it one day, does anyone know why?
Gus
Its half past noon eastern! Nothing!
Wait, 31 minutes left!
34 minutes and counting…
#1271—-I disagree that it is completely meaningless, especially when compared to the “meaning” of some of the more vocal posts about the overall reaction to the trailer…which was the whole point of my analysis.
I seriously doubt that anyone who would take the time to post over and over their negative views on the subject would not take the time to participate in it.
And by the way, 815 out of say 2,000 (many of whom may very well be repeat hits) is a pretty good sample, IMO.
Of course it is just a sampling, as are all such polls. But the significance of that sampling is far greater, IMO, than the tone of some of the more vocal naysayers.
If it is completely meaningless, why do it at all?
We got 30 minutes left to watch the official Star Trek movie trailer!
Oh yeah today is my birthday and it is what I want for my birthday! ;)
WHAT HAPPEND!!?!?!?!?
“See the new trailer in hd on line in 1D 1H 32M”
#958 thanks for your comment and astute anaylsis Mr Sternbach. I agree totally. And as a fan of your work was gutted that you were snubbed from Nemesis!
Looking forward to seeing the HD trailer 28 mins and counting…
Hmmm, says 1 day, 1 hour and 34 minutes for me. Delayed?
Just read this over at startrek.com boards:
“Here, my friends, is an example why Star Trek fans are often ridiculed for their zeal. For some people JJ Abrams isn’t just making a bad movie, he’s committing a crime!”
funny
Actually, the counter is now counting forward. lol Is this some kind of homage to the Corbomite manouver?
I think the timer is whacked out – it keeps changing
now it says 23 minutes left
Eh… it says 18 minutes… guys what is wrong with you all?
18 minutes and counting
If you need something to do to pass the time you can read my Young Scotty story. How an engineer made his way from Earthbound to Exile.
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4660898/1/In_the_Cradle_of_Destiny
1292.
Better be worth it!
So does anyone have any thoughts on the new Twilight” movie? Anyone?…………………..No?
Well, that looked like crap. I have an idea, to save Hollywood’s money, why not combine this and a James Bond film? They seem to be going for the same audience anyway. I shouldn’t be surprised. I wasn’t expecting much anyway.
its just a movie!!!! stop crying!
10, 9, 8, 7…
Just an FYI, the countdown for the trailer uses your computer’s clock so odds are you all have different countdowns. Mine went back to saying 1 day 1 hour and 2 minutes lol
1291. Gary – November 17, 2008
Nothing. It’s apparently not working correctly for everyone. Hmmm, I wonder if the people seeing the new 1 day message are outside the US. That would be annoying.
I love how the world wide web is closing borders now. Grrr.
Yeah, mine just went to 1d1h1m and I’m IN the US.
The internet is exploding…
What the hell happened?
#1260, thats the same old trailer from months ago, what do you mean the new one is online?
wtf?
looks like they reset that counter!
utter b.s.!
there is too much peculiarity about this production to be comfortable with.
i have a bad feeling about this.
yeah mine says 1 day and however many hours again. Still shows the teaser.
Go here instead!! It works and it’s there.http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
It’s up there now!
Romulans are jeopardizing the past…
this is FAIL
:DD
Yeah, mine says 1d 1h 9m
im in canada, and my countdown became a countup
i swear i saw this:
1 D 3 H 59 M
and then i saw this
1 D 4 H 00 M
what the hell is going on?
It’s up at:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
this is the afterlife, where the Internet is gone.
it’s up at apple
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
Man, JJ never misses an opportunity to fu*k with the fans’ heads.
No, because I don’t have and won’t install quicktime.
That thing doesn’t work – arrrgh
KHAAAAAAAN!!!
hmm wonder why it aint up on the site, anyways just saw the hq version, nice, anyone else wondering what those big shadows in the sky are all about, they can be seen during the car chase in some shots????
Re: 1208 by way of 1191
No. What sets Star Trek apart from bad Sci Fi is that Star Trek HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT gadgets. It’s about story and character. And usually some social commentary.
Star Trek is not about tricorders, phasers, warp drive, transporters, disruptors, tachyon emissions or tachyon pulses or any other piece of future technology or technobabble. In fact, and this is coming from a TOS AND a TNG fan, Star Trek starting to slip in the TNG era when it relied too heavily on technobabble instead of story and character (and that got worse as the franchise spawned each new series… Voyager being the (worst) best example of technobabble run amok. Then again, Voyager also had a great social commentary episode about assisted suicide… so there you go.
As a kid watching TOS, I was never distracted by the cheesy special effects, the boulders that looked like cardboard and the matte paintings.. Why? Because the story was King and I loved the characters. I would, and will, follow them anywhere.
Your confusing story for setting, my friend.
And let me remind you, TOS made continuity errors from episode to episode during its first run way back in the 60s. My point? My point is no one cares. Because we got Balance of Terror and The Doomsday Machine and City on the Edge of Forever — all great stories that just happened to take place on a starship in outer space or with friends from the future on Earth because of time travel. Those things are just the means to tell a story. The Enterprise wasn’t even in the Voyage Home and that was a great movie. Also, that movie really had no Sci Fi violence to speak of. It was all story all characters and social commentary.
As far as Star Wars is concerned. If you look beyond the wiz bang Saturday matinee aspect of it you will see story and characters ripped from the enduring mythology of ancient earth storytellers. I’m talking about the original Star Wars, not the new prequels that relied too much on technology and not enough on story or character.
Star Wars is not just for kids and neither is Star Trek when they are at their best.
This all reminds me of the uproar TNG received when it was first announced.
Yeah, use the Apple site. I think we imploded the official site. Nimoy can’t save everything.
Just logged on and getting same message but mine said 1Day 1 Hr 9mins – and now 2 mins later it says 1 Day 1 Hr ELEVEN mins!!!!!
I think were in a time warp but it is loading from Apple ;)
It’s not working at Apple. Honestly why can’t they stick to frigging dates! First they change the movie release date then the trailer. What a shambles! However runs the StarTrekXI Official website has a lot to answer for. Scoundrels.
Official site’s back up…
#1317 “wondering what those big shadows in the sky are all about, they can be seen during the car chase in some shots”
Gigantic buildings of some kind. I love it when they show a little bit of Earth.
Download?
1170. Sarah – November 17, 2008
“Among the producers (aside from Roddenberry of course who created it) I liked Gene Coon the best. Boy did he know what Star Trek was about. And such a brilliant writer he was.”
Both Shatner and Nimoy, in our meetings with them, praised Gene Coon as the unsung hero of Star Trek.
I really like the design of the official movie site, looks really cool to me :)
I went to see Qos for the trailer, NO TRAILER. I waited for the countdown to complete, NO TRAILER! I wonder how much of Qos’s record for a James Bond movie is because of Star Trek fans who got screwed?
Guys,
it’s not at the official site but you can still get it on Apples site.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
Hey, the Corvette loses the top during the chase?? :)
I got it at Apple
Okay, I’m starting to believe that we’re all wrong about what the movie is about. I believe that it’s going to be about how Spock’s work with the Romulans sparks them to go back in time to try and end Vulcan once and for all. This movie is about Spock going back in time to get Kirk and company to try and save Vulcan from being destroyed.
I come to that conclusion cause there seems to be a lot of scenes in the trailer on or over Vulcan.
What do you all think?
I just saw the HD trailer on Apple and wow! very very nice! Looks really good to me. As a long time Trek fan, this film looks really exciting and i can’t wait to see the finished product! Well done Bob, JJ and all involved in the production! :)
Thank you JJ Abrams, very nice job…
Looks like Apple got an exclusive….Steve Jobs rules….
1315. Imrahil – November 17, 2008
“No, because I don’t have and won’t install quicktime.”
Do a little research. You don’t NEED quicktime. You can use quicktime alternative. It’s a free, open source, light weight alternative that decodes quick time….it also installed Media Player Classic, which is another ‘free’ and lightweight alternative to the bloated mess that is Media Player.
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/quicktime_alternative.htm
#78 – gosh, you are one rude little boy, aren’t you?
I really don’t buy Spock physically attacking Kirk in what appears to be anger – we all know he is more Vulcan than the purest-blooded Vulcan. Even when he was young.
I’ve always wanted to see Trek do more on Vulcan. I’m not sure this is what I had in mind – looked more James Bond than Trek!
Spock has attacked Kirk before. We just don’t know the circumstances of this particular attack.
#907 Nerd Central. I know this post goes way back, but i’m sure Boborci took my reply to him in the humor with which it was intended.