New Star Trek Trailer Online + Official Site Revamped [UPDATE: new TV Spot + Foreign Versions] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

New Star Trek Trailer Online + Official Site Revamped [UPDATE: new TV Spot + Foreign Versions] November 17, 2008

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

The wait is over. The new theatrical trailer for the new Star Trek movie is now officially online, with an exclusive at Apple Trailers, including HD. If you haven’t seen it yet, this is the second best way besides seeing it onscreen. In addition the official site for the Star Trek movie has been re-launched with a new look and some hidden features. UPDATE: There is also a new TV spot and some foreign dubbed versions.

 

The trailer was launched at Apple Trailers site for a first exclusive.


CLICK TO SEE AT APPLE.COM (various resolutions, including HD)

And is now on YouTube at 480p

 

Official site updated with new look + including hidden features
The official site for the new movie, StarTrekMovie.com (not to be confused with the unofficial home for all things Trek, TrekMovie.com), has been updated as well. There are new wallpapers as well as updates of some of the recent photos in the gallery. There are also two new ‘Easter eggs’ hidden on the site with some additional content. So go to the official site now and check it out.

Find the Easter Egg – win a prize!
The first persons to identify either of the new hidden Easter Eggs on the official site (where to find them and what the content is) in the comments below will be sent a new Star Trek film related prize by TrekMovie.com.

Trailer seen by millions so far + profiled on ET tonight
The new Bond movie Quantum of Solace raked in over $70 Million at the box office over the weekend, which works out to about 10 million tickets. TrekMovie reported previously that some theaters chose to not show the trailer, but the vast majority did so at least 7-8 million people saw this trailer on the big screen (probably another half million or more watched the bootleg online over the weekend). Also tonight (Monday), Entertainment Tonight will be showing this new trailer, which should help reach that expanded audience.

More trailer coverage coming up
TrekMovie is all over the new trailer. Coming up we will be taking a closer look at the trailer and explain what many of the shots are, and we have additional trailer related articles planned as well. So stay tuned to TrekMovie.com.

 

UPDATE: New TV Spot

There is also a one minute version of the trailer, which is being called a ‘TV Spot’ (no word on when and where it will air, this might just be the one they show on ET tonight). No new content, essentially the same trailer, but the corvette part is removed. Check it out (via IGN) below:

UPDATE 2: Foreign version
Paramount has also created a foreign versions. So far we have idented a German dub and Brazilian (subtitled in Portuguese), both of which include an intro (in English) from JJ Abrams.


GERMAN VERSION (dubbed)


BRAZIL/PORTUGUESE VERSION (subtitled)

NOTE: if you spot another exclusive given out in your country let us know

And here is a French (dubbed) version (no JJ intro)

Comments

1. Tom - November 17, 2008

yes!

2. MORN SPEAKS - November 17, 2008

WOW! Way more detail than YouTube, I wish I had seen it in the theater! JJ and crew has really exceeded my expectations!

3. Darkside989 - November 17, 2008

One of the hidden features on the site is a special Nero wallpaper – when you click on “Downloads,” a red beacon appears in the top-right corner that says “Incoming Transmission.” If you click on it, the wallpaper appears in a pop-up window.

4. Shatner's Bassoon - November 17, 2008

trekmovie just crashed! wooooo!

5. MaybeThisMovieWontSuck - November 17, 2008

Sweet!

6. Art•Rob - November 17, 2008

Can’t load HD from Apple!
In the opinion of a nobody artist/designer/art director:
Cheesy “Sci-Fi” music over the car scene.
Cheesy Droid scene. Why would a Droid wear clothes or a helmet or have breathing apparatus? If he’s humanoid – same questions.
Really, really cheesy Disney-like transporter swirls on Spock. The rest looks good.

7. rayjay - November 17, 2008

Was wowed by the bootleg copy over the weekend, but the HD viewing left me in awe.

This movie looks fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8. joshmeister - November 17, 2008

At 1:06, is that Nimoy in the trailer?

9. RD - November 17, 2008

I did see it in the theatre after having seen it online and my reaction was decidedly that it was visually overwhelming. The cuts too fast to discern anything. My general impression was that it was to build excitement for an audience not familiar with Star Trek. I was left with a dissatisfied feeling in the theatre. Anyone lurking on this site will want to see it via Apple HD download in order to really look at it.

My only criticism at this point? Simon Pegg’s Scotty does not seem quite right and that line is probably the worst the character has ever been given to say.

10. Stephen Schlaack - November 17, 2008

AMAZING!!!!

11. a328367 - November 17, 2008

FRIGGIN FANTASTIC!! New website is also awesome!

12. Holger - November 17, 2008

Based on the information available so far (interviews, pictures, scene descriptions, 2 trailers) my expectation is this:
70%: The movie sucks. It’s just another pointless fast-cut no-brainer action blockbuster, like Transformers. It has nothing to do with Star Trek. I will never watch any so-called „Star Trek“ by JJ Abrams again.
25%: Mixed feelings. There are many annoying re-imagined elements, canon violations, and action movie stereotypes, but there are also many genuine Star Trek elements which compensate for that.
5%: Wow! Great movie. The movie has so much of Roddenberry’s vision and Star Trek spirit that the unavoidable continuity issues don’t really matter. JJ saved Trek! (For the record: Before the scene descriptions, full trailer and particularly before some of JJ’s interviews, I gave this option 80% credence.)

If the 70% scenario should really become true, it’s likely the franchise will not be re-invigorated (at least not in any category other than profit) and a younger audience will not get excited over Roddenberry’s vision. And why should they? They haven’t been presented with anything special. They will simply leave the cinema saying: This was cool! and: The explosion at the end kicks ass! and then indifferently move on to the next action flick which is hyped at the time.

I sincerely hope the movie will be in the other 30%! But I have ceased to feel any enthusiasm or excitement over the movie. After all, what do I care? I still have my TOS-R boxes and my Trek collection and I can still watch Phase II, just as it would be without this movie.

13. commander K, - November 17, 2008

ROCK N ROLL!

14. Lousy Canadian - November 17, 2008

Amazing!… Thank you very much for posting this! ;)

15. Cheve - November 17, 2008

Nobody says anything because we are all looking for the easter egg.

XDD

16. Jean - November 17, 2008

I found a wallpaper of Uhura !
http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/secret-wallpaper2.html

17. Craig - November 17, 2008

The other “egg” is the same red beacon on the Videos page. You get a pop-up with a wall paper of Uhura.

18. Bronto Dan - November 17, 2008

Really happy to finally see this in a quality format.

I can say it’s really well done. Except for the droidcop but that is what, 5 sec. of the movie.

The enterprise in construction looks fantastic!!!! Wish I could have seen it on the big screen but the showing I went I only got treated to the crappy Fast and Furious movie…

19. Charlie in Colorado - November 17, 2008

#8 – I was wondering the same thing when I saw the bootleg over the weekend. I believe it is.

Awesome stuff… Can’t Wait!

20. Scott Xavier - November 17, 2008

Everyone always says go see it on the big screen. Better yet, get a hi-def digital projector like mine and watch it in your house on a hi-def 144 inch screen. Now thats style. You’ll save yourself a lot of fuss and money in the end.

21. Aggi - November 17, 2008

Cool trailer! We will wait and see the new classic series.

22. Jax Maxton - November 17, 2008

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.

23. ngl;sdb;ga - November 17, 2008

augh damn you apple i cant upgrade to the new quicktime just give me a straight download link augh

24. jmac - November 17, 2008

the updated site ain’t showin yet for me…

25. Jean - November 17, 2008

And a secret wallpaper of Nero. Hope I’m first

http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/secret-wallpaper1.html

26. Cheve - November 17, 2008

If I hitt “incomming” I get a picture from Uhura.

27. Edwin - November 17, 2008

From the trailer I think Simon Pegg is going to be competing with Mel Gibson for “worst Scottish accent ” award!

28. Section 31 - November 17, 2008

IMPORTANT!

Did anybody notice that the Klingons were wearing MASKS!!!

It’s the scene where there are two Klingons behind Nero.

Perhaps the Klingons in JJ’s Star Trek are wearing masks to conceal their ridgeless faces from that virus created in ENT?

WOW!!!

29. sean - November 17, 2008

#8,18

That’s Ben Cross as Sarek, Spock’s father.

30. Anthony Lewis - November 17, 2008

When you click on the incoming data image in the story section pops up an Uhura wallpaper not available in DL section.

31. UKRealistTrek - November 17, 2008

Offical site hasn’t updated for UK users I assume, as I am getting a message saying the trailer will be online in 1 day from now…

Oh yeah, and the trailer is fine, but the movie isn’t really Star Trek. Looks like a brilliant film yeah, but it isn’t Star Trek.

32. The Dark Side - November 17, 2008

meh.. Star Wars for Star Trek Fans

White corridors… where’s R2 and 3PO

Ice planets. been there done that..

Is that the cloverfield moster or a Rancor ?

Hoverbikes… nuff said.

I’ll wait for Netflix

33. Thismoviewillrock - November 17, 2008

So much better off the website than youtube. I have goosebumps! So excited for this movie.

I noticed that Kirk is in bed with an Orion slave girl, not Uhura. And for Alias fans (and Felicity), Amanda Freeman (?) who played Carrie, is one of the cameos to watch for – she is on the bridge behind Scotty.

34. Hanny - November 17, 2008

Looks like cars in the future will have your picture on the rear license plates. lol

35. mabean100 - November 17, 2008

I dont think the girl in bed with Kirk is Uhura – Carol Marcus perchance???

36. Aaron R. - November 17, 2008

drooooooooooool

37. sean - November 17, 2008

#30

I’m getting that too, and I’m in the US.

38. wally - November 17, 2008

found other cast wallpaper by clicking theincoming transmission thing for video section similar to nero one, presuming there are more.

39. NCC-73515 - November 17, 2008

and the HD links both give me the teaser, not the trailer.

40. TuVokSpock - November 17, 2008

Anyone figure out how to Download it?

41. JL - November 17, 2008

ANYONE NOTICE?

KIRK’S EYES ARE BLUE!

ALL THE WHINERS WHO INSIST ON GUESSING WHAT IS AND ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS FILM:

IN YOUR FACE!

42. Ethan - November 17, 2008

Awesome, now I can look for specific details!

43. Starman - November 17, 2008

I’m getting tired of people saying “it isn’t Star Trek”. It IS Star Trek, just not the one with the plywood boards, blinking lights, and bluescreen.

I’m an old fan from the NBC days, one of the biggest fans around and you HAVE TO understand that “old” Trek is never coming back, and never will. It was a show for a different time on a different medium.

Bring it.

44. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 17, 2008

There She is!!!!

45. JL - November 17, 2008

Okay, maybe not blue but they ain’t brown!

See @ 1:23 in the new trailer

46. Jasmin - November 17, 2008

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……OOOOO……………………OOOOO……OOOOOOO……OOOOO……………………OOOOO…….. …….OOOOO………………….OOOOO…..OOOO..OOOO…..OOOOO………………….OOOOO……… ……..OOOOO…….OOO…….OOOOO…..OOOO….OOOO…..OOOOO…….OOO…….OOOOO………. ………OOOOO…..OOOO…..OOOOO…..OOOO……OOOO…..OOOOO…..OOOO…..OOOOO……….. ……….OOOOO…OOOOO…OOOOO……OOOO……OOOO……OOOOO…OOOOO…OOOOO………… ………..OOOOOOOO..OOOOOOOO…….OOOO……OOOO…….OOOOOOOO..OOOOOOOO…………. …………OOOOOOO….OOOOOOO………OOOO….OOOO………OOOOOOO….OOOOOOO………….. ………….OOOOOO……OOOOOO………..OOOOOOOOO………..OOOOOO……OOOOOO…………… …………..OOOOO……..OOOOO…………..OOOOOOO…………..OOOOO……..OOOOO……………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

47. James - November 17, 2008

TRAILER… GOOOOOOOD…

I have not consumed new Trek in AGES.

Mmmmm…

Looks awesome!

48. tbk1701 - November 17, 2008

I cant see the new site!!! It keeps showing the old

49. Jasmin - November 17, 2008

F***ING AWESOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

50. Nomad - November 17, 2008

Holger: Sadly, I have to agree. Given that the job of a trailer is to bring in the masses, I haven’t entirely lost hope, but I’m not inspired by this trailer. Star Trek at its best – and what made it special – was that it was about ideas and imagination, and human beings dealing with places and beings and situations that no human has ever dealt with before, and succeding because we ‘re capable of being clever and imaginative and enlightened – but there’s no evidence whatsoever of that in this trailer. What we have instead, it seems, is Kirk and Spock apparently having a fist fight.
On the other hand, that brief glimpse of McCoy and Scotty speaks volumes – you can really see that they have their own handle on the characters without doing them an injustice.
So – my expectations are not high but I’m hoping to be surprised.
And I think that’s Ben Cross as Sarek at 1.06.

51. Ran - November 17, 2008

Direct HD link:

http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h640w.mov

52. Captain Balki - November 17, 2008

God that kid at the beginning of the trailer is annoying….

Really who drives a car like that in the 23rd Century..

plus what the heck is the deal with “James Tiberus Kirk” when he is asked, comes across like the “kid” in Superman Returns.

Plus why does the new enterprise look like something from the 25th century?? The old NCC-1701 would not be able to hold par with a Romulan Vessel from the 24th century. Old spock must give them some weapon formula or something.

53. Reign1701A - November 17, 2008

If you click on “incoming transmission” after clicking on the “videos” tab, you get a black and white desktop picture of Uhura. Shazam.

54. Aly Mathias - November 17, 2008

I don’t think Nimoy is playing Spock, from the trailer it almost looks like he’s playing Sarek.

55. Scott Xavier - November 17, 2008

not a robot a man in a suit

56. TJ - November 17, 2008

WOW!!!! AWESOME!!!!!

Even more awesome…

I spotted PAUL MCGILLION at about 1.10 in some sort of shuttle bay!!!! WOHOO!!!!

SOOOOO EEXCCIIITTTEEEDDDDD!!!!

57. Darth Quixote - November 17, 2008

The only thing I don’t like is young Kirk dumping the car off the cliff. It seems pretty unnecessary. And when he screams his name it reminds me of Jake Lloyd. Oh the horror!

I really love the part when Kirk has to gnarfle the garthok. That bit rocks!

58. Paul Martin - November 17, 2008

must …. stop….. going… through…. frame….. by ………f…r..a…..m..e………..

59. ngl;sdb;ga - November 17, 2008

“White corridors”

are you seriously quibbling about the colour of the walls?

“Ice planets. been there done that..”

yes, on the original star trek series. more than a decade before empire

“Is that the cloverfield moster or a Rancor ?”

so no big monsters allowed on star trek now?

“Hoverbikes… nuff said.”

since when did star wars have a monopoly on hover vehicles? read some science fiction.

60. demonfafa - November 17, 2008

Hey, here’s a thought…

maybe the cop is an early Breen…

NO ONE THOUGHT OF THAT DID THEY HUH?!

Yeah, I just blew your minds.

61. JL - November 17, 2008

LOVE SIMON PEGG!

“I like this ship! It’s exciting!”

Some comedy relief after the tussel between Kirk and Spock on the bridge maybe..?

62. Closettrekker - November 17, 2008

#12—-“I have ceased to feel any enthusiasm or excitement over the movie. ”

Seeing your posts on this site for a very long time, I don’t think you ever actually felt any.

63. mabean100 - November 17, 2008

On further watching – I agree with 32. (This moviewill Rock) and 51 (Nomad) – it’s an Orion Slave girl in bed with Kirk and Sarek at 1.06. Pleas disregard my thoughts on Carol Marcus

64. section9 - November 17, 2008

I like this in the HD that I dl’ed on my Apple (which, btw, appears to be the Official Software AND Hardware Supplier for Starfleet).

Well done, guys. I like what I see. Less Berman, more action.

65. AdamTrek - November 17, 2008

I’m guessing that if Spock and Kirk fight, they both get thrown in the brig. In which we get anger-turned light hearted moment where they become BFFs.

66. Robert - November 17, 2008

Interesting in the skydiving scenes that if you look up to the top of the chain, you caqn barely make out the silhouette of the squid-like vessel. In fact, it’s really hard to get any kind of grip on what that vessel looks like in the battle scenes. Is the Kelvin and some strange starfleet fighter *inside* it, or its tendrils? It also looks like there is a brief glimpse of the vessel going through some force field, similar to the Borg Sphere going back through time. Anyway, great stuff!

67. scotty's moustache - November 17, 2008

THEY AREN”T USING THE ORIGINAL ACTORS?? OR PROPS?? NEXT YOU WILL TELL ME THAT NICK MEYER ISN”T DIRECTING…… WHAT THE…..?!?!?!

68. MrLirpa - November 17, 2008

Sooooooooooo much better than the bootlegs, loads of detail that was invisible before, Kirk holding a Klingon disruptor? Whats under the bed? Kirk’s mum giving birth? how many Kelvin type ships are there? or how may times can the Kelvin be destroyed??? what are the flat/oval ships…?

WOW, it all looks amazing! I love it so far.

69. Cheve - November 17, 2008

Incredible houw much new info we are getting from the same trailer only because we have it in HD, isn’t it?

70. TK - November 17, 2008

Liked the trailer. So, what are we going to do for the next 6 months then? Really??? :(

BTW Did anyone see George Takei on I’m a celebrity? I thought he was doing rather well!!

71. cpelc - November 17, 2008

anyone have screen caps?

72. Holger - November 17, 2008

A James Dean type Kirk at sunset looking at the Enterprise – his future destiny – constructed in the desert… that’s what I call kitsch!

73. The Gorn - November 17, 2008

64: “so no big monsters allowed on star trek now?”

Nope. Only giant superimposed black cats! LOL

74. HMS Enterprise - November 17, 2008

Cool stuff.

75. Sputnik - November 17, 2008

Oh my! Who allowed the female starfleet officers to wear pants (1:17 and 1:39)? Nooooo! :-D

Just kidding. Great trailer.

76. MORN SPEAKS - November 17, 2008

ORION SLAVE GIRL!!!! On the bed! Is there anything better in this trailer!

77. Crewman Darnell - November 17, 2008

Which is brighter? Kirk’s new blue eyes, or the iBridge? ;-)

78. Holger - November 17, 2008

49 Jasmin: Nicely done

79. Bronto Dan - November 17, 2008

Also really nice to see that they don’t give away all of the plot!!

80. CmdrR - November 17, 2008

Nicely done, JJ.

So… when does the trailer for XII come out?

81. Doesn't Have to Know Everything Now Now Now - November 17, 2008

Rear license plates in the future have their owner’s face on them? Interesting.

82. Can't Wait for Labor Day 2009 - November 17, 2008

I have been looking at alot of other websites since the trailer came out this weekend. And the feeling from reading alot of those comments is that general audiences like the trailer. The only ones who seem to have any kind of issue with the trailer are the really hardcore stick to canon fans.

83. Chaddicus - November 17, 2008

The cop isn’t a Breen, it’s one of those machines from the Matrix

84. Andrew - November 17, 2008

Anyone who is saying Simon Pegg’s accent is ‘bad’ either hasn’t heard a real scottish person, or thinks Doohan’s accent is what a real scottish person sounds like. As a scotsman myself, that brief sentence from Pegg sounds right on compared to Doohan, any day of the week. Remember, Pegg is married to a scottish woman, and has an extended scottish family. Doohan was canadian.

PS – This is not to slight doohan, he was an incredibly talented actor, I adored his Scotty, and the accent, I’m just pointing out that just because Pegg’s accent is not a Jimmy Doohan impression, doesn’t mean it isn’t scottish.

85. Paul Martin - November 17, 2008

#81

You said pants! (Sorry….. English….)

86. Closettrekker - November 17, 2008

#53—“…but there’s no evidence whatsoever of that in this trailer.”

Nor is there any evidence that none of what you just described is not in the film.

This trailer is not directed at established Star Trek fans, but at the general movie-going audience.

If the trailer felt anything like run-of-the-mill Star Trek, it wouldn’t have its desired effect, would it?

No. It would likely be dismissed as the same old thing they have ignored and/or ridiculed for decades.

Certainly, they have added a more modern asthetic and bigger and better action sequences. But ‘addition’ does not mean automatic ‘subtraction’.

I’m not even sure where that notion comes from.

Nothing I have seen or heard indicates or even suggests to me that Star Trek’s vision has somehow been compromised by 4 huge fans of the franchise (the film’s writers and producers) and one very casual, less traditional one (the film’s director). In fact, the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” members have consistently praised that vision.

I hardly believe that this film will somehow dismiss the optimistic vision of Humanity’s future in which the human race does not destroy itself, but instead unites to conquer the social ills which plague us today, as well as to explore the final frontier with peaceful intentions.

87. RoobyDoo - November 17, 2008

I’m curious about the small ship at 1:43. Spock Prime’s timeship?

88. BrF - November 17, 2008

Is that Corvette from a year of the original series, by the way? Is that a nod?

89. wally - November 17, 2008

detail on the enterprise build shot is staggering.

90. sb - November 17, 2008

57:

You’re right, that is Sarek, but it’s not Leonard; it’s the English actor Ben Cross, with Winona Ryder as the young Amanda.

Nimoy IS playing Spock in the film, according to just about every journalist in Europe who saw the 20 minutes of footage Abrams has been touring with. if he’s in the trailer anywhere, I can’t find him.

91. allister gourlay - November 17, 2008

Bloody amazing! Just d/l the hd version my 2 daughters 18 and 16 love it to!

92. joshmeister - November 17, 2008

great trailer, really, although a bit more standard, imo, when you compare it to trailer #1.

a few things i noticed: in the shot where you see the enterprise beeing built: does anyone find the shipyard too close to where kirk is? it looks as though it’s only 200 meters (sorry, european) away, but then the buildings are far too small. also, did you notice the sign saying “authorized personnell only”? it thought, well, that’s a pretty small fence for such a big ship. looks as though kirk could just walk over there. plus, if you look closely at the first trailer, you can clearly see citylights around the construction site. those seem to have disappeard?

93. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - November 17, 2008

You folks criticizing this trailer for being action orientated must have faulty memories. Every Trek movie has had these kinds of trailers. Heck every type of movie such as this has one. It’s a quick fast montage of thrill shots to generate excitement. Make people wonder and whet their appetites. And it has certainly succeeded on my behalf. There will be more trailers that will have the story center stage.

Man, why are so many of my fellow Star Trek and Comic book fans SO damn cranky and doom & gloom types?

94. Elrond L - November 17, 2008

My God, this is almost as good as the big screen! But it’s better, ’cause now I can pause it over and over. I cannot get over how PERFECT Quinto and Urban are, but everyone looks great. This trailer is amazing . . . just wish I could find Nimoy.

It’s a glorious time to be a Trek fan. Congrats to JJ, Bob Orci and co.

95. BrF - November 17, 2008

Apologies if this has already come up, but that Corvette — is that from a year that the original series ran? Is that a nod?

96. JL - November 17, 2008

Hey at 1:11 – 1:12 it’s PILE OF POOP HEAD MAN!!

97. Anthony Thompson - November 17, 2008

Doesn’t work (at any size). Just sits there without any indication of loading, etc. So that’s 2 theatres w/o the trailer and an Apple download which doesn’t work. Strike 3! At least I got to see the bootleg.

98. Trekmatt - November 17, 2008

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! :) Plus i think the official website looks really good! very cool!

99. Will - November 17, 2008

Its certainly slick, but I still say its crap. Don’t get me wrong, I’m so there on opening night, however.

100. SamusMaXximus - November 17, 2008

# 60
“I really love the part when Kirk has to gnarfle the garthok. That bit rocks!”

I nearly pissed myself laughing lol.

I want to Erghhh Erghhhh get away, I want to Erghh Erghhh.”

Coneheads FTW

101. RoobyDoo - November 17, 2008

Also wondering about the bridge officer who seems to be facing away from camera, to the right of the turbolift doors, at 1:17. Is he in line for the loo?

102. SarahJM - November 17, 2008

#6 Thanks for the professional appraisal

103. thorsten - November 17, 2008

[93]
This is possible, I saw drawings of ships like that flleeing the destruction of Vulcan…

104. JROD - November 17, 2008

Wooooo! Uhura taking off her shirt!!! Yeowzah!!!!!!!!

105. tribble farmer - November 17, 2008

Despite the fact that it doesn’t feel at all like the Star Trek I know and adore, I can’t help being totally pumped. Anyone who ever said that Star Trek is geeky and uncool is about to get a HUGE wakeup call.

106. Dr. Image - November 17, 2008

‘Bout time!
THIS IS NOT A DISASTER!

107. Nina-in-CA - November 17, 2008

HOT

108. star trackie - November 17, 2008

Love it love it! Holy HD BAtman, this HD version really lifts the veil! Not really sure why they need desk lamps in a bridge that has plenty of light…maybe it’s a way to conserve battery power when the lights go out. But wow. Oh wow. This is the kind of upgrade to the bridge I was hoping for in 1979!
And those corridors look so totally futuristically retro I’m really digging the whole vibe. This is NOTHING like what was cranked out during the Berman years, this is fresh, in your face and fun!!

Dare I say it,…after 17 long years,….. Star Trek is back??

Sure, I’ll say it, the wait IS over!! Bring it!

109. Bronto Dan - November 17, 2008

64. ngl;sdb;ga

THANK YOU!!!! been reading some post here and I can’t beleive people complaining about detail. It,s like they were expecting the same trek from 40 years ago…

110. SamusMaXximus - November 17, 2008

#60

“I really love the part when Kirk has to gnarfle the garthok. That bit rocks!”

lmfao Coneheads FTW

111. Kirk's Toupée - November 17, 2008

Wow, this is like a Quantum Leap ahead of the Youtube bootlegs!!

Take back what I said about the re-imagined Enterprise, she looks great!!!

Can’t wait!!!

112. Caspar - November 17, 2008

Hey, Anthony!!

Site’s not working great, but I found an eater egg. And I want to make sure you guys know I probably got it first.

When you click on Downloads, there is a red flash that says Incoming Transmission… click it and you get a download of Nero’s face in the same style as the two recent downloads for Kirk and Spock! :)

Thanks for the contest!

113. SamusMaXximus - November 17, 2008

#22 Jax Maxton
“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.”

My God, I think you’ve got something there. After watching that trailer about 10 times and reading your post, I totally agree.

#60 Darth Quixote

“I really love the part when Kirk has to gnarfle the garthok. That bit rocks!”
LOL Coneheads FTW

114. german - November 17, 2008

http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/secret-wallpaper2.html

Uhura!

115. Caspar - November 17, 2008

Hey, Anthony!!

Site’s not working great, but I found an eater egg. And I want to make sure you guys know I probably got it first.

When you click on Downloads, there is a red flash that says Incoming Transmission… click it and you get a download of Nero’s face in the same style as the two recent downloads for Kirk and Spock! yay

116. Caspar - November 17, 2008

(hm. don’t seem to be posting… not sure why. One more try, then I give up.)

Hey, Anthony!!

Site’s not working great, but I found an eater egg. And I want to make sure you guys know I probably got it first.

When you click on Downloads, there is a red flash that says Incoming Transmission… click it and you get a download of Nero’s face in the same style as the two recent downloads for Kirk and Spock!

117. Jack - November 17, 2008

Misters Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams:

Thanks fellas. You made my day. I had a total gulp/teary-eyed moment at the first shot of the E in space there, which I haven’t had since I was 8 and
saw the Motion Picture. I’ll admit I was a little worried to hear of the Archer and Cardassian references in the (as yet unseen here) clips (I know, it’s all there for the fans), mainly because I was a little worried it would be too reverential and too stuck to the tired, all-angles-exhausted, all-Vulcans-have-bad-hairpieces, Berman-factory stuff…

It’s now looking more and more like I shouldn’t have worried

Bring on that messed-up timeline, surprise us with a little innovation and brand new ideas… (the first trek movies did a great job of this… freshened up the universe, especially design-wise, and made it all somehow more Trek without being slavish to anything that had gone on before)… the best part of Trek, for me, was that the possibilities were endless… especially in the two pilots and even through the whole original series and TOS movies…. that there was this huge space-faring society with a long history, that had moved a long way from ours… and we didn’t know all the details (oh, oh, I’m starting to preach about how boring, similar and 90s it all became by the time of Voyager)…

Anyway, fellas — awesome.

PS: So what’s the smoke monster, anyway?

As Kirk advised a Luddite-ish Scotty in Star Trek III (do I earn geek points here):

“Young minds, fresh ideas — be tolerant”

118. HMS Enterprise - November 17, 2008

Finally seen the trailer in HD. I am utterly lost for words. All of it is amazing, simply amazing. I’m even more excited about this film now! Roll on May!

119. NCC-73515 - November 17, 2008

Several more hidden wallpapers!
One example:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/images/d25_1280.jpg

120. catchupwiththesun - November 17, 2008

if people are having problems with the streaming, you can always download it off of itunes.

121. Charles Trotter - November 17, 2008

Wallpaper of Nero, found when clicking “incoming data” icon while loading gallery

http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/secret-wallpaper1.html

122. Charles Trotter - November 17, 2008

Of course, we can’t actually use the wallpapers (access is restricted), but hey, we found them!

123. jobryant - November 17, 2008

There seems to be a lot of complaining in here that the trailer makes the movie seem like it’s a Star Wars type action adventure movie and it’s not really Star Trek. However, I have viewed the HD trailer a few times and is it me or does all the space battle scenes depicted seem to involve the Kelvin? I have yet to notice a scene with the Enterprise in battle. The other main action sequence in this trailer seems to involve the part of the movie depicted in the section that JJ has showed the European press. The part where Kirk, Sulu, and (poor) Olson parachute down to the ledge thingy

As we know, the Kelvin gets destroyed in the first part of the move and the parachute scene was only part of a 20 minute preview shown. Yet from my estimates they seem to make up most of the action in the trailer. So what about the rest of the movie? You would assume if the movie was wall-to-wall action, they would have included other scenes depicting that action.

My point? I see no reason to believe this movie will be all action and to believe this movie will NOT contain elements of Star Trek we are all familiar with based a trailer that uses action shots from 2 small parts of the film.

124. Hanny - November 17, 2008

Hey Caspar, post #3 beat you to it.
Hey Caspar, post #3 beat you to it.
Hey Caspar, post #3 beat you to it.
Hey Caspar, post #3 beat you to it.

lol

125. ngl;sdb;ga - November 17, 2008

“White corridors”

I also feel the need to point out that the corridors are light gray

126. C.S. Lewis - November 17, 2008

Apple exclusive?

Ah… This explains the new i-Bridge, the USS i-Nterprise, and Robocop.

:-)

127. thorsten - November 17, 2008

What I think…

Young Jim is somehow losing his corvettes roof…

Why is he driving that car over the cliff?
Revenge, does the car belong to his evil uncle,
or a mutprobe (test of braveness)

0:56
UFP Flag at shipyard

1:04
Vulcan City

1:08
Spock telling council he wants to join starfleet

1:15
Shuttles escaping from the Kelvin
hangardoors obviously opened

1:17
The Bridge has a door

1:24
Redshirt with Phaser

1:28
Enterprise arriving at Vulcan

1:29
Kirk, Spock and McCoy racing to the bridge, to warn Pike about trap

1:29
Spocks Time ship

1:31
Kirk below Uhuras roommates bed

1:36
Nero escaping romulan prison

1:42
Kirk with Uhura roommate

1:43
Kirks birth

1:44
Kirk on Neros ship

1:44
Romulan Rockets impacting on the Kelvin

128. allen - November 17, 2008

If you let me i will buy the blu-ray now!!!! im already convinced i can never watch this on dvd. I’ll buy the blu-ray now AND see it in theaters. I can’t wait 6 months (theater) and 1 year (blu-ray) for everything.

129. Sam Sandoval - November 17, 2008

Looks cool. Just need to fix that Enterprise…

130. RoobyDoo - November 17, 2008

Fantastic. I also like some of the little touches — like duct tape on the bridge at 1:17 and the pictures in Uhura’s quarters at 1:31.

93 joshmeister — yes, I had the same thought re: lack of security at the Enterprise build site.

131. Chadwick - November 17, 2008

The movie is going to be EPIC!!

This trailer was INCREDIBLE in the theaters! Perfect, the in your face action that Star Trek needs. Never should Star Trek sacrifice the human equation aspect from Star Trek but lets admit it people….Star Trek has needed more action for a long time. This movie is going to be EPIC! I can’t wait to see it. Again as JJ said we know a lot of the Star Trek universe that has never been shows, especially epic battles, some of the battle with the Dominion was the best. This trailer is perfect the this movie is just what Star Trek needs, I am happy and excited and I know I will be satisfied.

#28 no doubt about the Klingons, even look at the circular style corridors much like the corridors on NX 01. I mean Star Trek Enterprise is pre Kirk so I think JJ snuck in some nuggets here and there.

# 33 HELL YEA white corridors, 1970’s just like the bridge.

# 53 part of being human is how we change and how we adapt to change, and most importantly the opportunity to change! Again I say Gene Roddenberry would be happy with this movie.

Even when I went to go see Quantum of Solace after the Star Trek trailer had shown there were already people in the theatre saying “wow, I never knew Star Trek was like that,” and “I have never liked Star Trek but I might go see that movie.” As a Star Trek fan I was excited and astounded that I heard this from people around me in the theatre!

I better see some people vaporized in this movie! JJ, I hope you didn’t leave that out.

132. Bill T - November 17, 2008

I’m a 55 year old long time fan. I can’t wait for this. I could care less about some of the canon stuff being brought up. This movie is going to bring back Star Trek to another generation and that is all that matters. This is a trailer. When you combine it with the descriptions of the scenes that have been previewed to some of the lucky few, it’s going to rock.

133. Closettrekker - November 17, 2008

#121—I agree completely.

The trailer is meant to be sexy and intriguing to general audiences. I think it is.

Addition does not mean automatic subtraction. I have seen nothing which suggests to me that Star Trek’s vision has somehow been compromised by 4 huge fans of the franchise and 1 very casual one.

These self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” members have always insisted that the story is very character-driven.

134. Micar - November 17, 2008

And the second egg can be found when going to the videos..

there you can find uhura in the b/w style…

When you click on Downloads, there is a red flash that says Incoming Transmission… click it and you get a download

135. JWM - November 17, 2008

Nice. This is what the franchise needs to reinvigorate itself. There are plenty who will disagree, but let’s face it — Star Trek is stale. This appears to be a much more energetic, lively version of itself, which is really what is necessary. Change the set dressing, charge up the emotion and scope, keep the core themes, everyone wins.

136. Jay - November 17, 2008

Something about trailers that needs to be understood… not all of what is in a trailer is in the film. There are cut scenes and bits of dialog recorded just for the purpose of a trailer … that never end up in the film. Keep that in mind…..

137. AC - November 17, 2008

Hmm. So now its not just Kirk losing his shirt and Uhura does now too. My how times change.

138. ety3 - November 17, 2008

I can’t wait for the frame-by-frame analysis.

Lots of cool tidbits I noticed on my own, like the UFP symbol at the shipyard, the aliens among the cadets in the shuttlebay, Spock’s apparent third rank stripe as he escorts Amanda down the rock face, etc.

139. Ed G. - November 17, 2008

Wow. The whole site just changed.

http://www.startrekmovie.com

140. HeIsLegend - November 17, 2008

Anybody notice that when it shows Spock choking Kirk his badge is on the right side but in the same image released its on the left side??
I wonder if theres any meaning behind that?

141. wally - November 17, 2008

yee olde giant hd screencap

http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bigell9.jpg

142. Peter Lemonjello - November 17, 2008

I think I enjoyed the trailer more when it was a bootleg and you couldn’t see things clearly. Apart from some flashy visuals this trailer tells us very little..

I wonder if moving the film so far back will turn out to be a mistake?

143. jon - November 17, 2008

i love HD!!!!
at 1:12ish is that the E’s Shuttle bay? i might look a bit bigger that the original, but it looks so much more fuctional.
95* YES it is!! It’s a glorious time to be a Trek fan.

144. ngl;sdb;ga - November 17, 2008

for everyone who complains the romulans arent acting romulany enough, do you really expect an entire species spanning a galactic empire, presumably trillions of individuals, to have the same political motivations /work ethic/ etc etc?

145. Mathias - November 17, 2008

When I see those transmissions and get to the screen where you can choose the resolutions for both the Uhura as the Nero wallpaper, it’s asking for a username & password i.e. I have the log in :S

Help?

146. ShawnP - November 17, 2008

Just watched the trailer in HD. Damn.

147. Gary - November 17, 2008

Lotsa wallpapers.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/images/d1_1280.jpg

change “d1″ to “d2″ all the way up to “d32″ to see them all.

148. Gary - November 17, 2008

OMG OMG WEEEEEEE

149. Harry Ballz - November 17, 2008

Looks good in HD!

150. Simon - November 17, 2008

i think i found an easter egg…tho i’m not too sure as it could just be an error my end.
i think i managed to disable the navagation thing that appears on the left side.
i only noticed it was gone when i had messed about in the gallery. when you mouse over a picture they get bigger, what i did was to click on a picture and whilst holding the mouse move it up. i did this for all the pictures then noticed that the homepage star trek 05.08.09 logo was over the bottom of the picture….i clicked it which took me back to the home page and then i noticed there was no navigation.

of course this doesn’t help as now i can only just click the door and go to watch the trailer

151. Hanabi - November 17, 2008

Nero wallpaper:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/desktop.php?file=d31_1920.jpg&width=1920&height=1200

Uhura wallpaper:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/desktop.php?file=d32_1920.jpg&width=1920&height=1200

;)

152. Peter Lemonjello - November 17, 2008

I think I enjoyed the trailer more when it was a bootleg and you couldn’t see things clearly. Apart from some flashy visuals this trailer tells us very little..

I wonder if moving the film so far back will turn out to be a mistake? We’ll see.

153. P Technobabble - November 17, 2008

I want to say CONGRATS to the producers, writers, cast & crew of Star Trek. The trailer is terrific and the film looks spectacular. You are making Trek exciting again, and will bring in a whole new (and younger) audience. If Star Trek is going to go on for future generations, its presentation and appearance must adapt to the times… I am very excited with everything I have seen, and can’t wait for opening day.
Live long and prosper!

154. Gary - November 17, 2008

Lotasa wallpapers can be found…

http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/images/d1_1280.jpg

Change d1 to d2 etc all the way up to d32

155. Caveman - November 17, 2008

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN!!!!!!!!!!

156. C.S. Lewis - November 17, 2008

89. BrF – November 17, 2008

Is that Corvette from a year of the original series, by the way? Is that a nod?

Didn’t Shatner drive a ‘vette and Nimoy a T-bird (the sports car version, not the landbare version)?

157. Jeffries Tuber - November 17, 2008

127 – Can someone actually see green on the woman under Kirk?

158. Stelios Arian - November 17, 2008

I LOVE TO BE A TREKKIEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GIVE IT ALL JJ :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

159. James - November 17, 2008

AH, TREK GLUTTON!

I have 1080p HD version for my bad-ass widescreen TV and ipod version for my… ipod.

HURRAH!

The Enterprise looks a HELL of a lot better in the trailer than in that still shot we got. Nacelles are still ugly, though ;-)

Ah, you can never FULLY please a Trekkie!

IT… ALL… LOOKS… COOOOOOL…

160. JL - November 17, 2008

something’s jacked with this page — comments have stopped appearing but that can’t be the case…

161. JL - November 17, 2008

Definitely jacked from hits…

162. Drunk And Disorderly - November 17, 2008

As a) a Scotsman, and b) a Scotsman who believes in ‘Pure Wads’, Simon Pegg’s Scottish accent must be one of the worst I’ve ever heard…

163. Ran - November 17, 2008

Sorry for the wrong link… This is the 1080p file.

http://apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h1080p.mov

Enjoy!

164. Kirky - November 17, 2008

http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_480p.mov

165. Tiberius - November 17, 2008

Im on a laptop but will go to my desktop with the big screen to watch it on apple.com

thanks

166. Will - November 17, 2008

Having just frame-by-framed the trailer, I’m intrigued.
What are those big honking structures on the horizon in Iowa? More ship construction?
And what’s going on on Vulcan? When Spock beams down, it looks like the Vasquez Rocks are collapsing…

167. Trek Nerd Central - November 17, 2008

152 – I’m glad the trailer doesn’t give away too much. I’m sick to death of previews that spoil the entire plot.

Having watched it a bunch of times now, I gotta say: I’m one pathetically happy little geek. Can’t can’t can’t can’t can’t can’t CAN ‘T wait to see this.

168. Bijillm shkaitnrerk - November 17, 2008

#27

You obviously aren’t scottish!

169. Michael make it so... - November 17, 2008

my god!! jj could cure a rainy day

after the photos i was looking forward to the film and now after that trailer i cant wait!!
to all those who said JJ couldnt do it hope your eating your words

170. Phil Bailey - November 17, 2008

Awesome!!!

171. Pontihog - November 17, 2008

Amazing detail in the HD versions!!!

Just noticed now that the top on the vette is up at the beginning, then it is filmed with the top down a few seconds later.

Don’t know why I didn’t notice it earlier.

172. edcorvette - November 17, 2008

”Apologies if this has already come up, but that Corvette — is that from a year that the original series ran? Is that a nod?”

Dude! Its in the movie because it is cool.
Corvettes will be around in the future you know.

173. Sarah - November 17, 2008

@163
I knows people who say that about my accent. And mine is real.

174. ety3 - November 17, 2008

Has there been any word on Vulcan’s overall “color?” It looks a little too Earth-like in the trailer, but it’s entirely possible they haven’t finished all the color correcting yet.

175. starshipcaptain - November 17, 2008

Look at the lettering/images on the pillar supporting the nacel in the scene in the trailer where the enterprise is under construction and Kirk is looking at it. I’m not sure if this is an effect that is not locked into position or a hidden message. Any thoughts?

176. Scotty - November 17, 2008

Anyone complaining about this movie should hang their heads in shame!
If you want things to stay the same forever, lock yourself indoors and watch TOS on repeat, forever. I’ll be in line waiting to see the movie, thanks.

This film will do what Star Wars couldn’t.

We all know what that was, right guys?

‘Nuff said.

(Oh yeah and I’m from Scotland and Pegg doesn’t sound bad at all. Doohan was crap at it but he was charming. Pegg’s accent is spot on.)

177. Spock Jenkins - November 17, 2008

The Trailer looks FANTASTIC – all you naysayers…Jog On!!!

178. NCC-73515 - November 17, 2008

Wow, I’ve really discovered secret images :D
It was just confirmed. Please don’t follow the link.

179. Bijillm shkaitnrerk - November 17, 2008

#27

You obviously aren’t scottish.

Although first impressions upon seeing the character are not wholly impressive I am betting on Mr Peggs previous performances and believe he will (hopefully) do a grand job.

Oh yeah and the accent is spot on scottish dialect. MUCH better than Mr Doohans accent ever was.

180. Spock Jenkins - November 17, 2008

The trailer looks FANTASTIC – all you naysayers can JOG ON!!!

181. ME! - November 17, 2008

Not that it’s a big deal as I believe I can reasonably guess what’s what, but where’s the shot by shot info as promised?

182. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 17, 2008

This is a great Trailer and any one who does not like it ill have you put into the Agoniser Booth for a few Hours. I bet then you will come around. Looking forward to it and Ill be in line for the Midnight showing. Khannnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

183. Jef - November 17, 2008

Awesome………….Bring it on!

184. Mateo NYC - November 17, 2008

Well, the movie’s gonna be massive. The trailer is really good, too…one of the best (if not THE best) Trek trailers yet.

I couldn’t help but think that Uhura’s wearing granny panties….

185. shane s - November 17, 2008

Sure getting tired of the shit talkers, talking trash, like seeing a quick jump-cut of movie tells them it is good or not. Looks good to me so far, and if you are going to attack it just because its not canon, well, move on, the rest of us will have an open-mind, take it on it’s own merit, and after seeing it at least once will start to form an opinion.

186. Regula One - November 17, 2008

I’ve already watched this trailer 20 times.
I’m now going frame by frame.

Freakin’ EPIC!

187. Jeffries Tuber - November 17, 2008

“Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.”

This has the makings of a ‘line for the ages.’ If this is representative of KO’s work on this script, I don’t know if I’ll sleep well [because STAR TREK is safe] or not at all [because I can’t wait!].

I for one think Greenwood was a brilliant casting decision. Like his unfortunate role in HBO’s surf series, he looks like a weathered, tired hero.

Sarek and Amanda look lovely. Amanda’s Tehran-style veil is intriguing. I really like the way the rocks on Vulcan match the architecture.

Does anyone else wonder if the Klingons are also from the future–on a parallel mission to Spock’s? The trench coats are damn intriguing.

This is what I’ve been waiting for since I was a teenager in the 80s–watching TWOK/TSFS, reading the paperbacks and imagining a Star Trek that was bigger, more detailed, with people who don’t shave everyday, get laid and ships that get damaged.

Thanks JJ, Damon, Bryan, Bob and Alex. The word is given.

188. NL-NaeZ - November 17, 2008

HOLY F**KING SH*T!!!

I’ve watched the trailer in FULL HD and it looks sooo amazing!!! But I wonder, how many times gets the USS Kelvin destroyed?! I saw 2 moments where the Kelvin is being crushed… Maybe there are more ships in it besides the shuttlecrafts and the USS Enterprise… And the Buckle Up moment.. are we seeing there the final scene of this movie because Kirk is wearing a Captain’s uniform.. and what is it with the mirror-view of Spock attacking Kirk? And what about the 2 guards getting beaten by Nero… they look like Klingon?! What about…..

….. SO MANY QUESTIONS!!! I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE STAR TREK!!!!!

189. Captmike of the Terran Empire - November 17, 2008

This looks great and anyone not likeing it ill put you in the Agoniser booth for an hour or so. Ill bet that will change your mind. Long live the Terran Empire.

190. YoJimbo - November 17, 2008

ORION SLAVE GIRL….

If you go through the 1080p trailer frame-by-frame you see that the girl Kirk is in bed with has GREEN SKIN! Ahahahaha.

191. BK613 - November 17, 2008

Anyone else notice that Uhura’s cabin looks like an updated version of the TOS one, complete with room divider?

Oh and the car looks like a ’65 Stingray to me. I wonder what metaphor that is supposed to be?

192. classictrek - November 17, 2008

The two easter eggs are asking me for a login here.

And – those floors are sure SHINY to have issued such short skirts…

I keep looking for HAL in the hallway…

“Open the pod bay doors, HAL.”

“I’m sorry Kirk, I’m afraid I can’t do that”

*sigh*

193. Captain Corbomite - November 17, 2008

Hi Folks,

First-time poster here. Been reading all the commentary & thought I’d jump in.

I’m going to opt on the side of optimism here. Maybe, just maybe, all the seemingly non-canon things we’re seeing in the trailer are just there to throw us off… Abrams himself has said that there are a lot of things in this film that “can be explained under canon”, so perhaps he’s created a terrific tale that’s full of surprises? He has been awfully darn secretive about the thing for some reason, right? :-)

But, I am having a hard time with the kid in what appears to be a 200 year-old Corvette. Doubtful they’ll even have gasoline then…

194. Edward Duddy - November 17, 2008

Why are there 2 DIFFERENT shots of the Kelvin being blown up? I just noticed it after my 10th time viewing the trailer, ha.

Time travel maybe? Something like TNG’s Cause and Effect?

Hmm.

195. Charles Trotter - November 17, 2008

A few things spotted in HD version of trailer:

Kirk’s ‘vette has Iowa license plates, license number 12213; other numbers on the plate include “1253” and “3753”

RoboCop’s model number is 924

Ben Cross does indeed appear as Sarek; he’s in the shot with Winona Ryder at Vasquez (initially thought that was Quinto for some reason)

There is one very tall alien among the cadets in the Academy shot

One of the shuttles being loaded in the Academy shot reads NCC-1701!!!

There is a console in front of the helm and nav stations on the Enterprise bridge

That’s Winona Ryder/Amanda being helped by Zachary Quinto/Spock at 1:20

Looks like our heroes take an orbital dive at 1:25

What the heck is that at 1:29?

Nero vs. helmeted Klingons at 1:36!!!

Shot at 1:40 is flipped

labels on that glass thing in front of Uhura read “Engineering 01″ and “Defense Shield”

Kirk is with an Orion babe at 1:42 (Rachel Nichols, I would guess)

Jennifer Morrison (mama Kirk) screaming in agony at 1:43

And there you go :)

196. Nomad - November 17, 2008

#86:

“#53—”…but there’s no evidence whatsoever of that in this trailer.” Nor is there any evidence that none of what you just described is not in the film.”

You’re right – there’s hope-!

“This trailer is not directed at established Star Trek fans, but at the general movie-going audience. If the trailer felt anything like run-of-the-mill Star Trek, it wouldn’t have its desired effect, would it? No. It would likely be dismissed as the same old thing they have ignored and/or ridiculed for decades.”

Again I agree – I’m not being a stuffy canonist nothing-must-change traditionalist, I’m all in favour of it changing and moving on as long as it’s the same thing at heart. I want more than just an action movie. I’d have like to see evidence of that in the trailer – but yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There’s hope.

197. Driver - November 17, 2008

Spotted a shuttle in the bay that reads 1701-A. Front licence plate on the Corvette has IOWA at the top. I think the cop is a robot else why would he need a breathing apparatus if young Kirk doesn’t? Maybe the monster is from the same planet as the Cloverfield monster. A tie in to that movie?

198. Josro89 - November 17, 2008

Did anyone notice how the Corvette’s top is up in the first shot but then it’s down in all the following shots? Not that it’s a big deal but it’s not a good sign if there are continuity errors in the first 10 seconds of the trailer.

199. JL - November 17, 2008

There’s a weird glare between Kirk and the E

You can see it between 0:56 – 0:58

Toward the left side of the screen

Is there a giant plexiglass window in front of him?

Anyone else notice it?

200. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 17, 2008

That was SO good!

201. Gavvo - November 17, 2008

1:36

those guards have interesting helmets/masks

maybe they’re klingons???

202. Keith H - November 17, 2008

Being denied the honor of seeing it shown before Bond, because they apparently didn’t want to show it at the theater I went to, I was beyond ecstatic to finally see it online, in HD. I got chills, literally. Something I treat as visual inspiration in my own life is getting some serious attention, so happy! And it’s got even more visual inspiration now!

I’d also like to think the skydiving stuff was inspired by Voyager :) Depressed B’Elanna anyone? Kelvin, though different looking, is actually catching my eye, in a good way! I could go on! SOO EXCITED. I’m going to plug my computer into my 47″ 1080p Flat screen when I get home and watch the trailer on there, ha!

203. Bailey - November 17, 2008

I might be wrong but it looks like the Kelvin goes out kamikaze style into Nero’s octopus monstrosity. Also, anyone notice the Klingon prison guards with the face helmets?

204. the_law - November 17, 2008

Unless it’s been officially confirmed, I think the cop in the beginning of the trailer is human. He asks too much like a cop. No robot or android can get that cop walk down like that. It was a “well…well…well…what have we here” type walk.

205. adarkknight - November 17, 2008

wow…..wow….WOW!!!!!

absolutely incredible, way beyond my expectations.

one thing though: hope they don’t go overboard with the orion slave girl scene….im guessing its brief, im just hoping for the kids’ sake. trek has yet to do something incredibly bad….nemesis pushed it, but, you know…here’s hoping. knew that they were gonna do something when they had an orion girl cast, but, crap. hope its nothing.

206. jeffreyNdallas - November 17, 2008

I just showed this to four women who work in my office who are not Trek fans and they all thought it looked great and want to see it because Chris Pine is “so hot”….lol….One of the women who’s husband is a Trekkie said it would make her husband’s day…..and they are in their 60’s. Of course, the girl who said Chris P is hot is in her early 30’s. Quite a range of age and all thought the movie looked really interesting.

Yes, the HD version brings so much more to this….I could not keep up at the theater…..by the way, did anyone notice near the end a Constitution class ship blowing up? Could it be?

207. Hanabi - November 17, 2008

If the downloads are taking time from the Apple website, you can get them instead via iTunes. Click the link from the Pple website to the iPhone version. iTunes will then open up and show you all of the HD versions aswell to download within iTunes.

208. matt - November 17, 2008

Download Link *iTunes*
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/redirect?url=itms://www.apple.com/moviesxml/s/paramount/startrek/index.xml%3Fi%3D17

209. trekmovie - November 17, 2008

SO—-

Has a concensus been reached about whether Nimoy is in the trailer?

If not, have ANY photos of him from the new film been released?

If so, can anyone post a link to them?

If not, then WHY have no pictures of him been put out? I mean…geez…..they’ve released pictures of just about everybody and everything else in the film at this point. Why not Mr. Nimoy?

210. The Real Kobayashi Maru - November 17, 2008

THat’s NOT nimoy in the trailor. over at TREKWEB they have a picture still of that shot and it’s SAREK….not SPOCK..

211. wwiifanatic - November 17, 2008

Why the hell does the apple trailer sight link you to the cloverfield trailer rather than the trek trailer….

212. Danya Romulus - November 17, 2008

199

Definitely noticed that too. The only explanation I can imagine is it’s glare from the huge light more to the center-right of the screen?

213. McCoy - November 17, 2008

1) I don’t buy the idea that the future of ‘Trek’ is dependent on this movie

2) The idea of ‘Trek’ is different than ‘Star Wars’ and ‘90210’ but I guess they have added elements from both to get more people to the theater to make more money

3) Yes, I like scantly clothed Zoe, and the idea of Kirk making out with someone is of course OK within a story, but I’m embarassed for Trek that the promoters have included those scenes in the trailer as if to say “come to Star Trek, we have sex stuff in the film

4) The new Enterprise is ugly. Should have used a variation closer to the the original. Missed a goose bump moment.

6) The movie looks fun and this stage…as a popcorn movie…but I don’t see Star Trek.

214. Nostromo - November 17, 2008

Wasn’t sure what to expect from this trailer and had some mixed feelings about some of the news and images over the east few weeks, but in all honesty having watched it for the first time today… it looks awesome.

215. Medicjk - November 17, 2008

I have been watching the HD version since it went up earlier today. I accidentally closed it and now on the apple site the links are all messed up. Trailer 2 links (480,720,1080) all show the teaser trailer. Trailer 1 links show the cloverfield trailer!!!

GRRR

216. Michael Scott - November 17, 2008

Is that a Klingon fighting Sulu at 1:33?

217. msr - November 17, 2008

Far, far superior to the bootlegged copy I’d seen over the weekend. I’m thoroughly stunned by the visuals — can’t wait to see how these quick cuts are integrated into the film!

218. John - November 17, 2008

The http://www.startrekmovie.com/ site still says 1D 3H 45M to go?

Also on the apple site it seems some of the HD trailers are for cloverfield.

Anyone else having trouble with the links etc?

219. Trailer is DOWN as of 3:48PM EST - November 17, 2008

They took the trailer offline or something. The only trailers on the site are the original teaser and one for Cloverfield.

220. LostOnNCC1701 - November 17, 2008

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/large_trailer2.html

^ HD trailer

221. McCoy - November 17, 2008

So the only reason to have the big E built on Earth was to be able to have Kirk ride up and see it on a motorcycle…lol…at sunset. Top Gun cliche moment. Weren’t some of you saying that these writers use too many cliches?

222. Hanabi - November 17, 2008

I downloaded the 1080p version of the trailer, then ran it through VisualHub to create a DVD version with stereo. Looks awesome on my 37″ HDTV. :P

223. doctormemory - November 17, 2008

The trailer music is “Down with the Enterprise” by Two Steps from Hell from their Legend II collection.

224. snoopy - November 17, 2008

the car roof being a continuity error is only true if the shots in the trailer are directly after each other in the movie, which i very much doubt, given that he steals the car in one and is being chased in the next, we can assume things happen inbetween, such as his putting the top back.

225. LostonNCC1701 - November 17, 2008

Weird, my name isn’t automatically popping up again.

226. ElrondL - November 17, 2008

#187: Couldn’t agree more — that is a helluva line. And Urban delivers it so well!!

#199, 212: I noticed the glare too — it appears to be lens flare from the big light toward the right of the frame. I’m a photographer and have encountered that before with headlights and other sources. It’s a nice touch of realism.

227. Concerned fan - November 17, 2008

Something doesn’t add up here, I think I saw Sulu and Chekov on the bridge with Pike. But as far as I know, neither Sulu nor Chekov were under his command …………. and where is no. 1 ?

228. Keith H - November 17, 2008

In case no one has mentioned it, the weird moving thing over the nacelle support at 58 seconds is a glare from the light towers at the right, like a lens glare. Oh, and I like seeing the United Federation of Planets logo in this seen too, on the buildings.

229. Ron Mosher - November 17, 2008

I’ve been a Trekker for 38 years now and when I saw this I had tears streaming down my face! What a thrill ride we’re going to have! Gene would have loved this!

230. Bob - November 17, 2008

Umm, I just went on the official apple site. Did someone hack in and replace the trailer with a trailer for Cloverfield? Because that’s what I saw.

231. N - November 17, 2008

Is apple playing some kind of game. i’m getting the cloverfield trailer or the old teaser when I click on the hd links!

232. Ralph - November 17, 2008

I’m glad to see it in HD. Now I can look at it slower and frame by frame. Neat. More to see if you slow it down.

233. Bob - November 17, 2008

I just went on the site. Did someone hack in and replace the Trek trailer with the trailer for cloverfield?

234. Tiberius - November 17, 2008

I hope they make a better movie with the real trek after this one…

this is not real star trek..

this is… well its interesting but its not star trek…

235. Bob Tompkins - November 17, 2008

It looks eerily like Nimoy in the scen with his mom, but it’s either Sarek or young Spock. This guy doesn’t have the turkey thing swinging under his chin [at least I don’t see it in my screencap].

Downloading the trailer is easy. Temporarily install Real Player 11 [don’t keep it long, it’s invasiveware] with the download box checked.

Go to the site and a blue ‘download this clip’ box will pop up.

Download it and then uninstall Real Player 11.

236. Cody - November 17, 2008

Hmm the corvette scene with the spedometer reminds me of the gone in 60 seconds part in the movie.. vroom vroom lol

237. thorsten - November 17, 2008

[209] Nimoy is not in the Trailer.

238. Catie - November 17, 2008

Hi all,
I saw the trailer before Bond on Fri. and have been watching and rewatching it online. It’s different then I expected but I’m really excited about it! I’m particularly looking forward to seeing Kirk and Spock interact.
:-)

239. Aaron R. - November 17, 2008

211– I dont know it is doing it to me too. Wasn’t earlier! Maybe to many people watching???

240. Paulaner - November 17, 2008

That robo-cop is really, really, really cool.

241. David (Flaming Wings Forever) - November 17, 2008

*gives McCoy a warm hug*

242. RedShirtWalking - November 17, 2008

209:

Nimoy is NOT in the trailer. English actor Ben Cross, who plays Sarek, is.

243. touchstone35 - November 17, 2008

I wonder what percentage of the Bond box office was just Trek fans coming to see the trailer ?

244. May 2009 - November 17, 2008

Because Star Trek died when Enterprise was canceled.

Seriously, people need to get over the idea that Star Trek CAN’T change. For God’s sake, Star Trek, for as good as it has been, as good as TOS, TNG, and DS9 are, lack seriously in comparison to other sci-fi franchises. Simply put, Star Wars, for as much a huge Star Trek fan I have and always will be, is better than Star Trek. Star Wars is reality, Star Trek is idealism. And that’s fine that Star Trek is idealistic. After all, it is Star Trek.

But, lest we not forget, this isn’t the 1960s. People don’t like happy-go-lucky stuff. They want hard reality. That’s what I want. I want to know what’s going on in the politics of the Federation. I want to see what I saw on DS9.

Star Trek was fitting for its time. The 1960s and late 80s to mid 90s. But, by Enterprise, when they tried to create a story based on real life, it was a total bust and ruined the series. In other words, the concept needs reinvigoration.

It’s a silly assumption that some how, because we’re seeing more of the Wagon Trail to the Stars than we are utopian Earth (which was never very utopian anyway), people won’t be able to see the ideal united Earth with the Vulcans and Andorians and various allies under the United Federation of Planets. Because, I have no doubt, much like the Old Republic, people will be able to recognize this in the movie.

By the way, the Giants did in fact defeat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Percentages and over/unders are pointless. See the damn movie.

245. luke Montgomery - November 17, 2008

To the few haters that say things like “I’ll wait for netflix” or “they won’t be getting my $11″… YOU ARE FULL OF IT.

You expect anyone to believe that you would spend your time commenting on a Star Trek site months before the film comes out but not go see the new film once it hits cinemas? BS.

You are small and powerless and this is the only way to get express anything close to control. Sad. Annoying. Just dishonest.

The film looks to me like it will be amazing. If it doesn’t to you just say so but don’t lie about how you won’t “support” it. No one cares. you are like a vesitgial organ. Pointless.

246. Aaron R. - November 17, 2008

Touble with the site today huh? Not posting correctly?

247. SLICK - November 17, 2008

U CAN SEE SPOCK IN THE TRAILER…..

IF U SEE THE SCENE WHERE QUINTO’S SPOCK IS CARRYING A WOMAN (MAYBE HIS MOTHER?)

IF U PAUSE IT AND LOOK BEHIND HIM.. U CAN SEE NIMOY’S SPOCK .. HELPING A OLDER VULCAN (SAREK?)

MAYBE ITS JUST ME … BUT THATS WHAT I INTERPRETED!

248. Jon - November 17, 2008

What a trailer… full on HD awesomeness. Seriously, what a superb job these guys look to have done- I just can’t wait to see this film, it’s going to be a revolution for Star Trek, one we’ve waited so long for but been let down time and time again on with the crap they put out in the last ten years.

I so hope boborci, JJ and Alex aren’t put on a downer when the canonites cry havoc in feedback threads like these, I have no doubt their whinging voices will be silenced by a smash box office this film is going to generate.

249. Luke Montgomery - November 17, 2008

ok to all the dorks who are talking about “continuity errors” in the trailer. It’s a trailer. It’s cut to be fast paced and quick. it does not show full scenes. find something else to hate on that doesn’t make you look like a dummy.

250. mikey_pikey (Ireland) - November 17, 2008

hmm, strange that simon pegg’s accent is being criticised, sounds authentic scottish to me! maybe u guys are too used to american actors trying to attempt this accent.

251. Closettrekker - November 17, 2008

I am very much what some refer to as a “canonista”. However, it seems to me that everything which takes place after the attack upon the USS Kelvin by Romulan villains from the distant future is subject to change from the way it played out in the timeline with which we are all so familiar.

That’s fine. In fact, it certainly seems to mesh with what Bob Orci said here long ago—“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation.”

The existence and potential for alternate timelines being created as a result of interference with the past has been in itself canon for more than 4 decades (“City On The Edge Of Forever”, “Tommorow Is Yesterday”, etc.).

I cannot see how anyone who has as much fun with ‘canon’ as I do could possibly argue that ‘canon’ is being violated here.

It seems a reasonable conclusion that James Kirk’s father (along with a young Christopher Pike) was aboard the USS Kelvin during the attack, and did something to distinguish himself which did not occur in the previous timeline. There is even cause to believe that he was killed, and that Pike takes an interest in the younger Kirk that he otherwise did not in the timeline we know.

Kirk’s rise to command of the Enterprise takes a very different path, it would seem. Obviously, his father’s absence has a significant ripple effect upon his development. His entry into Starfleet Academy is delayed, for one.

(“Where No Man Has Gone Before”)—Kirk may never teach a class at the Academy, and therefore never meet Gary Mitchell there (or any young blonde lab technician)

(“The Conscience Of The King”)—Kirk may never live on Taursus or experience the acts of Kodos The Executioner.

(“Obsession”)—Kirk may never serve aboard the USS Farragut under Captain Garrovick.

(“A Piece Of The Action”)—Some convirgence of circumstances may allow young Jim Kirk to learn a skill he never learned in the previous timeline, namely how to operate a manual transmission on an automobile.

(“Court-Martial”)—Kirk may never serve aboard the USS Republic, and thus never earn the wrath of a jealous and vengeful officer named Ben Finney.

(“The Menagerie”)—There may not be any fight on Rigel VII, and for that matter, the Enterprise may never travel to Talos IV (although Vina would still be rescued by the Talosians 6 years before the timeline incursion). Furthermore, Kirk obviously has a much more significant relationship with Christopher Pike than he did before.

(“Shore Leave”)—-Since Kirk’s entry into SFA is delayed, he most likely never meets, nor is he tormented by, an upperclassman named Finnegan.

I have seen it argued here that Chekov’s first voyage could not possibly take place under Pike. Well, who is to say that Pike does not remain in command much longer in this timeline than he did before? After all, the ripple effects of the timeline incursion will not merely affect JTK.

I have yet to see anything seemingly contradictory that suggests the absence of a canonical explanation.

The writers have handed the director a huge canon loophole…and I think it’s going to be alot of fun, whether Orci’s “final solution” ends up restoring all or much of the original timeline’s course of events or not.

252. Anthony Pascale - November 17, 2008

RE: Comments
Guys I have been ‘caching’ this page due to the EXTREMELY high traffic. This means that comments are recorded but not immediately displayed. So be patient

253. starshipcaptain - November 17, 2008

Hey, McCoy, quit living in the past… if the star trek of the past was such a big seller (yeah, these people are in it for the money) they wouldn’t have redone it this way. When they drove TNG into the ground with the movies and looked back at the failure of Enterprise and Voyager, they took a good look at what would update Trek to a new generation. Evolution. When they invented the bow and arrow, I’m sure they thought that was great, but now, well…

This is the kind of trek movie I’ve been waiting for. Big, Epic, Action Packed and from everything I’ve seen, still Gene’s vision of the future. Humanity has evolved!!!

254. Ben - November 17, 2008

One possible Easter egg is the sound effects on the new site are very similar to the whale song effects from Star Trek IV. Awesome site and great looking TREK Movie!

255. LostonNCC1701 - November 17, 2008

(man, retyping in my name again and again gets annoying quick)

Stuff I noticed:

The License plate for the Kirkmobile:IOWA plate then several panels of numbers. Obviously the old plates just couldn’t hold enough numbers anymore. Or maybe it’s some special deal for such an antique car.

The infamous “Canyon” appears to have been cut in there. Further hinting that it is a quarry of some kind or maybe the future location of the “Enterprise Shipyard”

Couldn’t tell if Kirk Kid has the same shoes as Marty McFly to go along with the shirt

Sign in the bottom right when Jim is on his bike looking at the Enterprise: “AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY”. Can’t make anything else out.

One of the shuttles in that Docking Bay is labeled 1701/A. Meaning it’s probably just Ship A of the enterprise.

Still not sure what the ship that looks vaguely like the Star Wars “Slave One” is.

HOLY HELL! Those are Klingons (either that or it’s some type of headpiece). Nice mix of the Ridges and the Flatheaded.

Jim gets a Orion Babe. Like there was every any doubt.

The Kelvin was getting attacked by FIGHTERS!

256. Dr. Image - November 17, 2008

Good thing I’m off work- I’ve been sitting here for hours using NERO (ha!) 8 to do some heavy screen cappin’!
Observations–
JJ loves those lens flares.
That warp effect is a work of art!
In fact, as far as space stuff goes, ILM has really outdone themselves, it seems- nice ‘n “dirty” battles.
I only like the bridge because it reminds me of the “A” bridge at the end of The Voyage Home- too bad they couldn’t have kept it that way. (They used it as the battle bridge in TNG.)
The new E looks better than I thought, it was a mistake to release that cropped, wide-angle distorted initial photo as the FIRST.

257. KevinA Melbourne Australia - November 17, 2008

NO HD VERSION! Just trick links.

Trailer 1 HD – CLOVERFIELD
Trailer 2 HD – The ST Teaser Trailer.

I WANNA SEE THIS IN FULL 1080P and I already own a full version of Quicktime. Anthony, What’s gives?

PS. The lesser resolutions work and all I can say is WOW! but I want to see the Enterprise being built in Max. Res.

regards
KevinA
Melbourne Australia

258. MacKenzie Calhoun - November 17, 2008

Any Issues with the car being 200 years old is silly. There are builders right now, that make ships that look hundreds of years old. Where do you think they got the ships for Disney’s Pirate movies?

Many car builders right now build retro cars, and there are smaller companies that make exact copies of classic cars, like cobras and super-sevens.

How do we know Kirk’s car is the real thing? It could just be a copy of a classic ancient design.

BTW: That’s not Nimoy in the trailer, it’s Ben Cross playing Sarek!

259. LostonNCC1701 - November 17, 2008

Oh, and in the “loading bay” shot, one of the cadets has a head that is definitely not human. Looks like you put a miniature Jabba the Hutt on top of him.

260. I'm dead Jim - November 17, 2008

I didn’t have a problem with how young Kirk said his name. I took it as being cocky and perhaps proud of it and sort of “who wants to know anyway”.

Love the trailer. We heard for the past several days how so many of the previous Trek trailers showed too much and now some people bitch about this one not showing enough.

Jeez!

261. Dave P - November 17, 2008

#247 – I don’t think it’s Nimoy. He’s a little hard to make out, but I’d recognise him if it was.

262. Jean Frankenberry - November 17, 2008

Here’s my guess as to why Uhura takes off her shirt.

Not a sex scene.

My guess is that the Orion girl is rooming with Uhura.

She returns to her quarters, surprising Kirk and Orion girl.

Jim hides under the bed.

Uhura takes off her shirt because she thinks she’s alone with the Orion chick.

Only thing that makes sense to me.

263. Edwin - November 17, 2008

# 179 — I am part Scottish actually! Guess that doesn’t make me an expert!

I am basing my comment on one sentence from a trailer — Mr. Pegg may end up doing a half-way decent job throughout the film and I hope he does. However he does it though his accent cannot be as bad as Mel Gibson in Braveheart! Moreso, have you heard George Takei reading one of the audio books? His Scotty sounds like he is from India!

264. Edwin - November 17, 2008

# 179 — I am part Scottish actually! Guess that doesn’t make me an expert!

I am basing my comment on one sentence from a trailer — Mr. Pegg may do a half-way decent job throughout the film and I hope he does. However he does it, his accent cannot be as bad as Mel Gibson in Braveheart! Moreso, have you heard George Takei reading one of the audio books? His Scotty sounds like he is from India!

265. LostonNCC1701 - November 17, 2008

Oh, and one of the shots was of the Kelvin RAMMING the Romulan Cthulhu ship! It would appear that Picard went to the George Kirk school of tactics.

266. Jamie - November 17, 2008

OK… I have now seen the trailer.

So where are all the screen caps? I can’t find any online anywhere, apart from some low-res ones.

267. David - November 17, 2008

There’s a slightly shorter TV promo on RottenTomatoes.com

268. Robert April - November 17, 2008

car chase=cool
car=very cool
kid driving car=cool
kid telling cop his middle name=a little hokey
cop driving hoverbike=very cool, nice contrast with car.

cop wearing Breen mask=extremely juvenile and a big put off. Belongs in a transformers movie, not Star Trek. Re film that scene JJ, quick! Just have the cop approach without the dumb mask.

Enterprise in shipyard=cool, but could have been lots better with a more TOS -like design.

269. Kreso - November 17, 2008

Hm, none of my posts got through, and I’m sure I’ve seen atleast one of them posted.

Anyhow… It seems that the paths to the “secret” five wallpapers have been changed.
http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/images/d24_1920.jpg
With d24-26 and 31, 32 were hidden wallpapers, but now they are apparently deleted :)

270. garen - November 17, 2008

has anyone noticed that the cliffs in the beginning sequence look very MAN MADE. It doesnt seem to be a natural rock formation at all. The rocks….or blocks rather are very geometrical in shape and order. Large cubes that have been stacked high on one another.

Any thoughts?

271. rayjay - November 17, 2008

#213:
“1) I don’t buy the idea that the future of ‘Trek’ is dependent on this movie.”

You would be wrong. If this movie flops, Paramount will not invest anymore $$$ into this franchise for some time, if ever.

272. Amujan - November 17, 2008

LOL there’s an Airtrax Sidewinder http://www.airtrax.com/vehicles/sidewinder.shtml in the scene with the cadets being transferred.

273. Rainbucket - November 17, 2008

Nerdily beautiful detail at 1:15 – 1:17 if you frame-by-frame… the rightmost shuttle has a Romulan rocket closing in on it. The rocket is blown up at the last second by a red phaser blast from the Kelvin.

The clip would indicate that, despite the turrets, phasers are still solid red beams.

I love that after shooting a brief establishing shot at Vasquez Rocks in ST VI, we now see similar locations all over the Vulcan location. Maybe even an implication that they were created by the Romulan attack in this movie.

Does Iowa have any gigantic canyons like that? Maybe it’s left from the Xindi attack, in a nod to Enterprise?

274. grid - November 17, 2008

some things i could only pick up in HD:

0:22 – looks like the “canyon” is more of a quarry or a mine. if it has been chiseled out of the earth, why? why is it gated off? what’s at the bottom?

1:17 – there are many, many more bridge stations than we’ve seen in previous incarnations of trek. i wonder if we’ll get some indication of what they do.

1:20 – spock rescuing his mother, aged since the earlier shot of her in the trailer? she looks like an older winona ryder in the HD version, but the head scarf makes it hard to tell for sure.

1:21 – Nero’s switchblade staff definitely reminds me of those klingon knives we see flip open in later trek. possible klingon cultural connection?

1:30 – ship with tails/propeller on the back. could be spock’s time ship, but it matches the “tentacled” look they seem to be giving nero related stuff.

1:33 – in one frame you can tell that the alien sulu is “fencing” with has pointy ears .. so probably nero, but maybe some other romulan.

1:36 – nero’s prison guard helmets really do look klingon.

1:39 – looks like the kelvin is actually ramming the big, bad tentacle ship.

275. garen - November 17, 2008

Has anyone noticed the the cliffs in the beginning sequence look quite MAN MADE? The rocks….or blocks rather, look very geometrical in shape and order. Large cues that are stacked high in a very specific design.

Any thoughts?

276. orgcaptainnemo - November 17, 2008

IGN HAS A TV SPOT UP:

http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/692255/star-trek/videos/startrek_spot1_111708.html

Looks like a shorter version of the trailer, but cool none the less!

277. DavidAP - November 17, 2008

I’ve spotted a few interesting things after watching the trailer in HD.

1) The new Enterprise design actually looks pretty faithful to the original when seen in action. Especially from the front, which is the angle it’s shown most during the trailer.
2) I may be wrong, but the bridge viewscreen looks to actually be a window. Maybe JJ heard what Nick Meyer always used to say about wishing it was actually a window instead of basically a big monitor.
3) Kirk can be seen briefly wearing a regular uniform with Captain’s stripes at one point in the trailer, instead of the all black Cadet uniform (the part where he says “buckle up” to Spock). That means that he makes the jump from Cadet to Captain during the course of the movie. It may also mean that Pike dies in this movie as well.

278. NCC-1688 - November 17, 2008

Just like my brother-in-law, it don’t work!

279. Lawrence Boucher - November 17, 2008

Anthony,

Do you know anything about the change in production partners for the film? Level 1 was listed as a production partner in the teaser but is missing in the credits of the new trailer. Now on the official website, Spyglass Entertainment is listed next to Bad Robot and Paramount. Quite curious.

280. Yammer - November 17, 2008

245 – Although I have also mocked the crying ones (save the wails!), they do add something to this site. The “Get A Life” joke is not funny unless it is true.

281. Dab - November 17, 2008

I can only get the Cloverfield trailer, and the original Trek teaser on HD. What’s going on over at Apple?

282. Paulaner - November 17, 2008

#267 “cop wearing Breen mask=extremely juvenile and a big put off.”

I like very much the idea of robots used as cops. The head is a nice design. Futuristic but primitive if compared to Dr. Soong works.

283. Smike van Dyke - November 17, 2008

#274: That canyon was created by the Xindi weapon :)))

284. Catie - November 17, 2008

I like the new E. I think the lighter colors add to the optimism that JJ is talking about and the inside looks cool with the primary colors of the uniforms.
:-)

285. harris250 - November 17, 2008

#227
Ha….welcome to the party!!

286. Trekkertos - November 17, 2008

How can you spend so much time and effort on an advert for a massive film like this and make a mistake, the 2nd shot of Spock attacking Kirk the film is backwards spocks badge is on the wrong side?

287. Can't Wait for Labor Day 2009 - November 17, 2008

Wonder what happened to Level 1 Entertainment since they were suppose to be co producing the movie. On one of the new wallpapers I noticed it has Spyglass Entertainment now has a co producer of the movie.

288. Tabtoops - November 17, 2008

252, it seems as though you’ve come to a conclusion without any evidence and then search for irrelevant points to support the conclusion YOU MADE UP! There is NOTHING so far that indicates this movie is a new timeline, you seem like a child who has had a nightmare so he snuggles with his teddybear, in this case that teddybear is the parallel universe theory.

Let’s say I’m back in ancient times and I think that the Earth is flat. If I see evidence that the Earth is round, I’m not going to say that sometime in the past I entered an alternate universe in which the Earth appears round. That’s just ridiculous, and proving that alternate universes are possible (which is what you are doing) doesn’t actually prove ANYTHING about whether what we’re viewing IS an alternate universe.

Using Occam’s Razor, I believe that the universe in the new movie is the same universe as in TOS and all other star trek media on TV and the movies, but for story and aesthetic reasons has changed. Mainly, because it is a TV show. We know THAT for sure.

289. SeePea - November 17, 2008

All the contrary Mary’s need to chill.

The only gripe I have is the horrible kerning between the L and the V on the hull of the USS Kelvin. How’s that for nitpicking? But you’d think in a future where money is obsolete Starfleet could afford to hire a graphic designer to do the letter setting on their starships. And you’d think JJ Abrams would have caught a detail like that. What is this, the menu at the local Chinese restaurant?

Just nitpicking. What a great trailer, though.

290. ety3 - November 17, 2008

Those are, in fact, Klingons that Nero is taking out. Confirmed by JJ Abrams on http://www.empireonline.com.

Also, note the shot of Amanda and Sarek (with Amanda reclining). She’s holding a blanket swaddled Spock, I’m certain.

291. Andrew - November 17, 2008

http://kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/984956599vlcsnap-00001_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png

292. Requiem1971 - November 17, 2008

As mentioned above, new trailer not available in HD 1080. If that button is selected, you get to view the OLD trailer. I hope someone is reading these blogs and will fix this problem. I’d like to see the new trailer in 1080 HD. Other than that, Looks great!

293. Engon - November 17, 2008

Corridor from “The Andromeda Strain”

http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan.bruemmer/AndromedaStrain#5194323360694594386

294. Will - November 17, 2008

244:
There’s much here, bear with me.

“Seriously, people need to get over the idea that Star Trek CAN’T change.”
Very true. This is a re-imagining, and there’s no way to get around it. Fans need to expect things to change. On the other hand I think it’s fair to expect those involved with the production to respect the 40 years of history that made people fans in the first place.

“For God’s sake, Star Trek, for as good as it has been, as good as TOS, TNG, and DS9 are, lack seriously in comparison to other sci-fi franchises. Simply put, Star Wars, for as much a huge Star Trek fan I have and always will be, is better than Star Trek. Star Wars is reality, Star Trek is idealism. And that’s fine that Star Trek is idealistic. After all, it is Star Trek.”

This does not follow however. Star Wars is not remotely realistic. If anything, Star Trek is the one grounded in reality. It would be fairer to say that both franchises are exercises in fantasy: Star Wars is a morality play about good and evil, while Star Trek deals with a very optimistic view of humanity and what it means to be human. Simply based on their premises, it’s hard to argue that one is better than another. Nor do I follow your argument that Trek “lacks in comparison to all other Sci-Fi franchises.” How, in what way? What franchises? Stargate, BSG, Buck Rogers?

“But, lest we not forget, this isn’t the 1960s. People don’t like happy-go-lucky stuff. They want hard reality. That’s what I want. I want to know what’s going on in the politics of the Federation. I want to see what I saw on DS9.”

You may want hard reality and inside politics, others may want escapism. I like DS9, but remember, not every episode was “In the Pale Moonlight.” They also had “Trials and Tribble-ations” and “Our Man Bashir.” Trek can and should be free to move between genres. I’m hoping to see how the Spock/Kirk/Bones triad comes together. And I want to see some action. I don’t want to see big strategic negotiations and intrigue.

See the damn movie.
That we agree on.

295. DeBeckster - November 17, 2008

Any notice Uhura taking her top off?

296. sean - November 17, 2008

#202

Actually, I think it was inspired by Kirk’s orbital skydiving scene that was cut from Generations, which was the inspiration for the Voyager episode.

297. sean - November 17, 2008

#277

The gold uniform he wears actually only has 3 stripes, so it means he’s a commander, not a captain at that point. Anyone in the command chain wears gold, regardless of rank.

298. dav - November 17, 2008

What Leonard Nimoy in the teaser at all?

299. Chris Basken - November 17, 2008

295: “Any notice Uhura taking her top off?”

OMG that’s such a modern-day bra. I can’t believe the writers wouldn’t respect the history of Trek like that. Clearly Uhura should be wearing a reverse-modulated transphasic reinforcing bosom field!

300. steve - November 17, 2008

moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan.
good lord folks, it looks great. funny how ipods and everything else from apple is the coolest gear around that you all buy, then JJ incorporates it into the bridge and what do you do?……………………..moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan. he could have based it on windows vista so be thankful

301. trekkie1701D - November 17, 2008

#277, in the scene where Kirk says “Buckle Up” I believe he is actually talking to McCoy, but he’s only in the scene for a couple frames, but it really doesnt look like Spock

302. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 17, 2008

Sweet very happy, notice the older TOS style constitution class secondary hulls when the E warps into the big space battle

Notice the Klingons apparently returned to their wonderful TOS human fiendish Ottoman-Commie- Mogol looks and the ridges are only a part of the decorative headpiece armor they wear. At the very least the ridges will be more subtle ala General Chiang. In one of the earlier spy photos it appears Sulu is fighting a baddie with very subtle riges so maybe some Klingons are allied with Nero as well. – NICE

Notice Nero is a prisoner of the Klingons

Notice big grand canyon like bluffs in the background as young Ani-Kirk dupms Pappy’s vette into the chasim. I suspect this is the grand Canyon and young Jim tore ass out of Iowa to drive to Starfleet Command for some reason. The Robocop catches up with him somewhere in Utah, Colorado??

Notice the Kelvin not only gets pummled but Rams it’s advesarry as well and will be destroyed

Her’s my take after patiently sipping up all the inuendo and bits and pieces we have been fed.

1. Nero is a prisoner of the Klingons in the Next Genie future (possibly because he was involved in some plot to reignite tensions with the Klingons and was captured) where he is plotting away to erase Spock’s sizable influence on his homeworld that is becoming less of his beloved Militaristic Dictatorship and more akin to a Democracy or at least less overtly aggressive with Vulcan and the Federation. Nero wants to go back in time and destroy Vulcan as well as the gretest Trek Captain of all time,, James T. Kirk. Somehow Nero busts out with the help of his supporters (Some may be Klingon – as it appears Sulu is fighting a Klingon with very subtle ridges)

2. Nero travels back in time with his cadre of militarists as well as the newest even more ugly Romulan super deadly prototype battleship (or he has stolen a much larger Shadow Vessel from B5)

3. Nero’s first attempt to destroy Vulcan and possibly Kirk’s Daddy serving as first officer aboard the Kelvin is thwarted (mostly) in that the Kelvin prevents the destruction but Kirk’s daddy dies ramming the Kelvin into the Romulan Shadow vessel (Kirk’s pregers with JT mom screaming as she hears the news- this creates the first time anomoly in which Kirk’s father dies and there are some subtle and not so subtle changes in the timeline. Kirk is raised by a douche bag of an uncle rather than his more heroic father and thus becomes more rebelious and enter the Acad later than he was intended to. (No Kodos never went with parents to live on Tarsus, no republic, no Farragut other previous ship assignments) Grew up with even more of a badboy streak because of the lack of his Father’s influence. Had to be talked into joining the acad later in his life, ect.

4. Enterprise is more of an experiment created specifically to deal with the threat the Kelvin dealt with years ago she has been in development for years. Pike is given command at the time of the renewed crisis. He may die in this somewhere (No beep Beep no Vina) and an emotional Spock is forced into command. We know Spock Nimoy will know this and tells Kirk to make him go nutty so Kirk can assume command to save the day.

5. Spock is alerted to Nero’s intentions in the future and travels back to stop him or more likely cameo warn them and tell them what they need to do to stop him

6. The almost ready to go Enterprise (She’s always almost ready to go ya know) is alerted to Nero’s second time jump attempt this time to destroy vulcan with a core death star drill. The Old school fleet (notice the Constitution class secondary hulls in the battlefield) is wiped out and only the new prototype Enterprise (maybe built with some info from future spock) can handle the Nero Shadow vessel.

7. Enterprise arrives as the death star drill burrows into Vulcan, Spock beams down to save his parents. Kirk beams down to diable the drill with sulu and redshirts (soon to die) Kirk and Sulu destroy the drill, beams up with Spock and Sarek and Amanda and then the Kirk Vs. Khan like spacebattle takes place in which Kirk outfoxes Nero and blows him to hell

8. Pike is dead or wants to retire, Kirk is the youngest to ever recive a captaincy. Basically he goes from the Academy to the Captaincy because of his heroism and saving the galaxy which is what he does

9. TIme line has many subtle altered aspects but is essentially similar. And the adventure continues

303. Remington Steele - November 17, 2008

Wonderful.

Truly is the epic that star trek has been waiting oh so long for.

304. sean - November 17, 2008

#268

Depending on what that bike can do, the helmet might make sense as an oxygen system.

305. Jeffries Tuber - November 17, 2008

Maybe young Kirk is trashing his bad Uncle’s prized possession. In any event, guys, it’s not vintage. He wouldn’t be able to buy gas for it. So it’s a repro.

The idea that Transporters preceded Replicators technologically is plain stupid. A replicator is to a transporter what a phonograph is to a telephone. So it’s safe to assume that one of the technologies that eliminates money from ST’s future economy is the replicator.

Therefore, owning a replicated vintage Corvette wouldn’t be that big of a deal. But it could still piss off your non-dad.

306. sean - November 17, 2008

Also, everytime I visit the official site the countdown actually moves backward. It was 1 hour this morning, then I went back about an hour and a half later and it was 1 day, 1 hour. I just went again and it says 1 day, 4 hours. What’s going on there? PS – I’m in the US, so that’s not it.

307. Jay - November 17, 2008

I wanted to point out a suggestion for all those nit-picking canon . Like for example, Sulu and Chekov serving with Pike.

Although we don’t know the whole plot, from reviews of the 20minutes and from this trailer and from interviews with the writers/producer, this is my theory:

The movie starts off in the TNG era…. stuff happens, yada, yada, the Romulans go back in time, Spock follows at some point…

The Rolumans arrive back in time and in a battle, they destroy the Kelvin killing Kirk’s dad. This event, since it didn’t originally happen, changes alot of the time line. This happens when Kirk is either very young, or his mother is still pregnant with him.

This event would cause all kinds of changes… and basically for the movie, i’m betting that those fans that are knowledgeable about Star Trek would need to understand that everything from that point forward (while in the Star Trek universe) is changed.

Kirk goes through a “rebel without a cause” phase being mad at the world for his dad dying… this delay’s his normal entry into Star Fleet and also causes Pike to be more of a mentoring figure in his life.

This would alow alot of things to change and not conflict with canon.

Then (so not to have a magic “reset” moment), Spock comes back in time to try to set things right at the end by getting the young Kirk to take his rightfull place as Capt of the Enteprise and remove young Spoke from command.

This puts the timeline back on course somewhat, but Spock for whatever reason, isn’t able to completely keep the Romulan’s from doing what they did, and therefore the whole movie actually does take place. Because if there was a magic reste moment where everything goes back and none of it happened, audiences would be mad.

308. SeePea - November 17, 2008

87, RoobyDoo:

I was thinking maybe the captain’s yacht?

309. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 17, 2008

Anthony where’s my post I spent 30 minutes writing it

310. MrPhil - November 17, 2008

As the line by young Kirk is contentious, perhaps the director should introduce himself as Jeffrey Jacob Abrams at his next publicity bash to reinforce the line. ;-)

Loving the trailer, the team has injected some massively needed “cool” back into Trek, and it looks like a proper movie.

But those corridors must have been a nightmare to keep clean.

311. SciFiMetalGirl - November 17, 2008

Ok, I am officially geeked out over this movie!

Folks, I am so sorry that this movie seems to offend some of the fans’ sensibilities, but I am here to tell you that this is the movie that I wish I had sat down to watch in that theater back in 1979, when TMP came out! However, it was what it was, and now we have this, and it is going to totally rock!!!

No mater what happens, I think this movie is going to do what Star Trek has always done best, and that is to be an inspiration for the future generations ahead!

May Star Trek Continue to Live Long and Prosper!

312. Fred - November 17, 2008

It’s in the Nexus, where it will live forever!

313. t2 - November 17, 2008

glad to see more optimism than pessimism…have only seen it on my iPhone, can only imagine it on the big screen!

314. General Order 24 - November 17, 2008

Damn ship is being run by a boatload of childern.

315. star trackie - November 17, 2008

Another thing I’m liking…alot…is the camerawork here. TOS was well knows for lots of fuid cameraword on the bridge…lots of movement. And I’m seeing this is the footage for the trailer. Good job JJ, gald you rin the director’s chair!

316. Fred - November 17, 2008

Which ever timeline, and how it happens, Jim Kirk will rise to command the Enterprise. Neat idea.

317. Alex - November 17, 2008

The German Trailer, featuring an Introduction by JJ Abrams, is up on http://www.bild.de

318. Jay - November 17, 2008

251 – You beat me to it. I agree.

319. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

I love the new site. Reminds me of the Paramount Iron Man site last summer.

320. Jay - November 17, 2008

288…. simply put, you are wrong.

It has been common knowledge from the begining that this film deals with different timelines. That’s why Lenord Nimoy is in the film!! hello???

It is common knowledge that the Romulans travel back in time in this film and that changes things.

So, for you to say there is no evidence makes it obvious you haven’t been keeping up with what has been revealed about the plot of this film.

321. Remington Steele - November 17, 2008

Oh yeah, i see a lot of people are extremely annoyed by everything to do with this movie.

#12 caught my eye.

But in fairness, if thats their opinion then they should stop reading this site and leaving comments as of now.

Most people are excited by this.

of course its different but people surrounding themselves with bitterness and anger aboutt his movie should go off and be bitter alone.

Im excited by this and it saddens me to read peoples comments trying to drag people down with them.

Its disgusting to be honest.

322. Gorn Captain - November 17, 2008

Only thing I’m unsure of is how the Enterprise will be able to beat the 24th century Romulan timeship, since it should be so much more advanced.

But it all looks awesome!!!!!!

323. Jamie - November 17, 2008

Well I have watched them trailer a zillion times now and I think it looks fantastic!

I don’t understand why so many people have been saying that the Enterprise could not be built on a planet?

Why the hell not? CLEARLY the Enterprise is not damaged by the gravity of a planet. We’ve seen it flying over planets in almost every episode — sometimes even in the atmosphere. We have seen Enterprises flying near the sun! Surely I don’t have to tell you that the sun’s gravity is FAR greater than the earth’s?

And of course whenever we see an Enterprise in a space dock above earth, it’s still affected by gravity, just as it would be on the ground. Gravity doesn’t fade THAT quickly!

I just don’t understand why anyone would want to build a space ship that would fall apart if it got too close to a planet’s gravity. That would be the stupidest thing ever.

Building it on the ground, to me, makes perfect sense. It means you have all the resources there fore building it. It means you know for certain it is capable of landing and withstanding atmosphere, and everything checks out.

The only downside is that it’s harder to lift all the parts up to the ship if you build it on a planet — but then if you build it away from a planet, you have to transport the materials a WHOLE lot farther.

I am yet to read a rational, sensible reason why the Enterprise should be constructed in space, other than “canon”. I’d be interested to hear one.

324. Jasmin - November 17, 2008

From now on Im no longer going to be reading this forums, its gonna be fanboy nitpicking all the way from here till May and I have no interest in hearing people bitching if the red shirt is the right shade or not, or why was the corvette top up then down in 1 shot..if thats all you guys can get annoyed with then your really missing the point here..this film is going to be awesome whether or not its star trek, Im F***ing psyched.

bye

325. Alex Rosenzweig - November 17, 2008

#251 – “I have yet to see anything seemingly contradictory that suggests the absence of a canonical explanation.”

Well, sure, if you include as a valid canonical explanation, “It’s a different universe and thus anything previously established doesn’t matter.” ;)

By that logic, anyone could just change anything, whether it makes sense or not, and if questioned, the answer could be, “But it’s just another alternate universe, what are you worrying about?” The logical extrapolation of that approach is that something could be reduced to complete chaos, and the canonical explanation is that every episode, or every movie, or whatever, is a different universe.

The end result is the same, though: consistency and continuity are blown out the window. Now, if one doesn’t care about that, I guess it’s a non-issue. For those who do, though, the explanation is merely excuse-making. Doesn’t mean that the alternate view might not be fun on its own merits (I enjoyed the Myriad Universes anthologies just fine. :) ), but it contributes nothing to the ongoing mythos.

#271 – ““1) I don’t buy the idea that the future of ‘Trek’ is dependent on this movie.”

You would be wrong. If this movie flops, Paramount will not invest anymore $$$ into this franchise for some time, if ever.”

So? As we’ve already seen, the future of Star Trek is not only not dependent on one movie, it’s no longer really dependent on Paramount…if it ever was.

326. falcon - November 17, 2008

@252 – I would tend to agree with all of your assertions, and would add that perhaps it’s possible that Chekov was actually born earlier in the alternate timeline, making him older (although still an ensign, probably just a few years younger than Kirk).

Also, I would add to the argument that, in the scene where Kirk looks up at the Enterprise under construction, *that* is the moment that gets him into Star Fleet Academy. And since things like this take a loooooooong time to build (a typical fighter jet takes between 24 and 30 months, for example), it’s possible that Kirk could have joined SFA after he witnessed the Big E’s construction, and was brought aboard several years after it was completed (we have to assume he didn’t jump straight out of the academy to a captaincy – there had to have been several years of service before he was promoted).

Of course, I’m blowing smoke right now, not having seen the movie – but I’m interested in seeing Orci’s “canon explanation” for non-canon events, and frankly I’m pumped to see this thing. May 9 can’t come soon enough!

327. Luke - November 17, 2008

Hey I have found the Nero background on the website but it says i need a login to save it. Anyone know what it is? Cant wait to see this the trailer has blown me away.

328. Marvin the Martian - November 17, 2008

This is the most epic-looking Trek movie since The Motion Picture, and the best version of Trek I could have desired, ever since reading “Star Trek: The New Voyages” in the late 1970s.

BTW, if they ever do a Classic Trek TV series spinoff of this movie, they *must* adapt “Mind-Sifter” from that book. It is the best Trek short story I’ve ever read, and one of the best short stories in any genre I’ve ever read, period.

Star Trek was dying and *desperately* needed an infusion of new energy. I believe we’re witnessing it.

329. DennyC - November 17, 2008

#323

It is also easier for the crew building the ship to work.

For all of the canon junkies out there, it is established that it is still very difficult, even in the 24th century, to move around and work in a space suit in zero-g and no atmosphere. They sure weren’t moving around very well in First Contact. I don’t personally find “canon” as definitive as some (it’s already so riddled with inconsistencies that it’s impossible to stay true to all of it), but at least there is some basis that should satisfy people.

330. Bill T - November 17, 2008

[325] – So? As we’ve already seen, the future of Star Trek is not only not dependent on one movie, it’s no longer really dependent on Paramount…if it ever was.

What exactly do you mean by this? If is dependent on Paramount. It is their property. As far as film and TV futures. There is no Star Trek TV show on and no plans for any. If this movie flops there will not be any TV show or movie for at least five years.

331. Anthony Pascale - November 17, 2008

things have calmed down I have turned off the caching

332. Daniel - November 17, 2008

I SINCERLY HOPE the final movie will dispel my feeling, that I can’t just get rid of — that they took Star Trek and made another tough-guys-with-sexy-girls-save-the planet-from-bad-alien-vilain shit out of it………..

333. DavidAP - November 17, 2008

#297

Actually, it’s 2 solid stripes and one dotted stripe. In the original series, that was the rank insignia for a Captain, and since these uniforms are based on those, it’s definitely a Captain’s stripes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FlanstosCaptain.jpg

334. HT - November 17, 2008

If there is another trailer, which there certainly could be since the movie doesn’t premiere for another six months, I would hope that it includes classic TOS catchphrases like “Kirk to Enterprise,” Fascinating,” “Illogical”, “He’s dead, Jim,” and “I’m a doctor, not a …”

335. falcon - November 17, 2008

@297 – I’d surmise that the rank stripes on Kirk’s uniform are two broad and one thinner stripe – like in TOS, except the middle stripe was dashed. Note in the first production still of the Bridge with McCoy standing by the center seat – his stripes are one broad and one thin (in TOS, a Lt. Cmdr. had one solid stripe and one dashed). And Spock’s uni has two broad stripes. So I think the rank stripe system is pretty consistent with TOS.

Gawd, I sound like such a geek. :-)

336. voyager - November 17, 2008

Trailer…in…HD…oh…my…

337. Jack - November 17, 2008

Do you think things get this heated on the Knight Rider boards?

338. Kelvington - November 17, 2008

Seeing it at 1080 is pretty amazing. But I did notice a few things…

Does young Kirk die his hair? Cause his roots are showing. Plus if you fall that far off a cliff… um… you’re going over. Momentum and all.

At 1:17 to the right of the bridge door looks like a guy is just standing there taking a wiz. That’s an odd spot for a urinal.

Also at 1:17 in the center of the nav console between the two salad shooters, appears to be either a roll of duct tape or an small slide carousel from a 70’s slide projector.

At 1:19 Spock appears to be holding a communicator, or shaver.

At 1:26 Ironman appears… cool.

At 1:32 Why does Uhura wear a 20th Century bra, for 23rd Century breasts?

At 1:40 are we in the Mirror Mirror universe where the insignias are on the wrong side?

Just my thoughts…

339. Alex Rosenzweig - November 17, 2008

#297 – “The gold uniform he wears actually only has 3 stripes, so it means he’s a commander, not a captain at that point. Anyone in the command chain wears gold, regardless of rank.”

I think it depends on how closely they’re emulating the Original Series rank stripes. If they’re staying pretty close to it, the three stripes, especially if the middle one is thinner than the others, would be pretty much spot-on for a captain’s rank.

340. Jack - November 17, 2008

ps. 299, I love you.

341. Chris M - November 17, 2008

AWESOME!

342. konar - November 17, 2008

The ship needs to be built on the ground for the simple fact that the story requires it — it is the one sure way to “connect” the enterprise emotionally with the great ship building tradition. They said in the beginning that they were looking for ways to ground Star Trek firmly in OUR future, and not some generic future.

Seriously, how can we be prepared to accept that they’ve found a way to generate gravity on a ship (perpendicular to motion), but poo-poo the idea that they have ways of neutralizing gravity enough to built a huge ship on earth?

How can we see a great shot like the one we see in the trailer, and even CARE whether or not it makes sense when it has the emotional impact that it has!

Enjoy!!!!!

343. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - November 17, 2008

Believe it or not, this trailer has actually partially “converted” me to looking forward to this movie. The trailer actually looked pretty cool…maybe Star Trek will FINALLY go back to it’s roots of being considered “cool” and “acceptible” to REGULAR PEOPLE, just like TOS. Star Trek has been neutered over the years – it’s about time it grows a pair and becomes the action/adventure that it originally was!

I think they changed too much stuff, though – but that’s probably just part of the whole “alternate universe” thing they’ve got going on here.

I found both of the “easter eggs” (Nero wallpaper if you click on “Incoming Data” when it appears in the upper left-hand corner, and an Uhura wallpaper if you click on it in the lower right-hand corner), but for some reason they’re “Restricted Access.” How are we supposed to figure out the password?

344. classictrek - November 17, 2008

This blew my socks off!! an awesome trailer and im so excited. well done JJ. Its all looking like the epic classic trek adventure weve all been waiting for.

Greg
UK

345. Alex Rosenzweig - November 17, 2008

#330 – “[325] – So? As we’ve already seen, the future of Star Trek is not only not dependent on one movie, it’s no longer really dependent on Paramount…if it ever was.

What exactly do you mean by this? If is dependent on Paramount. It is their property. As far as film and TV futures. There is no Star Trek TV show on and no plans for any. If this movie flops there will not be any TV show or movie for at least five years.”

It’s really quite simple. Star Trek has done very well without a shred of studio support. It became a phenomenon long before the studio got back in gear. Even now, we haven’t gone more than a month at any given time without new, mass-produced Star Trek in well more than 20 years, and that includes the last 3. All one has to do is not think that Star Trek is limited to TV and movies, and it suddenly becomes a lot bigger and harder to kill. :)

346. Bob Tompkins - November 17, 2008

331- Boss, I would hope that the bandwidth issues we have been experiencing with just this single bit of news is resolvable before May, 2009.

PS, I showed my recalcitrant son the trailer. Both of my sons are now going with me to the midnight showing on May 9, wherever we can get the tickets.

Hope springs eternal for the success of this project!!

347. Atomic Glee - November 17, 2008

Just a note – as the Corvette crashes through the gates, you can just barely make out the sign to the right, which looks to read “DANGER,” followed by “OPEN QUARRY AHEAD.”

So it’s a quarry he dumps the ‘Vette into.

348. BaronByng - November 17, 2008

I’m loving it even more. Just sent the link to a dear friend of mine who loves geek culture(tm) and she said: “This looks….pretty badass, actually. It feels like we’re getting the first SERIOUS look at Trek, ever. Plus Kirk is hottt.”

I think this will easily clear $70m opening weekend.

TREK IS BACK, my friends.

349. The Bear - November 17, 2008

Eggs= Click the red dot (incoming) on “Home” and Nero wallpaper pops up. Click the red dot in “Video” and Uhura wallpaper pops up.

350. SpocksSpleen - November 17, 2008

Why do I get goosebumps/cold chills every time I watch this..
.OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

351. C.S. Lewis - November 17, 2008

Extreme HALO jumps.

Cool.

352. Amujan - November 17, 2008

#270 The sign at the closed road clearly states, that there’s a quarry ahead, so yes, the “canyon” is no caynon at all, but man made.

353. UK student - November 17, 2008

In the shot of Uhura getting changed, after gawping at her for a while i noticed her room has a modernised dividing screen through the middle just the like the old days.

354. Nik - November 17, 2008

Yes, one of easter eggs are Nero wallpepars when you click on Incomming Data. :)

355. cd - November 17, 2008

Still sounds like Siberius…

356. Keith H - November 17, 2008

296.

It was for sure the inspiration for the Voyager skydiving? Either way, I want to skydive sometime! I remember seeing that deleted scene from Generations… glad they deleted it.

357. Anthony Pascale - November 17, 2008

“Boss, I would hope that the bandwidth issues we have been experiencing with just this single bit of news is resolvable before May, 2009.”

Firstly, I’m not your boss. If I were I would tell you, get back to work and stop surfing a trek site during work hours! ;)

RE: bandwidth
Well technically bandwidth isnt the issue, it is just the sheer number of people hitting the server (and database) after 10AM today, so it is more to do with ‘load’ and CPU. Since launching in summer of 2006 this site has gone through around five server upgrades at three different hosts. There are plans for another before next May, although some software updates may also do the trick.

358. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

When Kirk is in his Corvette driving down the road, if you look to the left hand side of the screen, you can see the same large structure that is next to older Kirk when goes to look at the Enterprise.

359. harris250 - November 17, 2008

#269

Ya…the large formation on the right, looks like a building to me….I thought I was the only one that saw it

360. DarthLowBudget - November 17, 2008

Here’s my thoughts on the corvette:

We’ve heard that Kirk has an abusive (or at least not nice) uncle. I’m going to guess the car belongs to him, and the reason Kirk drives it over the cliff is because he is pissed at this uncle and wants to destroy something important to him.

361. John Sullivan - November 17, 2008

I’m just happy to see the Star Trek connection with Apple. This means that the new (old) Enterprise won’t be using Windows Vista. It may actually get out of the solar system if powered by Macs, instead of self-destructing as Sulu encounters multiple questions as to whether Administator Privledge should be granted to the helm and if he really wanted to push that button or if he was just reaching for Chekov’s leg.

362. voyager - November 17, 2008

but for some reason they’re “Restricted Access.” How are we supposed to figure out the password?

JJ did the same kinds of things with Cloverfield. You get creative.

For everyone who is getting all upset about the scene where Uhura is undressing…you’re automatically putting it out of context to what might be happening. Maybe it’s a scene where she’s just changing and then something happens in that scene, maybe it’s a character development moment or maybe one of the Klingons found their way into her room. You always have to consider how trailers make things look a certain way when they’re really not.

363. Bill T - November 17, 2008

[355] – Still sounds like Siberius…

I guarantee that if you go to the doctor they will be able to detect at least a 20% hearing loss. I can even hear the “t” sound.

364. NCC-73515 - November 17, 2008

So, did I win one of the prizes ’cause I found three hidden images? :p

365. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

I don’t know why the Enterprise would be built next to a quarry, but maybe Kirk visits San Fran at a young age. He spots the Enterprise in the distance being built, and heads towards it, but the cop spots him and Kirk detours and the car goes over the cliff?

366. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

Found a video of a recording session for the music track used in the trailer. It’s from Two Steps From Hell’s Facebook page. Here’s the link:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1029950224538

I love the trailer, and I think this new vision of Trek will be amazing!

367. Bild is Germans Star Trek antichrist - November 17, 2008

It ‘s a shame for each german that that the Bild Magazin has the first german trailer this newspaper is the worst grap in this country …

368. Corv - November 17, 2008

This is awesome. I don’t care what all the nay-sayers post here.. I LOVE it!!

369. Bob Tompkins - November 17, 2008

Oh my gosh, I recognize Nero’s accent/way of speaking. it sounds like the accent used by Tom Hardy in ST:Nemesis.

370. Nomad - November 17, 2008

Somebody at Apple needs a dressing down! The wrong HD trailer has been up there for hours now. It was ok to start with – I wish I hadn’t closed the window!

371. Jack - November 17, 2008

ps. my lame, completely unfounded guess re: uhura is that our boy Jimmy’s hiding under her bed after fooling around with her blonde Lab tech roommate, whose name rhymes with Daryl Snarkus.

372. harris250 - November 17, 2008

#297
Three stripes is Captain. Two solid lines with a broken line in the middle.
one stripe=lieutenant,
one plus broken line is Lt. commander,
two solid stripes commander..

Does knowing this stuff make me weird or something?

373. SciFiMetalGirl - November 17, 2008

“The wait is over…”

Well, I wish, but not quite… we still have about 6 months to go, darn it!!!

374. Spock's Toupee - November 17, 2008

Bet no one knew this!!

375. ObiWanCon - November 17, 2008

HELLO PLEASE DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEN THE TRAILER WILL BE SHOWN IN UK CINEMAS PLEASE HELP.

376. Andrew - November 17, 2008

kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/vlcsnap-00001_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png
kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/vlcsnap-00002_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png
kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/vlcsnap-00003_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png
kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/vlcsnap-00005_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png
kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/vlcsnap-00006_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png
kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/vlcsnap-00007_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png
kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/984956599vlcsnap-00001_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png

377. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

375.

WE HAD TO WAIT FOR BOND, SO YOU BRITS CAN WAIT FOR TRAILER! DEAL?

378. Scott Gammans - November 17, 2008

Awesome find, 366!

379. HerbieZ - November 17, 2008

377.

Yeah like we wait for every other movie….

380. John from Cincinnati - November 17, 2008

Anyone know what city is shown at :14?

381. Korot - November 17, 2008

Trailer HD with Subtitles in Spanish: (Spanish Version)

http://www.cardassiaprimera.com.ar

or in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic8Bw4RN_dc

382. thorsten - November 17, 2008

[362] The way I see it, voyager, Kirk is in bed with this girl, when her roommate Uhura comes from class. So Kirk hides under the bed, between all the shoes, and watches Uhura…

383. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

Too me, it looks like Qunto is the one hiding, not Kirk.

384. Green-Blooded-Bastard - November 17, 2008

First of all, the trailer looks F—ING SICK in HiDef, however fast it all goes by. Watch it a few times and you’ll get it all. It certainly is sweet.

A couple of things:

Nero fighting the guards now looks more like a couple of Klingons in head-gear designed to accept their skull’s shape. Their mouths and eyes are clearly visible behind them.

It’s my impression, due to Quinto being a bit on the thin side, that when we see Spock with his back turned before the council, it’s Nimoy due to his posture and…width? He’s not fat, just a bit wider. Perhaps he’s asking permission to take a time-trip?

The Enterprise going into warp is REALLY nice!

I still don’t particularly like the E.

I’m having a hard time accepting, as much as I like it, that in hundreds of years of military evolution, the standard military uniform for a woman is the miniskirt (is Starfleet considered military?).

It can’t be a robot cop. Not with that swagger. Gotta be a person with a mask on that disguises the voice a-la Darth Vader.

The young Kirk’s dyed hair looks ridiculous (yeah, I know it’s a cheap shot, but it bugged me. It looks too fake).

I’ll come back if I think of more.

385. Pat - November 17, 2008

#28
I reckon you’re right about the Klingons and their masks…..couldn’t agree more
Nice find

386. Kevan - November 17, 2008

Wow, I kept the faith that the new team would give a good ST movie, and from the trailer and web site, they have done awesome. Did anybody else notice that sounds on the website sound familiar to STIV? As well the sounds from the trailer as well.

Thanks to the new team, can not wait for the movie. I have been a fan for 25 and from the looks of it longer now.

387. Stop b*tching - November 17, 2008

Most excellent.

388. TK - November 17, 2008

#377 No deal…. :( I want to see this on the big screen!!!

389. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

WHAT MAKES JJ THINK THAT PEOPLE OF THE 23RD CENTURY WILL WEAR DENIM AND LEATHER? WHAT PRIMATIVE CHOICES FOR CLOTHING! HOW DARE HE!!!!!!!!! AND AUTOMOBILES? DIRT ROADS? POLICE OFFICERS? GIVE ME A BREAK!

390. Rainbucket - November 17, 2008

There may actually be a glimpse of older Spock in the trailer.

Go to 1:43 when the suspected time ship is speeding toward the camera. The center light looks like a front viewport with an upright figure. Yeah, it’s a dark smudge, but it’s a Spock-in-a-robe shaped dark smudge.

391. harris250 - November 17, 2008

Kirk get beat up in a bar by Sulu and some of the boys. Pike sz to him essentially grow up and join Star Fleet.

It would appear for sake of the movie (not cannon)that Sulu, Pike and Uhura are working on the almost completed E.

Kirk on bike looking anew at the E under construction with the scars from the fight decides to enlist.

If this is the moment he decides to go to the academy and it took him four years to graduate, that would mean that the new E with its new crew would (I’m including Spok in that crew) would have been out doing stuff (new worlds, new civilizations) for at least 3 or four years before Kirk was brought onboard.

Just some random thoughts…trying to tie some of this together.

392. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

379, 388:

No deal, huh? I formally declare war against the Brits!

:)

393. Ryan Spooner - November 17, 2008

I’ve got nothing against Germany at all, but an Amercan film with American (and other nationality) actors just sounds really weird dubbed into German.

For instance, if you dub a scottish person to German, they cease to be scottish. It’s bizzare.

394. Son of Surak - November 17, 2008

Big problem: a lot of the production values here seem absurdly dated. Too much of it screams c. 2008. The battle scenes look like something out of Transformers. The bridge looks like the Apple Store. You can find something close to Kirk’s riding jacket and tee off the rack at Abercrombie. And even the tattoos on Nero — don’t tell me: inspired by the Crips or the Bloods?

Is all this adequate for a summer blockbuster? Maybe. But it’s not revolutionary enough, and certainly not ingenious enough, for the ultimate Trek.

Even bigger problem: young Kirk. The character in Star Trek is James T. Kirk. NOT James Dean. Absolutely nothing about the Kirk character suggests he was ever a lost, trying-to-find-himself, rebel misfit. Leadership research and history both show that a future captain/admiral of Kirk’s caliber and temperament would have been a Boy’s State, Eagle Scout, National Merit Scholar-type leader-in-training by the time he was ready for college. Perhaps the corporate suits at Paramount think a believable character background like that would just be too bruising to the starting-to-shave crowd’s shaky self-esteem. Okay, fair enough, but the James Dean/Top Gun nonsense is a tired cliché. It looks like Abrams and company apparently don’t get Kirk; neither probably does the pretty boy Abrams picked to play him.

Verdict: Based on what we see here, Star Trek will be another big, dumb, summer action sci-fi movie, a la Spiderman or Transformers. Fun and forgettable. Chances of it becoming a classic like Star Wars or Blade Runner are next to nil. But hey, if it makes $250 million, everybody’s happy, except a few purists who had hoped for more.

On the positive side, I think Karl Urban might have McCoy nailed.

395. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

HOW D YOU SAY ‘CONSTIPATED IN GERMAN’?

POOPENFARTEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

396. Rastaman - November 17, 2008

WOW, they’re showing a TV spot more than 2 days before the films release? Paramount really is treating this Star Trek film differently!!!

397. JWM - November 17, 2008

Thought here: is it possible that Kirk is going to hijack the Enterprise before the interior is completed, which is why the bridge looks the way it does, i.e., super-bright? The casings aren’t on yet?

Don’t care either way, but it’s a thought I had.

398. samrock83 - November 17, 2008

Man, I love being a Trek fan. But why do so many Trek fans have to whine constantly?

If you don’t like the new Trek, go make you’re own like James Cawley. Or be content with your dvds.

I’m, for one, very excited about the new film. It can’t come soon enough.

399. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

JWM.

Give it up. Thats how the bridge looks, so deal with it.

400. Jordan - November 17, 2008

Poor Kelvin…

401. Ran - November 17, 2008

A reminder that the HD trailers are available to download here:

http://apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h480p.mov

http://apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h720p.mov

http://apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h1080p.mov

Forget Apple and their crappy site.

402. Jerry - November 17, 2008

Those of you who are complaining, are you the people I always have to stand next to in line? If you don’t like it, don’t see it, it will make it more fun for the rest of us.

403. Darnell's Woman - November 17, 2008

OK I’m not a major trek chick but I’m intrigued by the old shows and movies. One question I’m not seeing addressed here is why this new kid playing Kirk has blue eyes. One thing I always notice is the eyes and Shatner has beautiful brownies. This new kid has eyes like he’s from Arrakis. Science fiction is all about “suspension of disbelief.” I guess Kirk gets an eyeball transplant somewhere along the way? Yeah I realize the new actors aren’t expected to look the same but how am I as a new fan expected to reconcile such an obvious difference when I see this new flick, compared to all the other ones with Shatner? The big question is, when I watch the older shows and movies am I supposed to imagine blue eyes from now on? This new kid is a cutie but not the kind of boy I’d imagine growing up to be Captain Kirk. And it’s not just eye color. Sorry.

404. Anthony Pascale - November 17, 2008

please stop with ALL caps. What you have to say is no more important than anyone else.

Thank you,
– The Management

405. Ensign Ruiter - November 17, 2008

I opposed the ship redesign, and I even spend an hour on photoshop “fixing” it.

I’ve watched the trailer many times.

I watched the trailer on HD today and I have to be honest it looks like it will be the bset Star Trek movie ever!!! And if you see the way the big E moves on screen, and if you pause the views of the bridge, you can see the attention to 60’s styling that is still there. I am being sold on this redesign and my heart is pumpin’!

If anyone on the production team is reading this, you have turned one skeptic around completely and, in true Star Trek fashion, have caused me to boldly go to a new horizon. Sometimes it just takes time to adjust. Thanks and Godspeed!

406. Luke - November 17, 2008

I think that the klingons are definitely wearing masks to cover the no forehead ridges problem. Even the masks have ridges on them. And i love kirk getting it on with an orion slave girl. BRILLIANT

407. John Sullivan - November 17, 2008

I thought Uhura’s boobs were bigger than that. Wow, these guys really are rewriting canon!

In all seriousness, I like what I see. I look forward to the movie, and hope the francise gets its long-deserved second wind. With or without Shatner, who by the way is currently in my humble opinion doing quite well in a role much better than the one he had in Twilight Zone, Barbary Coast, Ben Casey P.A. and tons of other roles including Star Trek. I love Boston Legal which would never survive without Shatner, and sad to say, it appears Star Trek has since the 1980’s been able to survive quite well without Shatner. I am sold. Send me a ticket to the Premiere.

408. Mike - November 17, 2008

WOW!

I can’t even begin to describe how excited I am for this film after watching the trailer, such a breath of fresh air for Trek. The only thing I have been skeptical about all along is whether or not I could accept Pine as Kirk and judging from this trailer I think we are in store for something special.

Much thanks to JJ and his team for all the hard work they put into making this film a reality!

Why can’t May come sooner!?

409. Commodore Lurker - November 17, 2008

I watched the trailer about 20 times and frame by frame.
It’s big, bold, and beautiful.
But, I dont feel like I’m watching Star Trek!
I think the wait has made me lose interest.
I just not feeling it at all.
I’m more interested in the conclusion of Battlestar Galatica.
Wake me up in May.

410. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

HAHAHAHAHA! It’s time to pass on the torch to a new generation, Boomers! Its over for all of you. Sorry, but the 60’s are over.

411. HerbieZ - November 17, 2008

I’m even gonna pay for my cat to see this.

412. mabean100 - November 17, 2008

Is it my imagination or has there been no negatives about Karl Urban? When I originally heard that he was cast as Bones I was absolutely horrified, but as a a few others have said – I believe that even from just a few seconds of screen time that he truly has “nailed” it!

413. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

But Pike was on the Enterprise long before Kirk, so how could Kirk be looking at it being built?

414. james - November 17, 2008

I think those are romulans, remember they are the ones with the helmets

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/b/ba/Romulan_helmet.jpg/400px-Romulan_helmet.jpg

415. Chris Pike - November 17, 2008

409 I had a similar reaction too, relieved I’m not the only one. I’ve done the same thing, gone over it frame by frame and certainly impressed by visual impact. But there is that kind of emptiness, I want to be more interested and as above there’s a bit of a feeling I’m not watching Trek. Hope I do wake up in May!

416. Commodore Lurker - November 17, 2008

And where the frakk is Nimoy???????????????

417. Jordan - November 17, 2008

Are we sure those are Klingons? Are there Klingons in the movie? Why would they have Nero?

418. Darkowski - November 17, 2008

How the hell do I watch the trailer?
Do you have to download and install all the addon junks from apple?

I installed the version 7.5.5 without itunes and when I try to watch the large trailer (NO itunes nor iphone) it keeps on saying to ‘get the latest quicktime’.

419. Bridge... - November 17, 2008

If anyone works in retail if you look at the bridge shot they are using, register scanners for props on the consoles… I use the same one at my job. Funny.

Anyhoo looks interesting to say the least. Well Gonna see it.

420. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

418.

Only true Trekkers can see the trailer. Its like magic.

421. Darkowski - November 17, 2008

oh surprise surprise.
suddenly it started working from another link I found :-)

422. Drij - November 17, 2008

I put it on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3HYhvriZeU

423. DATA KILLED SPOT - November 17, 2008

421.

Using dark magic, I see?

424. TK - November 17, 2008

#390 I totally agree, there’s someone in the middle viewport of that ship!!

425. Cousin Itt - November 17, 2008

#300 – Lord Garth, I like your theory. How they will get a general audience to understand all of this is the problem. Clearly, this trailer is aimed at an audience that doesn’t know much about Star Trek – and JJ has been saying for years now that thats the audience he’s making the movie for. If they can pull this all off canonically and still make it accessible (and successful) then they are truly pulling off the impossible.

Oh, and I’d put money on that TV spot running in the 2 Hr. “24” movie Sunday night…

426. Adam Cohen - November 17, 2008

PROS: Production values, epic scope (immersive almost), Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, the intoxicating Zoe Saldana, the “zaniness” of space adventure.

CONS: This does not feel like Star Trek. This feels more like Starship Troopers. Take the Starfleet uniforms and starships out of the mix, and it pretty much looks like a big summer actioner. Now, I’m sure the other 119 minutes add up to something more substantial. But marketing-wise, it doesn’t speak to me as being Star Trek.

And Pine makes for a very young-looking guy. When he says “Buckle up!” it feels like a kid cracking a joke. Now, I get the whole “well he *is* a kid, that’s the story” notion, but if this guy is going to take center seat at some point, he’s going to have to ahve the gravitas that you catch from Greenwood (who can be added to that list of PROS above!).

Oh and Quinto… could be great, but its so weird seeing these handsome youngsters portraying my childhood heroes. This whole show feels like a mind-screw.

427. boomer13 - November 17, 2008

what is with all the groans! It looks smashing! I am looking forward to a new interpretation of Trek. Lord, knows it needs it!

428. Weyoun Gretzky - November 17, 2008

#414 —

Definitely Klingons. IMDB list Klingon Prison Guards in the cast list.

429. cellojammer - November 17, 2008

Now THAT was sweet! Gotta see it on the silver screen now.

430. Bilbo - November 17, 2008

410: “HAHAHAHAHA! It’s time to pass on the torch to a new generation, Boomers! Its over for all of you. Sorry, but the 60’s are over.”

You’re right, Data Killed Spot. It looks like this Trek might be mainly for kids. It’ll be fun! But when you grow up, you’ll want more.

431. Quarksbartender - November 17, 2008

Kirk was the youngest captain in Starfleet I believe at 31 Chris Pine is older than that.

432. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 17, 2008

Thanks Cousin Itt

You all know I’m right????

Check out my brilliant theory in #300 and discuss. Seriously I think I nailed what we can expect to see come may

433. S. John Ross - November 17, 2008

To no one in particular (to several of you, though): The opposite of a bleat is not a whine.

434. MH - November 17, 2008

First of all, the people who are criticizing this trailer are the same ones who have been criticizing this project since day one! Therefore, why should the rest of us care what they’ve to say on the matter one way or the other.

Second, this is definitely NOT the 1960s Star Trek. If you want that version, stay at home and watch it on television. Meanwhile let the rest of us be grateful that this movie was even made.

435. Pat Payne - November 17, 2008

# 308:

“Leadership research and history both show that a future captain/admiral of Kirk’s caliber and temperament would have been a Boy’s State, Eagle Scout…”

“Jim Kirk was many things, but he was NEVER a Boy Scout…”
–Carol Marcus, TWOK ;)

436. Paul - November 17, 2008

#418 – download it from a linky here:

http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h1080p.mov

or

http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h640w.mov

and get some decent player like VLC or SMPlayer, that should be able to play them (mine have no problems playing it). Avoid the Apple junkware like plague.

I really don’t know what was Paramount thinking… first trailer works in flash, so why should second player not work in flash as well? “Get the lastest Quicktime” my ass. That thing won’t darken my firewall as long as I live. I’d rather kiss a syphiliac than install Quicktime.

437. Son of Surak - November 17, 2008

Adam (#426) said: “This does not feel like Star Trek. This feels more like Starship Troopers.”

Bingo!

438. Mike - November 17, 2008

True, 434, I was at a point where I thought we’d never see Trek on the silver screen again. Thankfully, we have a committed team behind this movie that understood the need to keep Trek alive.

439. Pat Payne - November 17, 2008

I’m sorry, that should be #394 — how I read “308” into that is beyond me…

440. spiked canon - November 17, 2008

the girl in bed is green

441. DGill - November 17, 2008

I noticed something really interesting during the trailer. There’s a small scene where Nero is fighting off two steel-masked guards in a doorway, and for some reason the masks have ridges on them.

What I can predict at this point is that Nero and company will probably be seen escaping imprisonment at some point, because at the end of the trailer, Nero is quite unshaven (“The wait is over”), whereas he’s clean cut in several of the pre-release pics. At this point, I can see why Nero would be compared to Khan, even moreso than Shinzon.

442. Adam Cohen - November 17, 2008

Please note that my following comment does not mean I think the movie is going to stink:

I think the trailer is a mess– it’s scattered, noisy and fairly insubstantial. It’s a FX reel, cut at a speed which requires you to do the freeze-frame analysis online. Thanks for the car commercial, guys. I guess I’ll have to wait for the movie to come out to see what its got. I just find this flaccid marketing move really annoying.

443. Joe - November 17, 2008

#51

“Plus why does the new enterprise look like something from the 25th century??”

What is something from the 23rd or 25th century supposed to look like anyways? Give these guys their artistic license.

444. sean - November 17, 2008

#442

Have you ever seen a film trailer?

445. tony pieta - November 17, 2008

#51

“Plus why does the new enterprise look like something from the 25th century??”

I’ve seen Antiques Roadshow and that looks nothing like any 25th century piece I’ve ever seen anyone bring on. :p

446. Pat Payne - November 17, 2008

444: He does have a point — this was too much MTV-style in its delivery for a Trek film. Look at the retrospectives Anthony did over the past week, with TMP, TWOK, TSFS and TVH — they didn’t rely on the break-neck pacing of this trailer. They sold the story, not the hottest visuals. I have high hopes for the movie, and the trailer wasn’t bad, but they could have done better to have made it a little less hyperactive.

447. Third Remata'Klan - November 17, 2008

#444

Touche. And right on.

448. paul briseno - November 17, 2008

HEY GUYS I THINK OLD SPOCK MIGHT BE IN THE TRAILER

check out the background at the 1:20 mark looks like him alright

449. Third Remata'Klan - November 17, 2008

#446

Maybe. But it’s a trailer that’s going to grab the attention of today’s audience, who are used to trailers like this.

Perhaps the third trailer, in a few months time, will be more to taste.

450. RuFFeD_UP - November 17, 2008

I’m extremely disappointed by the trailer looks like it’s just trying to be like the rest of the Sci-Fi/Action rubbish out there.

And it looks nothing like Star Trek whoever came up with the term iBridge or iShip was right on.

Ah well at least I’ve still got my TNG n DS9 n Enterprise DVD’s hell I’ve got Voyager as well even though I always bash it.

451. Jon - November 17, 2008

Trailers have evolved since those films, 446. This is a trailer from 2008. This is what people expect from trailers now.

452. RuFFeD_UP - November 17, 2008

I’m extremely disappointed by the trailer looks like it’s just trying to be like the rest of the Sci-Fi/Action rubbish out there.

And it looks nothing like Star Trek whoever came up with the term iBridge or iShip was right on.

Ah well at least I’ve still got my TNG n DS9 n Enterprise DVD’s hell I’ve got Voyager as well even though I always bash it.

This film seems like the OC in space or USS Enterprise 90210.

453. Adam Cohen - November 17, 2008

#444

If that means that all film trailers are bombastic messes, then I would disagree with that inference.

The material in the trailer is barely comprehensible. Kirk is wayward, Spock is searching for his own identity. Okay, that’s good stuff. And then BAM! ‘Splosions for the next minute. Hey, I work in marketing, i get the whole “manipulating your audience” technique. But I think there was an opportunity here to give us something a little more sane.

That being said, I predict the next trailer will deliver that substance. This one, however, missed the mark.

454. Jon - November 17, 2008

448, that’s Sarek.

455. MH - November 17, 2008

#445- LOL!

I’m glad to see that there are people here who can take the knitpicking with a grain of salt. Again I reiterate, these naysayers will never be satisfied. If the trailer had Shatner himself in it, they’d still find some reason to complain!

456. Chris M - November 17, 2008

The Trailer looks even cooler than it did before. I just hope that they show it when I go to see Quantum Of Solace on the weekend so I can see it the way it was intended!

457. ster julie - November 17, 2008

Does anyone know what that silver knobby thingy hiding under the bed with Kirk might be?

And regarding Uhura–glad to see that Maidenform/Playtex/Victoria’s Secret survives to the 23rd century! (=^D

458. Bill T - November 17, 2008

448. paul briseno – HEY GUYS I THINK OLD SPOCK MIGHT BE IN THE TRAILER check out the background at the 1:20 mark looks like him alright.

I looked thinking it was the picture of Sarek but you may be right. In the scene where Spock is leading his mother, Sarek and some others, it could be him to the back left just behind Sarek. There is one freeze frame you can hit where it looks exactly like him from the side.

459. New Horizon - November 17, 2008

363. Bill T – November 17, 2008
[355] – Still sounds like Siberius…
I guarantee that if you go to the doctor they will be able to detect at least a 20% hearing loss. I can even hear the “t” sound.

Yeah, seriously. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were more than 20%. I’m in a hard rock band and I hear the ‘t’ just fine…then again, I look after my hearing with proper volume levels and ear plugs.

460. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

You can see Spock’s timeship in quick bits in the trailer at the end.

461. Jay - November 17, 2008

394 After careful thought, i’ve come to the conclusion that your description of this trailer, and your opinion of what constitutes Star Trek is completely wrong.

Verdict: This will revive Star Trek and be a huge success.

This is the most real and the most “Star Trek” Star Trek movie I’ve ever seen (trailer at least is).

This is what I’ve been wishing they would do with Star Trek for about 15 years. The last 5 or 6 films have been horrible, especially compared to any of the other big sci-fi/action movies that have come out during that time (Matrix trilogy, Star Wars prequals, etc.). By comparison, Star Trek movies have been boring, B-rate, low-budget films. Little more than extended TV epsiodes shown in movie theaters.

I’m so tired of the vocal tiny minority complaining that this “isn’t Star Trek”. I’m sorry, but you don’t own Star Trek. Paramount does. They say this IS Star Trek.

Star Trek is ADVENTURE. Yes it’s about humans and the future human race and how they deal with the things they find. But, at it’s core it’s always been about adventure. It’s that lack of believeable adventure that has kept Star Trek in the “cult film” category, instead of mainstream blockbuster.

I’m so happy someone finally had the guts to update this tired and nearly dead franchise and make it relevant again.

It’s become clear to me that those that constantly complain about rediculous details before even seeing how the story deals with them, take themselves way too seriously and actually believe that they somehow own Star Trek and know what’s best for it.

462. hitch1969©, re-branded. - November 17, 2008

the more i watch this, in hi def especially… the more this feels like Star Trek to me. As in, I think they got it RIGHT alot more than they are being given credit for.

My prediction is that the movie will show us that.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

463. Caveman - November 17, 2008

STILL LOOKS A PILE “O” CRAP TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

464. Rod Of Rassilon - November 17, 2008

Don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but the front number plate has IOWA on it :)

MANY MANY thanks for that ACTUAL link to the ACTUAL file, because the trailer on the Apple site is WAAAY too small.

465. Jon - November 17, 2008

Yet you still want to hang around and troll, 463.

466. LostonNCC1701 - November 17, 2008

I think I may have figured out what that “Spinny Spaceship Thingy” is, the one I say looks somewhat like the Slave One. It’s probably Spock’s Timeship! And it looks like it has some weaponry. So imagine this: Spock, since he can’t show his face to his younger self (It’s not like that TAS episode, where since Spock was a kid there would ahve been plausible deniability), when he isn’t giving sage advice to Kirk/Scotty/Whoever he’ll use his super awesome Timeship to fight alongside the Enterprise. It would also help even the playing field between the Romulans and the Enterprise.

And I disagree that if this film fails it’ll be the end of Star Trek. I think, like all media properties, it would be back again. No media property is ever dead. Just ask Rocky.

467. Paulaner - November 17, 2008

#393 “For instance, if you dub a scottish person to German, they cease to be scottish. It’s bizzare.”

We italians are accustomed to that, it’s not bizarre at all. Accents and dialects are totally lost in translation/dubbing. But Italy has some of the best dubbers around, so the trade-off is acceptable. By the way, I love watching undubbed movies.

468. spiked canon - November 17, 2008

Closettrekker your comments were spot on……..once again. Consider the scenario nailed

469. Imrahil - November 17, 2008

Not gonna put quicktime on my system, as it’s impossible to get rid of.

470. Junior Officer - November 17, 2008

Does anyone know when the SD versions in the webmaster program will be released??? They were supposed to be today.

WTH???

Whassup Webmaster Program?

471. Aaron R. - November 17, 2008

The Women!!! Hitch… The women!!!

I agree.

472. Bob Tompkins - November 17, 2008

I have am posting vidcaps of the trailer at this very moment on my webspace.

I hope Paramount doesn’t ask me to take them down for a little while.

http://www.fauxnoise.net

473. Son of Surak - November 17, 2008

Jay (#461): I’m so tired of the vocal tiny minority complaining that this “isn’t Star Trek”. I’m sorry, but you don’t own Star Trek. Paramount does. They say this IS Star Trek. ”

They said Nemesis was Star Trek, too. Great job, huh?

474. ProfT - November 17, 2008

The greatest thing about the trailer is that it finally answers the question of just where they keep the bathroom on the Enterprise!

http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stbridgeurinalaj8.jpg

475. David (Flaming Wings Forever) - November 17, 2008

Yes #28, those were klingons under those masks.

I have to admit, I only caught 50% of what was in the trailer in the first viewing.

Now, having spent the morning going frame by frame through it – HOLEY CRAP! I may have just lost my job wasting time today, but it was worth it!

476. Anthony Thompson - November 17, 2008

Glad that Rotten Tomatos has most of the HD footage now so we don’t have to rely on the buggy Apple site. It looks just fantastic (I can see the HD Corvette later)! : )

477. sean - November 17, 2008

#333, 335, 339, 372

Of course, you guys are completely right. I screwed that one up. I must have been thinking in TNG ranks (3 pips vs 4 pips).

#356

Since Generations came 4 years before the Voyager episode and they reuse Kirk’s suit from Generations, in addition to having been written by the same group of writers – yes, I’d say it is a safe bet that’s where it came from ;)

478. voyager - November 17, 2008

Your caps are pretty pixelated, I think you’ve enlarged them or something.

479. sean - November 17, 2008

#394

Apparently you missed all those references to Kirk cheating on the Kobyashi Maru and being many things, but ‘never a boy scout’.

480. Kirk's Girdle - November 17, 2008

It does look like Slave 1 and I think that is Spock in the window.

481. Captain Slow - November 17, 2008

Ok my thoughts……

Its a kind of mix of emotions……

I’m not making stupid comments about a missing nacelle here or a incorrect eyebrow there etc, just about what this film may mean for Star Trek/

Sure the trailer looks good…very exciting; it’s a question in my mind of where the heart of star trek is with this film. We won’t find that out till we see it and I am not going to give my opinion of how good or bad the film may be, just what it may mean for the franchise….

If this film is Star Trek for the Star Wars generation then that it’s a shame…if it has sold its self out in the name of fast action and graphics and keeping a young generation “hooked” with your standard template for a summer blockbuster, then that is a also shame.

Yet at the same time – before this film star trek was dead – it was cerebral, stale and old, it needed a kick up the ass – it had begun to lose its heart.
So this film has saved star trek but in what direction will it take it.

Star Trek has always been hammy, cliché, over the top, the films have never been amazing – even TWOK just makes it as pretty good (in terms of films as a whole), no matter what anybody says. Action, however was never the main focus of any of the films (in your blockbuster type way) they were made for a specific audience and always had the heart of star trek in them, no matter how hammy some of the line were.

What I hope this film brings is that heart. I really hope the film has not sold out its heart because its easier to sell a film with hyper pace and action, and graphics to rival star wars. If this film has that core content of star trek, and that is more apparent and important than the graphics, then star trek may go on for many more years.

Basically ….in one sentence, I hope this will not be Star Treks Episode 1 – I think that’s the best way to sum it up….

It’s a difficult balancing act, and I hope it works, I truly do.

482. Robofuzz - November 17, 2008

The wait is NOT over, Nero!! It just got even longer!!!!!!

483. Jake - November 17, 2008

What is considered Trek anyway? I would almost consider the Horatio Hornblower pinings of the movies a bigger departure than this is (at least in terms of tone). Star Trek is not Blade Runner. It has never really been sophisticated film making, and it has always had some element of hokiness to it. To me this looks like TOS in the 21st century with a slightly new twist to the style via Abrams and the characters via the actors. Things also have to be changed because structurally a movie is not the same thing as a TV show. There is more action, but I think that it works because it reflects the raw abrasiveness of Kirk and company conquering the implacable unknown of space. It should feel like a ride. This is to be contrasted with the more placated tone of the movies as Kirk tries to find his place beyond captaincy. Besides that the important thing involves the characters, and that’s exactly what Abrams has been trying to get at. If he captures the characters, then he largely captures Trek.

484. Bob Tompkins - November 17, 2008

The site is UP. Enjoy.

485. sean - November 17, 2008

PS – Having slowed the trailer down to frame-by-frame (as I’m sure a lot of us are doing) the guy Sulu is fighting has pointed ears. Not a Klingon.

486. Pinky - November 17, 2008

It may be a useful technique to keep the imagery obfuscated, but the complete overuse of camera flares in this trailer is an interesting design choice for sure…..

487. Bob Tompkins - November 17, 2008

478; Sorry, it was the best I could do so quickly.

488. Saavik001 - November 17, 2008

NERDGASM!!! Love this friggin trailer. The music is cool too. too bad it isn’t in the film. Hope the score is equally powerful and relentless like James Horner did for TWOK :)

May 09′ can’t come soon enough!!!

489. Rhett Coates - November 17, 2008

#270, #347, #352, #358 (close): I am wondering if the “canyon” – which is now being identified as a quarry, is an old, nearby DILITHIUM MINE (or a standard “lithium” mine), close to the shipyards? Or what Earthlings are mining that can be converted/adapted for use as dilithium crystals…..? (That is, if “lithium” is converted, by whatever means used in the 23rd century, into power-crystals for matter/antimatter generation known as DI-lithium?)

Perhaps that’s why, as noted in #358’s post, the rift is so close to the massive structures as seen in the background where, apparently, starships are under construction? Just wondering….

490. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 17, 2008

Now that I’ve gotten a better look, I can definitely see Kirk & Uhura are not going at it. Also, the Kirk-under-the-bed shot & Uhura-taking-her-top-off shot are almost certainly different scenes entirely.

491. Jordan - November 17, 2008

The site is slow. must be getting hit hard.

492. Xplodin' Nacelle - November 17, 2008

I found the Uhura egg!

493. CC - November 17, 2008

Easter Eggs:

When waiting for areas to load, you’re looking for red icon that flashes “Incoming Data”. There are one of two secret wallpapers, one of Nero, the other is Uhura.

494. RomainR. - November 17, 2008

Trailer in french :)

http://www.allocine.fr/video/player_gen_cmedia=18847026&cfilm=114887&hd=1.html

495. Bob Tompkins - November 17, 2008

Start Trek- even I can’t believe I did that….

496. Al - November 17, 2008

Kirk is cross eyed. Ruined the whole movie

497. ShawnP - November 17, 2008

492. Xplodin’ Nacelle – November 17, 2008

I found the Uhura egg!

LOL…

498. Justin Toney - November 17, 2008

Yay trailer aired on FOX in Sarah Conner!!!!

499. Spock's Brain - November 17, 2008

Just saw the TV spot during Terminator- Sarah C. on Fox!

500. Son of Surak - November 17, 2008

Me (#394) “Leadership research and history both show that a future captain/admiral of Kirk’s caliber and temperament would have been a Boy’s State, Eagle Scout, National Merit Scholar-type leader-in-training by the time he was ready for college.”

Pat (#435) “Jim Kirk was many things, but he was NEVER a Boy Scout…”
–Carol Marcus, TWOK ;)

Good job, Pat. But remember the line in TWOK preceding the one above, with the young David Marcus describing Kirk as “that overgrown Boy Scout you used to hang around with…” Marcus knew Kirk by reputation, and that reputation was consistent with (you see it through the entire TOS) the independence, leadership, discipline, and problem-solving you find among Eagle Scouts. He’s the type.

Sean (#474) #394: “Apparently you missed all those references to Kirk cheating on the Kobyashi Maru and being many things, but ‘never a ‘boy scout.'”

The Kobyashi Maru solution of Kirk’s was no prank pulled by an undisciplined troublemaker. It was a stroke of tactical genius executed by “a stack of books with legs” (Kirk’s self-description in TOS: “Shore Leave”). Hence, the commendation rather than an expulsion.

And, hence, again, my original point: it’s James Kirk, not James Dean. If this movie portrays Kirk as a juvenile delinquent without a clue who somehow gets a break and turns his life around, then it’s a sell-out to the lowest common ticket-buying denominator. But, we’ll see. The film might show us something else.

501. Norm - November 17, 2008

Has anyone else noticed that the top for the corvette is up the very first time you see it and is down every other? Kirk really knows how to work an ancient car to be evading police, driving a stick, and put the top down…jk. I seriously love the trailer, and can’t wait for the movie. I saw it on the big screen, and told my friends, “This is it!!!” They looked at me like, “No way, this is too cool to be Trek.” Afterwards, they said, I am not a trekker by any stretch of the imagination, and I actually try to avoid the franchise all together, but that movie looks sweet.” Way to go JJ!!!

Another thing:
Stop belly aching about canon and what not. I love Star Trek and everything it stands for. But if the franchise wants to stay alive, and keep sending out a positive message, certain things have to change. This isn’t the 1960s anymore…

502. Devon - November 17, 2008

All Hail J.J.!

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/WickedYoungMan/abrams09.jpg

503. Will Doe - November 17, 2008

Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar,
Your explanation of the events in the trailer do a wonderful job of explaining what might actually be happening here.
If so all the naysayers will be red with embarrassment.
This definitely falls in with Abrams ideas of mystery and magic.
You don’t see whats really going on till after all said and done.
Thank You

504. KMKProd - November 17, 2008

If you look under Kirk’s arm when he is on his bike at :58 seconds, you see what looks like a round object on the building, if you look closely, it looks remarkably close to the Starfleet Command logo that has the TOS Movie era Starfleet badge inside it. You know, the delta with the circle behind it.

505. Al - November 17, 2008

http://www.fauxnoise.net/28%20Dynamic%20Duo%202.JPG

Cross eyed

506. ChucksterNCC-1701 - November 17, 2008

I was just watching Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles on Fox, and during the 7:30 PM (Central time) commercial break they showed a shortened version of the new Trek trailer…totally unexpected!!!

507. Kregano - November 17, 2008

I just saw the TV spot and it looks good. I kinda wish that it had been the trailer so the cheesy “I am James Tiberius Kirk” line wouldn’t have gotten noticed by everyone.

508. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 17, 2008

I am a Beloved figure and my keen insight usually merits out to be correct. That is why we shall conquer the cosmos together young Will

509. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 17, 2008

And once again my keen insights as to the actual plot of the movie will be can be found in post 300

Discuss

510. FlipperChaz - November 17, 2008

Easter Egg – if you click on the “Incoming Data” when it’s transitioning, a popup appears with a “Restricted Access” image of Uhura.

511. Everyday_Ponn_Far - November 17, 2008

Just a fact, Eric Bana starred in Romulus, My Father.
Now he’s a Romulan, obviously from Roumulus.

512. Jon - November 17, 2008

what’s tactical about cheating and changing the rules? It’s not like he can reprogramme the situation out on the field.

513. The Angry Klingon - November 17, 2008

WTF…Klingons in Gestapo trenchcoats with leather masks and batons. I just threw up in my mouth.

514. FlipperChaz - November 17, 2008

Clarification… when the “Incoming Data” is to the lower right, the image is of Uhura. When it is to the upper left, the image is of Nero.

515. treleth - November 17, 2008

Am I only one that noticed that when those two shuttles are leaving the Kelvin, and one is destroyed, its by friendly fire? I can’t tell whether the shuttle crossed into the phaser’s path or whether it was specifically targeted…

The other thing is, at the beginning of the trailer, the roof of the corvette is up, but is later retracted during the police chase.

Just some thoughts to ponder

516. Jeffries Tuber - November 17, 2008

1:41 Take a look at Uhura’s earpiece.

517. old - November 17, 2008

oh man the german dub is some sort of crap…

518. LostonNCC1701 - November 17, 2008

Does anyone else get this sinking feeling Pike won’t die, but will instead get “Menageried”? Hopefully the Abramsverse has a better system of talking to a disabled person then beeping a light.

519. Kregano - November 17, 2008

The only way they could improve the TV spot would be by replacing the music. For some reason, it seems a bit over the top and too bombastic, giving the movie a cheap action feel; something like Bear McCreary’s “Something Dark is Coming” would lend it a more mysterious feel.

520. Brandon - November 17, 2008

I can’t get it to work. I have updated quicktime twice and still not able to watch it.

521. Police Android Unit 924 - November 17, 2008

@474

OMG HAHAHAHA!!! There IS a guy pissing in the corner, oh that is too funny!

522. exfirechief47 - November 17, 2008

Paramount has leagal ownership of Star Trek, BUT The fans have the financial clout to tell Paramount what to do! As I stated elesehere the bigP is in it for $$$; JJ and company are in it for ego-personality cult issues.

If you like what they have done spend your money to see the movie and but the merchandise. That is all either bigP or JJ & Co really want – your $$$ and your attendance.

I enjoyed TOS, TNG, DS9 and even Voyager; I find ENT too jarringly out of place, but that is most likely because I was 18 when TOS first aired. I never could stomach the Star Wars prequels but I had really enjoyed the first hree sequels. FOR ME, revisionist history never works – it seems to much like a dictatorial propaganda effort. However, for those who are interested in this new approach I say go for it, JUST, DO NOT let the bigP keep dictate what you must view as entertainment NOR accept their interpretations as the only possible ones.

If this new brand of Trek is around in 40 yeras THEN they made a good choice at bigP, if NOT, then Trek and perhaps bigP shall have disappeared by 2050!

One thing you can bet your derriere on is that bigP is NOT going to do away with their support and promulgation of all things Trek in the other Star Trek timeline we all currently know – same reason $$$ and ego., The original 5 series and 10 movies make up a large percentage of Paramount and CBS ongoing income from the Star Trek fanchise. With CBS’ and Viacom’s current business and financial picture these business will NOT kill off a cash-cow NO matter how well or poorly ST:XI performs in the theatrical release. These businesses are under pressure to perform and to make gobs of money for the family controlling both CBS and Viacom (which owns bigP.)

However, UNLESS the new movie is a blockbuster in the theaters and on DVD as well as merchandising, the future of Star Trek will be in its past.

This will all be decided by 1 July 2009 as the world-wide movie public votes with their dollars and attendance of lack thereof beginning next May.

All our postulating, rhetoric and arguments notwithstanding the bottom line is $$$ in the boxoffice and eyeballs in the theaters.

523. Mike - November 17, 2008

I can’t believe how many people are crying over this trailer, the movie looks awesome and screams Trek.

524. lowblow - November 17, 2008

This is going to right all the wrongs of the last 14 years. Thank you JJ Abrams.

525. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

Those aren’t Klingons, they’re Suiliban!

526. SirBroiler - November 17, 2008

I’m even more convinced when I look at this – that Nero’s incursion into the past sets Starfleet on course to becoming a true military-type operation. The bulkier design of the ships, the interface on the bridge, the officers prepping for deployment in the hangar – it looks like these folks are all part of a war machine if you ask me.

And I can’t wait to see how Spock Prime fixes it…if he even can.

Kudos to JJ and his entire team. TREK LIVES!!!

527. konar - November 17, 2008

Did anyone notice the phaser that Kirk fires? It looks to be of “The Cage” origins.

Also like how they posted the clockwise rotation on many of the trailer shots to keep the movement up throughout the trailer — it’s a way of creating continuity when there are many different kinds of shots edited together.

I really like the feel of the space shots — from what we can see they are using very harsh lighting, which is more realistic than the kind of space lighting we’re used to. Definitely love the new warp effect.

I don’t mind the opening of the traielr at all — it’s very well done and well edited — there is a real sense of panic as the car starts to go over the edge. I know some have mentioned seeing a rope but I can’t see it. In fact the effects throughout seem to pretty much flawless. And obviously we’re missing some of the chase, so there is really no continuity problem with the vette roof being up as it pulls out and down later on.

My vote is that the law enforcement “officer” is NOT intended to be an android. Pretty cool costume.

And 394: “Leadership research and history both show that a future captain/admiral of Kirk’s caliber and temperament would have been a Boy’s State, Eagle Scout, National Merit Scholar-type leader-in-training by the time he was ready for college. Perhaps the corporate suits at Paramount think a believable character background like that would just be too bruising to the starting-to-shave crowd’s shaky self-esteem. ”

I think I’d get banned if I responded to that the way I really want to respond to it. I think you are confusing leadership with conformity. At any rate, we’re talking about a fictional character, so the character arc is wide open. Some of the best leaders are non-conformists who rebel against the establishment and want to do things their own way.

528. Ralph - November 17, 2008

The sound effects are clearer on the German version.

529. BND - November 17, 2008

At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Tha’ hottest spot north o’ Brannon Braga’s
At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Starships and passion were always a’bashin’
At the Cooooooopa…. Kelvin got shot from above

His name was Nero, he wore a tattoo
He was escorted ta’ TOS era, he saw Kirky dancin’ thar’a
Wanted Kirkie finished, he called him o’er
But Nero went a bit too far, Spockie sailed across tha’ bar
And then neckpinches flew and chairs were smashed in two
Green blood spilled and a single phazor shot
But just who shot who?

His name wuz Shatner, he wuz a captain
But that wuz 40 years ago, when they used ta’ have a show
Now it’s all action, but not fur Shatner
Still in the dress he used ta’ wear, faded fake threads make up his hair
He sits thar’ so refined, and drinks hisself half-blind
He lost his youth but JJ may have had that ta’ find
Or has ‘Lost’ boy lost his mind?!

At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Tha’ hottest spot north o’ Berman’s bad la’s
At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Starships and passion were always a’bashin’
At the Copa…. maybe we’ll fall in a’loooooooove

Wit’ that Bana…

Arrrrrrrrr…

530. BND - November 17, 2008

At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Tha’ hottest spot north o’ Brannon Braga’s
At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Starships and passion were always a’bashin’
At the Cooooooopa…. Kelvin got shot from above

His name was Nero, he wore a tattoo
He was escorted ta’ TOS era, he saw Kirky dancin’ thar’a
Wanted Kirkie finished, he called him o’er
But Nero went a bit too far, Spockie sailed across tha’ bar
And then neckpinches flew and chairs were smashed in two
Green blood spilled and a single phazor shot
But just who shot who?

His name wuz Shatner, he wuz a captain
But that wuz 40 years ago, when they used ta’ have a show
Now it’s all action, but not fur Shatner
Still in the dress he used ta’ wear, faded fake threads make up his hair
He sits thar’ so refined, and drinks hisself half-blind
He lost his youth but JJ may have had that ta’ find
Or has ‘Lost’ boy lost his mind?!

At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Tha’ hottest spot north o’ Berman’s bad la’s
At tha’ Copa… Copa-ca-Bana…
Starships and passion were always a’bashin’
At the Copa…. maybe we’ll fall in a’loooooooove

Wit’ that Bana…

Arrrrrrrrr…

531. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 17, 2008

This trailer really did the job.

I feel like I just ate a giant Star Trek happy meal! : )

532. doubting thomas - November 17, 2008

oh dear god

this is going to suck so bad.

chronicles of bleeding riddick 2

533. rangerone314 - November 17, 2008

394. Son of Surak – November 17, 2008

“James Kirk was many things but he was NEVER a boyscout!” — Dr Carol Marcus, Star Trek II:TWOK

534. doubting thomas - November 17, 2008

by the way, kirk lived on the tarsus colony as a kid and the enterprise was already in service at the time. they are attempting to erase the original series.

535. SteveinSF - November 17, 2008

It look good but reminds me of the Transformer movie where the FX shots are so quick and the action so constant that the story is lost. I hope this is just the typical fast paced trailer that we have to see these days.

Ok, so that big crack in Iowa, anymore thoughts on that? Maybe that whole Zendi weapon thing from Enterprise? And I wonder when little Jimmy Kirk lost the convertible top while speeding away from the cop? I t was up when he started the gone the next.
The Enterprise, sigh, just not a good design. They could have done so much better with it.
Regardless of my nitpicking, I’ll be there opening night to check it out.

536. Son of Surak - November 17, 2008

Jon (#512) “what’s tactical about cheating and changing the rules? It’s not like he can reprogramme the situation out on the field.”

Well, Starfleet Academy evidently concluded Kirk did not cheat, else he would have been punished for cheating rather than commended for original thinking. This turned out to be an invaluable leadership trait, because Kirk did, in fact, “reprogramme the situation” out on the field, critically, on a number of occasions.

He did it, for example, in “The Corbomite Maneuver,” by devising a brilliant ruse (the imaginary corbomite device) to outsmart the adversary there. He did it in “The Arena” by refusing to play by a rule — kill your opponent — set by the Metrones, thereby saving the Gorn crew and earning the respect of the Metrones.

The genius of Kirk has been that he can balance competing loyalities and values without betraying any of them, usually to the benefit of all of them. It involves discovering a creative solution requiring a justifiable risk, of which his Kobyashi Maru solution was the first (so far as we know).

537. jim - November 17, 2008

Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a biscuit.

Mrs. Fields

538. J. Gosdin - November 17, 2008

I’m really confused as to why everyone thinks that this movie will begin or take place in an alternate timeline in the universe of Star Trek. This seems far to convenient an excuse and frankly a terrible writing tool to use when undertaking a project like this.

People seem to take the time travel element of the story (Nero and Nimoy-Spock going back in time) as direct evidence of this movie being a different timeline. I submit that this is a rather silly theory. Simply because characters journey back in time does not automatically alter the timeline. I point to “Little Green Men,” “Assignment: Earth,” and Star Trek IV as the tip of the iceberg of evidence where characters in the Star Trek universe have gone back in time and fit in with what is supposed to happen. Nero and Spock traveling back in time may merely mean that they are fitting in with what is supposed to happen in the history of Star Trek as we know it.

People also seem to be taking the design of the bridge as evidence of changes in the timeline and are calling the design differences of the Enterprise results of Nero’s incursion. I point to an interview with Herman Zimmerman following the release of Star Trek Generations about the redesign of the bridge of the Enterprise-D. He stated that what he wanted to accomplish was to upgrade the bridge specifically for the big screen in what he felt was a natural transition to a screen ten times larger than the average TV and thus more detailed. He wanted fans to say, “Oh, that’s what I’ve been watching on that little TV set all these years!” I believe it is entirely possible that the design liberties taken with the Enterprise bridge in the upcoming film are of a similar vein.

Next, I point to a tendancy to ignore the ability of writers and storytellers to fill in the blanks of established canon. Canon has never established when or where James Kirk’s father died, so who is to say his death (if there is one) in this movie is not accurate? Canon has never established when Chekov came aboard the Enterprise (though, according to Khan, it was before his televised appearance) so who is to say he did not serve under Pike during Pike’s last year?

Finally, I point to a trend among Trek fans to ascribe things they do not like to alternate timelines, such as Star Trek: Enterprise. Enteprise was terrible at times, but I believe it had some of the finest moments of Trek encased within it, not the least of which was the appearance of the Borg in a brilliantly written episode.

So, please, give these writers a little more credit and try to keep an open mind that they do know what they are doing.

539. Devon - November 17, 2008

#534 – I think it’s silly to say they are “trying to erase the original series.” How can anyone physically do that?

540. Primogen - November 17, 2008

I’ve been a Trekkie since seeing the original series premiere in 1966, and I have to say I was very pleased with the trailer.

I don’t understanding the comments about it not feeling like Trek. In a 1:46 trailer, we catch glimpses of Trek-style ships and space battles, shuttlecraft, space stations, Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, green-skinned women, hand phasers, transporters — even Vas Quez rocks! This is definitely Trek — not Star Wars or Starship Troopers.

The characters are familiar. I see a logical Spock who can succumb to emotion under stress, a cynical Bones, a ship-loving Scotty, an earpiece-wearing Uhura, and a two-fisted, rule-breaking, woman-seducing Kirk.

Is it because the trailer doesn’t reveal any of the storyline and consists of a whirlwind of images? Well, that’s kind of typical of trailers that are released so many months in advance of a movie. Trailers that tell the story and linger on scenes longer come out closer to the movie’s release date.

541. ccfl - November 17, 2008

as one of many enterprise modelers,, i thank the lord that they lit the rear of the warp engines!

542. harris250 - November 17, 2008

#518
Remember last summer when Paramount put the “Managarie” or was it “Court Martial” in theaters….I wonder what that has to do with the plot of this movie???

543. barrydancer - November 17, 2008

I showed the trailer to my wife, a total non-Trekkie, and her reaction was: “Looks like they’re going for more action and less thought.”

As for me, the Enterprise still isn’t growing on me.

544. Paddyboy - November 17, 2008

Maybe I’m missing something or just being an idiot but who is that who says the little “Space is disease…” speech?

545. ccfl - November 17, 2008

i think it’s the (new bones) doctor

546. kikaida - November 17, 2008

I am confused on one point: why are such young kids in command of a ship of the line?

What is this? Space Camp meets Trek?

And the Kirk EXXXTREME SPORTS I’M GONNA JUMP OUTTA THIS ’65 CUDA thing is really, really horrid. Talk about jumping the shark.

547. By The Book - November 17, 2008

I am equal parts excited and disappointed. Excited because I spotted what looks to be the orbital office complex from TMP, the shuttles speak to the design of the original, Kirk gets some, and does so in a room that includes a very 60’s looking lamp. They are paying homage just like they said they would.
But I’m disappointed because I’ve been imagining the events of this movie for 20 years and it will never live up. I think they blew it with the new Enterprise design. I want to see the Enterprise that I grew up with being built, not a new interpretation of it that I have no emotional connection to. Also this new Kirk has blue eyes and the new Bones doesn’t.

548. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

Rocks

549. Neal - November 17, 2008

I loved the big view-screen on the bridge. I froze on that frame, looking out over the heads of captain, helm and navigator.

What a relief that kirk decided to upgrade to a bigger screen. In the 60s, he was styling with a 52″ flat screen. But these days, to impress yer buddies you need like a 240″ mondo screen TV. Yes, one big-ass telly.

550. Itch - November 17, 2008

I have never seen a movie without paying for it, ie renting or going to the theatre or just buying the dvd. I am now at the point where there is a good chance I will see this movie, but an equally good chance I won’t waste my money on it. I honestly thought I would never in my life see a movie without paying for it as I feel it is wrong, so in that vein I may still not see this one.

I just don’t like the fact that they’ve been telling us that they will respect the past of star trek, but after seeing the pics of the bridge and the enterprise, I know that was all a bunch of lies. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s a cool looking ship, but it’s not the enterprise. It doesn’t fit in with the past 40 years of design of star trek, and as has been stated before, the Enterprise is a character in her own right.

I don’t have any problem with the person that designed the new ship, my problem is with the people at the top who set the direction for the design.

I’d say shame on them for lying to us, but it would be more accurate to say shame on us for trusting them.

Now please excuse me whilst i go have a drink and shed a tear to morn the death of star trek.

551. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

star trek for me ended with the death of ncc1701 in STIII
the following years was me hoping for her to return her as a character again

so since 1984 i have been searching
I hope that my search is over.

552. Brad - November 17, 2008

Waaa for you.

553. Son of Surak - November 17, 2008

Konar (#527): “And 394: ‘Leadership research and history both show that a future captain/admiral of Kirk’s caliber and temperament would have been a Boy’s State, Eagle Scout, National Merit Scholar-type leader-in-training by the time he was ready for college. Perhaps the corporate suits at Paramount think a believable character background like that would just be too bruising to the starting-to-shave crowd’s shaky self-esteem.'”

Konar (#527): “I think I’d get banned if I responded to that the way I really want to respond to it.”

And the fact that you really want to respond to it that way is probably the way the corporate suits at Paramount think you would respond to a young Kirk drawn the way I described. Some audience members have a hard time liking characters who are superior to them in virtually every way. But Kirk is — he’s not like you and me. Like Commodore Stone said in TOS: “Court Martial,” “Not one man in a million could do what you and I have done– command a starship.”

Konar (#527): “Some of the best leaders are non-conformists who rebel against the establishment and want to do things their own way.”

Kirk is a non-conformist, most certainly. That’s been shown repeatedly. What was never shown, nor implied, nor even makes sense, is that Kirk was a bike-riding juvenile delinquent who felt out of place in the world.

554. kikaida - November 17, 2008

Oh and the ship looks like complete ASS

555. Jax Maxton - November 17, 2008

I absolutely think it was the way that the trailer was cut that has thrown people for a loop. I know when I saw it on Friday I really hated it. I know that fast cutting is all the rage with the Hanna Montana generation, but I just can’t stand it. When I watch a trailer I want to be able to see just a little more. Trailers are supposed to tell small stories, and it started out that way. Then it just evolved into this mess of high-speed, hyper-kinetic cuts. It can be a little disorienting, and can serve to really undercut the promotion of a film.

But nothing is worse than that horrendous, seizure inducing Sopranos trailer that’s playing on TV right now.

556. Al Hartman - November 17, 2008

I still see the old site.

557. kikaida - November 17, 2008

And The8thDOCTOR is about as big a loser as Dennis Bailey.

558. tribble farmer - November 17, 2008

They just played the TV spot during the commercials of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. *w00t*

559. Keith H - November 17, 2008

477

I guess I’m just biased to Voyager, haha. They must of tweaked it a little to fit B’Elanna… I’m a Voyager fan, trying to give them some credit, ha. If ANYTHING, Voyager at least fit the whole need for skydiving in better than it would have fit into Generations? Generations is what got me hooked on ST, and if I had seen more of Kirk in it, I might have passed, ha. I think his role as it was hit the mark, no need for that skydiving scene. Otherwise they would have kept it, right?

560. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

kikaida thx for trolling

561. rag451 - November 17, 2008

Nothing will ‘make or break’ this movie for me. I doubt there’s a single tangible model in this film or a ‘real’ orchestra like what James Horner or, to borrow from Star Wars, John Williams used. From what I see, the effects look computerized, very ‘fake’ for my tastes but certainly in-line or better than most modern effects shots. The most real effects I’ve ever seen in Star Trek were in TWOK, TSFS, and TUC; the worst were in TFF, INS, and NEM. From what I see, these will not be like those effects at all, just different.

I’m impressed with the trailer. I saw it twice on ‘the big screen’ and several times now online. I wish the cuts were a little longer so I could actually see something, but that’s probably intentional. I wonder when the next trailer will come up!

562. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

think of it this way, it was STIII that gave a lot of the next gen et al producers the models that those ham fisted bastards could pass of as 24th century

563. daniel - November 17, 2008

Trailer aired with Terminator

564. BK613 - November 17, 2008

jiminy the things people will go on about.

The top is up early in the joyride when JTK is tearing it up, all by himself. Then you have the closeup of the speedometer. It is at the end of this closeup that we first hear the siren of the cop. Cut to the end of the joyride where we see the death of a nice car. Obviously there is some missing scenes in there, just like I suspect there will be more stuff between the closeup of the cop’s boot and the “My name is James Tiberius Kirk!”

I also kinda like the coming out of warp effect on the screen at 1:28-ish

565. No Quicktime 7! - November 17, 2008

I can’t watch the new trailer on the website. It requires Quicktime 7, and it costs nearly $30 to download. There’s no way I’d pay that kind of money for that. Thank goodness for Youtube, or I would have missed out!

566. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

565 go for the free option or torrent a cracked version

567. Jamie - November 17, 2008

I haven’t read all these things but I keep seeing comments about what the big hole in the beginning of the trailer is. That is obviously supposed to be a quarry – he busts through a gate and fence during the chase, that appears to be around the quarry, then you can see the “squarish” blocks cut out of the sides. However, that is an awfully big and deep quarry, and it sure looks like the desert rather than iowa. Hm.

568. barrydancer - November 17, 2008

565: Strange. I have free Quicktime and it worked just fine.

569. Bill T - November 17, 2008

Please look at this and tell me what you think. At the 1:20 mark when Spock is leading Amanda, Sarek and a couple of other guys it looks like the guy on the back left just behind Sarek is old Spock. There is one freeze frame where the image is clear. It’s a side view.

570. No Quicktime 7! - November 17, 2008

566:
We did download the free option, still didn’t work though. The free one is QT6, and I think it’s because we don’t have version 7.

571. rob - November 17, 2008

ive had a chance to look at the trailer and looked at it in detail…i think it looks awesome…..wow really great

no reservations on my part any more

572. JamesinTucson - November 17, 2008

thanks to image here I think we can say that its likely the bridge display is a viewport with embedded video like KITT

http://kepfeltoltes.hu/081117/984956599vlcsnap-00001_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png

573. gooser - November 17, 2008

#570

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

574. JamesinTucson - November 17, 2008

JJ and team, someone please explain the bridge urinal picture, it’s bloody killing me!!!! What the devil could that cat be doing?

575. magnumpc - November 17, 2008

#311 (SciFiMetalGirl): Agreed. I was 15 when I saw TMP and had such high expectations (I had watched TOS for 8 years by that point) that I was quite disappointed. I think the chances of that happening next May are quite small and can see the wisdom of Paramount holding the film till next Summer.

I really like how the suits are finally making a real effort to expand the fanbase (far) beyond the core. Frankly, I think the core has lost it’s way and is too buried in minutiae to really enjoy Trek anymore. Something like having trouble seeing the forest thru the trees.

I’ve always loved Trek, but I can certainly see how the insular nature of the fanbase can turn off those who haven’t made the same time and emotional investment in this Universe.

My hope is this movie will ignite the imaginations of the next generation (like my kids — 2, 4, and 7) and bring them and their friends into the fold. Bring people with the action and eye candy, then

I know it’s cliche, but it’s true: “Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.”

Note for JJ, boborci, and kurtzman: Love the trailer! Greatly anticipating the score! I hope the film isn’t nearly as frenetic (please no “Speed Racer” action). The new E looks great (thought it always did).

– Agree with earlier comments that the stunt work with young Kirk looked terrible (he looked like he was bolted down in spite of his flailing). Also, his hair color looks really yellow. Finally, do kids often refer to themselves with tripartite names? None that I know of.

– Really liked seeing the Big E under construction… on the ground…

– Glad to see that an actual Vulcan city with some scope (can’t wait to see the other population centers… esp. San Fran…) Given that ILM is doing the FX, I fully expect to see (at a minimum) detail similar to Corruscant. Missing from the Vulcan shot: Lots of AI/procedurally driven pedestrians and vehicles to make the city come alive. Otherwise, it looks like the aftermath of a neutron bomb.

– Not really digging the spinning transporter effect (but, this is par for the course, since I’ve never liked _any_ of the movie transporter effects).

– The Bridge and Interiors seem too bright. Maybe I’ll get used to that, but wow. I feel like I’d need sun glasses to work on that ship. (In my office, I like to work with _very_ subdued lighting.)

– Quinto looks incredible as Spock. Pine has good looks for Kirk. (I’ll reserve judgement on their speech since it was so short.)

– The space FX look fantastic (but, again, I consider this par-for-the-course — ILM should be able to do fantastic space battles with plastic models held together with glue and tape). Hope they come up with something new for Trek.

– Happy to see Bruce Greenwood onscreen! Enjoyed his work over the years!

– While I’m a Cho fan, I really hope his swordplay comes of fluidly. After the martial arts imports (Crouching Tiger, etc.), I hope his scenes don’t come off as “stilted”

– Nice to see a Trek “monster” that doesn’t look like a $20 costume made with lettovers from the mailroom.

– Yes, Trek needs to be sexed up (not a lot, but it looks like maybe you have a good medium). A little worried by the “Porky’s” situation with Kirk under the bed, however.

– Finally, can’t wait to see how Bana/Nero expresses his “frustrations”

Many thanks!

See everyone in line for the midnight show!

576. garen - November 17, 2008

how about how the orbital sky dive suits are colored for division….blue, red and gold. cool!

i think thats a nice touch. but if there’s anything….anything at all that i’m just a little leery about its that sequence. It coud be quite an intense scene..ful of speed…..but i’m just wondering how audiences will perceive it. i’m sure they done a great job though.

577. Matt Wright - November 17, 2008

527 — he’s holding what looks like a like Klingon disruptor, I’ve screenshotted it, Tony is going to put an article with shots soon. The phaser, as others pointed out, can be seen in a very blury form in the scene where Spock is lunging at Kirk, they don’t look the same.

578. DEMODE - November 17, 2008

Are those KLINGONS in the trailer? There is a quick cut near the end of the Romulan Commander between to aliens wearing helmets that have ridges in the front on the forehead. It kind of looks like he is fighting them. Are those Kilngons, or other Romulans?? Or other…? Very curious….

579. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

i miss McCoys southern accent

580. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

Dude, Quicktime is free. It doesn’t cost 30 bucks to unload.

581. Justin Toney - November 17, 2008

569. Yes is does look like old old Spock.

582. Bill T - November 17, 2008

[581] – Thank you for looking. This could be big news. Everyone else look now.

583. The Angry Klingon - November 17, 2008

578,
Those are ‘Klingon Guards’
Trust me on this.

584. Devon - November 17, 2008

Love the new trailer. However, despite the secrecy I hope there is another trailer that possibly does show us more of what the story is. Who is Nero? Show us a little Nimoy, etc. Just saying for the NEXT trailer. No complaints about this one! :)

585. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

569
you have spock and amanda in the fore- ground

in the back ground to the left is a white vulcan [def not spock]
and to the right Sarek, and slightly hidden behind Sarek is a black Vulcan

586. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 17, 2008

You need the latest QT.

587. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

578 at what frame?

588. Barry - November 17, 2008

Hey nice trailer for “Star Ship Wars Troopers”.

Maybe in a few years we’ll get another “STAR TREK” film.

Oh well… :-(

589. voyager - November 17, 2008

Has anyone done HD screencaps yet?

590. Bill T - November 17, 2008

[585] I’m talking about the white vulcan to our left behind Sarek. There is one freeze frame where it looks just like him. The rest are blurry. Well, the white Vulcans all look alike.

591. Fansince9 - November 17, 2008

582 Wow! If you are correct then that really says a lot! Spock does meet his older self. Oh, May just can’t come fast enough!

592. JamesinTucson - November 17, 2008

check out the empire article, it answers many questions, not all but some

593. Aragorn189 - November 17, 2008

460.

Also, if you catch the ship going through the time portal just right. You can see a perfect sillhouette of Nero’s ship. The reports were correct. It does look like a squid to some degree. When I saw it the first time in that detail, I thought of the Squiddie from The Matrix films. Not that its bad. It actually looks. Cool. Spocks time ship is seen twice I believe. Small but apparently tough little ship.

594. Captain Dunsel - November 17, 2008

Hey – at least the German kid nailed “Tiberius”…

595. shat hands - November 17, 2008

theres a great jj talk through of the trailer at empireonline.com

596. Photo - November 17, 2008

GUYS! Look at the front license plate on the car. It has a pic of Kevin Smith!!!

597. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

lol kinda rascist but no, that character is not as frail as Nimoy

598. Dr. Image - November 17, 2008

You guys- REMINDER:
http://www.davestrailerpage.co.uk/
Right-click and download away!

Remember the effects in the LIS movie? Actually, they were very good. The style of ILM’s effects here reminds me of those. In this case, that’s a good thing.

Also, I see a stylistic continuity between the exterior of the ship, the bridge, and the corridors. Intentional, I hope!

And yeah, I was going to say, those corridors are SO reminiscent of the Andromeda Strain- also a good thing, IMO.

599. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

588, maybe Braga and boreman will do something for you

600. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

anyways i outta here for the now,

I have Somali pirates to fight
on you tube
peace all

601. BK613 - November 17, 2008

why does the cop have his hands up at 0:36?

602. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

Cause he’s really Iron Man.

603. Adam E - November 17, 2008

I would just like to say that the bridge looks huge in the trailer.

604. Dr. Schlaack - November 17, 2008

Quick question…..

What are the two towers in the sky at 0:09? Possibly the very beginnings of the new Enterprise?

605. Dr. Schlaack - November 17, 2008

You see them again at 0:19!

606. Adam E - November 17, 2008

604. Dr. Schlaack – November 17, 2008
“What are the two towers in the sky at 0:09? Possibly the very beginnings of the new Enterprise?”

Can also see one at 0:06.
I don’t know what it could be… how long would it take to build a starship?

Also, I would like to know if they are building the E in Iowa or California or somewhere else.

607. Dr. Schlaack - November 17, 2008

Hmmm….

I don’t know of any deep canyons in Iowa…. Hahaha

608. Jorg Sacul - November 17, 2008

“James Kirk was many things but he was NEVER a boyscout!” — Dr Carol Marcus, Star Trek II:TWOK

what, nobody ever gets this!?:

The motto of the Boy Scouts is “Be Prepared”. Jim Kirk didn’t have protection, ergo “Not Prepared”, and after their little docking maneuver, Carol Marcus got knocked up.

There is such a thing as subtext and double entendre in Star Trek. Really…

609. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

It’s a Quarry, not a canyon. Also, how do we know it’s Iowa?

610. Dr. Schlaack - November 17, 2008

Iowa is just a possibility.

We do know that he was born and grew up there, and due to the fact that he is young during the canyon scene, you can infer that he is in Iowa.

Who knows, maybe the Kirks moved around a lot, but that sure would be one big quarry!

611. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

Just saw the “TV Spot” during Terminator on Fox. Sweet! Now I have it in HD on the big screen!

612. Michael Foote - November 17, 2008

I just saw the TV spot with the Sarah Conner Chronicles at 830p pacific time. Wasn’t expecting that so soon.

613. Seven of Four - November 17, 2008

Looks like Star Trek is finally going to be good again! That hasn’t happened in over ten years!

614. April Roberts - November 17, 2008

If you like the prospect of this movie, you’re right to do so and a good person. You’re opinion counts.

If you don’t like the prospect of this movie you’re automatically a whiner and stuck in the past. You’re obviously a bad person and you can’t possibly be a real Star Trek fan if you dont embrace this film with all your heart and soul.

I love the logic of the gusher side. One can’t possibly have genuine concerns about the movie. If you dont gush like the majority here something is wrong with you and youre automatically in the wrong.

I thought opinions were neither right nor wrong, but anyone who has a doubt is written off like some mental abberant. A villiage idiot who doesnt know what she’s talking about. “Canonista’s” has a rather negative vibe.

Not saying there’s anything wrong with liking it. But maybe a little more respect ought to be given to those who don’t. Theyre Trek fans too, and if it wasnt for their support in the past the possibility of this movie being made would be nonexistent. I dont blame them for feeling abandoned.

615. Michael Foote - November 17, 2008

Oh and if you see the old site hit refresh on your browser.

616. Seven of Four - November 17, 2008

Who knows what happened in Iowa in the next few hundred years. Maybe there was a natural disaster, or the war, or something. There’s all kinds of reason there could be a canyon, if it’s even Iowa at all. Good God, people, use from freaking imagination and stop picking at these weird little details. It’s sad and creepy.

617. Ruthless Nate - November 17, 2008

Who is the Vulcan-ish looking dude on the bridge, to the right side of the frame at 1:40?

618. Justin Toney - November 17, 2008

I got some HD screencaps :) Very interesting to see what is in all of the frames. Klingon guards are quite clever, I see the helmet, but I am not convinced yet. The Sarek character looks just as good as Mark Lenard.

Who is the girl with Kirk when he is in his drawers? And why is Scotty soaked, if that is him.

And I dont know but why when I watch this do I have the urge to say “I….have had….enough of….you (ST3)?

619. Enterprise - November 17, 2008

Wouldn’t it be great if it really came out on Christmas, and the whole thing was just a big joke?

620. Justin Toney - November 17, 2008

Wait a minute, didnt the Enterprise undergo a refit in canon terms between April and Pike? Or am I lost somewhere?

621. Seven of Four - November 17, 2008

614. April Roberts – the reason we’re “picking” on the whiners is because their reasons for whining are so petty, and based on so very little information.

No canyons in Iowa.

It’s stupid that young Kirk says his full name.

They built the Enterprise on the ground! (Oh my God!)

The Enterprise looks different!

Stupid swirly things when Spock beams down.

Blah blah blah blah blah. It goes on an on.

It’s simply proof that many of you have decided to hate the movie no matter what. That’s what we are complaining about. Face it, you guys have judged the movie already and are sentencing it to death before it’s ever shown. I haven’t decided whether I’ll like the movie or not. I’ll wait ’til I see it. But I have decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and be excited that it’s coming.

It’s the mature, rational thing to do. Bleating about stupid little details and then crying persecution isn’t.

622. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

613
make that 24 years

623. Mike - November 17, 2008

It’s funny how people are saying that the story and thought provoking element of Trek died with this movie. You cry babies haven’t even seen the movie yet. They can’t reveal the storyline 7 MONTHS before the film comes out. That would spoil everything. This trailer grabs people’s attention by saying, “TREK IS BACK” and they did exactly that. How in the world people can judge an entire movie with a 2 minute trailer is insane.

Also, to everyone complaining that the Enterprise is too “updated” need to stop their crying. If it looked like it did in the 60s show it would obviously be insane. I mean, do people realize that the Playstation 3 is more advanced than some of the equipment on the TOS Enterprise bridge? In 2008 we need to make it look mind blowing to our current level of technology and they did a good job in my opinion, while keeping it realistic.

I swear there are so-called “fans” praying for the downfall of this movie and it’s disgusting. It’s the same type of “fans” that hate when their private joys go mainstream. Imagine if this movie is a huge success? There will be people on this site saying, “Trek is SOOO Hannah Montana!” Are you serious? How? Because it was exciting, fun and people liked it? Be happy that JJ breathed life in Trek again, seriously.

624. Michael Richmond - November 17, 2008

EASTER EGG

Click the flashing red ‘Incoming Data’ spot while moving though the site for a
snazzy Nero wallpaper! :D

625. TheSpockDoctrine - November 17, 2008

“It’s a Quarry, not a canyon. Also, how do we know it’s Iowa?”

We don’t. But since the license plate says IOWA on it, either he’s in Iowa right now or he just drove the thing cross country….while being chased by a cop.

626. The Vulcanista - November 17, 2008

@161: “Oh and the car looks like a ‘65 Stingray to me. I wonder what metaphor that is supposed to be?”

Could that be the year that Gene R. pitched Trek to the networks?

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

627. The Vulcanista - November 17, 2008

Ooops! Damn Typonians. My reply was for 191!

628. mr. mugato - November 17, 2008

Can any of you Paramount trolls explain the salad shooters? I’m sure it’s not an important plot point.

I thank you in advance.

629. BaronByng - November 17, 2008

If you are one of those people that can’t follow trailers:

Young Kirk driving the Corvette into the quarry is in Iowa (why else would they give us the close-up of the license plate).

We see the large, strange “buildings” in the background twice, during this chase and then later when 20something Kirk is leaving to drive his bike cross-country to San Francisco to join Starfleet Academy. (Given the description of the events from the excerpts shown at the roadshow, there is some Starfleet presence in Iowa, which is how Kirk gets into the bar fight and meets Pike, who challenges him to join Starfleet.)

As for the design of the Enterprise, it really doesn’t look THAT different than what we’ve seen over the years. (I mean, when you count all the different ways that ST comic books and novel covers have had creative ‘interpretations’ of the Enterprise…this is pretty on-target.)

I LIKE the big bridge! And despite what the naysayers say, it looks like a very good blend of form and function, projecting forward from today’s technology. I work creating UIs for stock market trading software — those guys are running anywhere from 4-8 flat panel displays, interpreting some fast-moving and dense market information. Now imagine what sort of information display needs you would have to show all the physics involved in warp propulsion and interstellar navigation…when I saw those sweeping curved “tiled” displays at the workstations I knew that someone had actually put some thought into this.

630. The8thDOCTOR - November 17, 2008

i wonder if the Nex Gen fans feel cheated?

631. DonLoki - November 17, 2008

Here is the link to the 2 wallpapers.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/desktop.php?file=d32_1920.jpg&width=1920&height=1200

http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/desktop.php?file=d31_1920.jpg&width=1920&height=1200

632. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

630.

Why would TNG fans feel cheated?

633. Brad - November 17, 2008

I’m a next gen fan and I don’t feel cheated at all.

634. gerardx - November 17, 2008

Remember this is trailer 1 – we probably will get 2 or more trailers before the movie is out – each emphasizing a particular angle of the story.

Personally, I think this one is aimed at the 12 – 16 year old boys. We will most likely get a cut that is a bit more awe inspiring, more cerebral in keeping with the Roddenberry Trek.

I’m not saying that the movie will resemble a Roddenberry Trek, but if I’m working marketing at Paramount, I’m thinking we need a cut that appeals to the baby boomer Trek fans (45 + crowd.) Mo money mo money mo money

635. Mike - November 17, 2008

#630, being a huge Next Gen fan, a part of me is really saddened about the direction they took Trek. I always wanted that final adventure and judging from the time and money they put into THIS film, a TNG closure of this scale would have been insane.

I was a big fan of all the Trek series that came after believe it or not, DS9, VOY, ENT. I think there were a lot of great stories that were yet to be written and I’ll probably always feel a little sad about the story being cut short.

However, with all that being said. I have really grown to appreciate this project and what they are trying to do with it. I love Trek period and it’s clear that it’s alive and well in this film and have nothing but respect for JJ and his team for making it possible.

636. Gary Seven of Nine - November 17, 2008

270. garen – November 17, 2008
has anyone noticed that the cliffs in the beginning sequence look very MAN MADE. It doesnt seem to be a natural rock formation at all. The rocks….or blocks rather are very geometrical in shape and order. Large cubes that have been stacked high on one another.
Any thoughts?

273. Rainbucket – November 17, 2008
I love that after shooting a brief establishing shot at Vasquez Rocks in ST VI, we now see similar locations all over the Vulcan location. Maybe even an implication that they were created by the Romulan attack in this movie.
Does Iowa have any gigantic canyons like that? Maybe it’s left from the Xindi attack, in a nod to Enterprise?

302. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar – November 17, 2008

Notice big grand canyon like bluffs in the background as young Ani-Kirk dupms Pappy’s vette into the chasim. I suspect this is the grand Canyon and young Jim tore ass out of Iowa to drive to Starfleet Command for some reason. The Robocop catches up with him somewhere in Utah, Colorado??

535. SteveinSF – November 17, 2008
Ok, so that big crack in Iowa, anymore thoughts on that? Maybe that whole Zendi weapon thing from Enterprise?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It’s a quarry:

http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/EYW/EYW192/e008740.jpg

637. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - November 17, 2008

This movie will make Star Trek relevant again. I have been a die hard trekker all my life and I love the original cast. If this is indeed a reboot, the “Great Bird” already gave his blessings. As long as the ideals of optimism and hope are maintained, then Star Trek lives. He would be pleased that this franchise is being reinvigorated.

638. Sci-Fi Bri - November 17, 2008

“i wonder if the Nex Gen fans feel cheated?”

nope, this is great. who knows, maybe the next TV series will be ‘Star Trek : Stargazer’

639. joe - November 17, 2008

rabble rabble rabble.

i already saw Galaxy Quest

640. David G. - November 17, 2008

I’ve been a fan for my entire life… literally. I’ve enjoyed Star Trek tremendously, and even worked at Star Trek: The Experience for the last two and a half years of it’s existence. I can’t wait for the new Experience to open either. However I have been disappointed by Trek within recent years.

I think film makers and TV producers are starting to lose sight of Roddenberry’s vision of the future. It’s not about cool looking space ships and huge explosions. It’s about people and the situations they face. But if you’re going to make a movie that takes place in a specific universe, you have to take the universe with it. Honoring the “spirit” of a universe doesn’t matter when you break the truths that millions of people have accepted for 40+ years.

When I heard they were making a new Trek movie, I was very excited. I just kept thinking, “Lord, please don’t let them screw up.” And then I saw the teaser. And I thought again, “Please don’t let them screw it up.” And now, all I can do is hope that the world will give someone else another chance, because honestly, I’m disappointed and pissed off beyond belief.

When they originally announced the new movie was coming out on Christmas day this year, I was already making plans to show up at the Palms on Christmas eve in the best Trek uniform I could find. But now, I’m not even planning to see it.

They took Nemesis, added the screw-ups of ENT, threw in lots of Star Wars, tossed in some Galaxy Quest, and then made Abrams the director. And then someone beat it with a hammer until it was nice and powdered, added some water, and tried to use a Japanese method to make polished crap.

I’m disappointed.

641. Render - November 17, 2008

Does anyone els think that the things in the background when Little Kirk jumps outta the car look like ruins?

Also I think the things in the background may be arcologies or something similar

642. Gd846c3 - November 17, 2008

These are the best SFX I have ever seen!!!!!!!

643. lostrod - November 17, 2008

The Klingon at 1:30 does not have ridges on forehead …

644. Adam E - November 17, 2008

643. lostrod – November 17, 2008
The Klingon at 1:30 does not have ridges on forehead …

I think that is a Romulan.

645. Kirky - November 17, 2008

Wow I like the trailer, I didn’t know George Lucas was making another Star Wars film?!!!

646. OCD-1701 - November 17, 2008

389. DATA KILLED SPOT – November 17, 2008
WHAT MAKES JJ THINK THAT PEOPLE OF THE 23RD CENTURY WILL WEAR DENIM AND LEATHER? WHAT PRIMATIVE CHOICES FOR CLOTHING! HOW DARE HE!!!!!!!!! AND AUTOMOBILES? DIRT ROADS? POLICE OFFICERS? GIVE ME A BREAK!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What makes you think they won’t? Denim jeans have been around since the 1850s. I think there will still be a few car collectors around in the 23rd century and that a dirt road is perfectly acceptable access to a quarry or construction site.

394. Son of Surak – November 17, 2008
“Big problem: a lot of the production values here seem absurdly dated. Too much of it screams c. 2008.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bigger problem: a lot of the production values in TOS seem grossly dated. Too much of it screams c. 1966.

“Even bigger problem: young Kirk. The character in Star Trek is James T. Kirk. NOT James Dean. Absolutely nothing about the Kirk character suggests he was ever a lost, trying-to-find-himself, rebel misfit. Leadership research and history both show that a future captain/admiral of Kirk’s caliber and temperament would have been a Boy’s State, Eagle Scout, National Merit Scholar-type leader-in-training by the time he was ready for college. Perhaps the corporate suits at Paramount think a believable character background like that would just be too bruising to the starting-to-shave crowd’s shaky self-esteem.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t know any Eagle Scout, National Merit Scholar-type leader-in-training that would repeatedly disobey orders, cheat on a test, steal a starship, abandon his son or manipulate his superiors so that he could get a command that helps him deal with his midlife crisis, all while getting copious amounts of tail.

“Abrams and company apparently don’t get Kirk; neither probably does the pretty boy Abrams picked to play him”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s a pretty bold statement about film you haven’t seen yet, and even making it personal. Please see your earlier comment about “shaky self-esteem”. Sounds like you want Trek created in your own image.

“Chances of it becoming a classic like Star Wars or Blade Runner are next to nil. “

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ll agree with you on that. Topping the original Star Wars or Blade Runner would be a huge task.

647. =A= - November 17, 2008

i realize that star trek will beat star wars!

648. Kirky - November 17, 2008

647, Star Wars was only beaten because George Lucas directed the prequels!

649. Harry Ballz - November 17, 2008

And, boy, did they stink on ice!

650. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

I started watching TNG when I was about 7 or 8. My mom grew up with Trek, and one night she was watching Next Gen. I sat down and started to watch, and the rest is history. I love the original crew, and the TOS films, but I’m not as strictly beholden to TOS as some others are. But I am a very atypical Trekker, I guess. I’ve collected a lot of books, most of the Playmates and Art Asylum ships and prop replicas, models, posters, and the music. I LOVE Star Trek in all its forms, and I, as a 9 year-old, left the theater crying when Captain Kirk died in Generations. (I can already hear the jokes coming about everyone leaving Generations crying, but admit it, there are still a few things to like about the movie.)

However, I’ve never been to a Con, but I visited ST: Experience several times, including my 21st birthday, and I even went to The Tour in Long Beach. Trek is one of the most influential forces in my life.

Having laid out my cred, I can honestly say that I truely embrace the LESSONS of Star Trek, and as such, I can let go of my prejudice and honestly say that J.J. Abrams and Co. have me completely hooked. Sure the new Enterprise is a bit different, sure the Bridge has barcode scanners sitting on the consoles exactly like the ones I use at work , sure Uhura is hot (wait, wasn’t that always the case?), but change can be a good thing. And I think that if some of the naysayers spent a little more time looking for what these guys have gotten right instead of what they think is wrong, they would be surprised.

Look closer at the Enterprise. This ship really does seem do fall in line as a predecessor to the refit Connie. Docking ports identical, saucer nearly identical, phaser banks very similar, deflector similar, photon torpedo laucher similar, interconnecting dorsal “stripe” is there, and the window pattern on the saucer rim is even identical. And come on, every shot of her in the trailer screams “U.S.S. ENTERPRISE”. And if you ignore the updated aesthetic and focus on the similarities, I think it does still have Star Trek at its core.

We can’t know much more about the story, the characters, or the supreme court’s vision of Star Trek and its ideals from a two minute trailer meant to make us drool and pique the interest of casual moviegoers and non-trekkers.

These guys have gone to ENORMOUS lengths to try and please us, and yet we are not the target audience, merely one section of it. I say, they’ve done their part. We need to do ours and keep our minds open until May.

651. Mike - November 17, 2008

If you walk into this film accepting that it’s a failure and don’t give it an honest chance you will NOT be satisfied and I beg you to not show up to the theater. For all our sakes, please do not show up, I don’t feel like hearing groans and complaining. “That’s not MY Enterprise!”

652. voyager - November 17, 2008

Now this is just silly.

653. JT - November 17, 2008

547, I could not agree more! I have watched this trailer in several forms over the passed few days. I have to say that from what I have seen so far this will probably be a big hit in the spring. In some way I am glad of that. I have to say I love the cast and the costumes, but I have to wonder, could not have someone that saw the new costumes and have said “please do the same thing with the Enterprise and the Enterprise sets as well”. The production design on this film is very wanting. It does not capture the feel of TOS at all. Their costumes are the only thing that even comes close! They did a brilliant job with the uniforms! I have to wonder that there must have been some meeting where and someone said ” Ok do the same thing with the sets and the ship that you did with the costumes! Simply put It is bad art direction and bad production design!!!! All that aside I hope that this film cares on the Star trek legend!

654. OM - November 17, 2008

…Someone needs to take Zoe Saldana to a couple of buffets and put some meat on her. You can easily count her ribs!

655. Canon RIP - November 17, 2008

Hey, at 1:42 you can clearly see Shatner dropping by the set!

And they said he wasn’t in it.

656. Trekwebmaster - November 17, 2008

#650

Wow, this fine example of literary work just completely “blew me away” almost as much as the NEW TRAILER did.

Great job “JonnyBoy,” you wrote a fine comment, I think it’s one of the best I have read on this forum!

MANY KUDOS!!

Trekwebmaster

657. Mordo - November 17, 2008

Wow!

Mission Impossible beginning…check!

Top Gun motor bike drive by…check!

An Officer and a Gentleman self doubt…check!

James “Hellboy” Kirk versus C’thulhu…check!

TARDIS interior…check!

Cast from NCC-90210…check!

658. =A= - November 17, 2008

lol to 651. you are not star trek fan huh get out of here will ya!

659. HMS Enterprise - November 17, 2008

#640

I just wonder how you can determine if the film will hold up to Roddenberry’s vision of the future from a 1 minute trailer. And correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the stories, characters and adventure were more important than the ‘look’ of TOS?

If we judged the series by its design and effects I can tell you Star Trek wouldn’t have lived for 40 odd years. But we didn’t. And I don’t see why the same can’t be applied to the new film.

660. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 17, 2008

12-

You’re correct. They’ll find that out [as usual] the hard way next year.

661. Trekwebmaster - November 17, 2008

I swear, some of you “naysayers” need to have Capt. Kirk drive the USS CONSTELLATION up your butts and click that old style rocker switch to overload that “honery” impulse engine.

Maybe that will blast a hole right through that crusty impenetrable neutronium cricicism you all share…jeez at least try to have an open mind if you want to really call yourselves “star trek fans.”

Dammit Jim, I am a TREK FAN, not a naysayer!

Trekwebmaster

662. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

Thanks very much, Trekwebmaster.

663. fx4level2 - November 17, 2008

I’m looking forward to this movie and everything and i’m glad that there trying something different here its what the franchise needs. although i was thinking this movie is’nt going with canon because, with the episode the cage there was no kirk on the enterprise, and that i presume was a few years after this movie takes place i believe. maybe i’m wrong i don’t know.

664. Seven of Four - November 17, 2008

#660 – You must be psychic to know this movie will be a big failure after seeing a 60-second trailer and some photographs. Thank you for saving me the time and money. Now I don’t have to see the film because I already know it’s a piece of crap.

But you must prove to me you are indeed a psychic. Tell me, what finger am I holding up?

665. Trekwebmaster - November 17, 2008

prolly the one you pick boogers out of your nose with LOL???

Trekwebmaster

666. The Wild Man of Borneo - November 17, 2008

#12, #660

Yeah, this movie is gonna blow. It is aimed for kids. Seriously, I can’t wrap my head around why everyone is so excited. This is just another action movie. This is not Star Trek.

I threw up a little in my mouth when I heard Scotty say that corny line in the trailer.

Watch this trailer and then watch the trailer for Star Trek II or the TMP. Big difference.

667. Hat Rick - November 17, 2008

Just saw the trailer in HD after seeing it in the theaters on Friday. Love it.

And the new Enterprise gets more appealing — more gorgeous — every time I look at it.

668. Capt. of the USS Anduril - November 17, 2008

Here’s what I have to say on the trailer.

First, Kirk taking the ‘vette and careening it over the cliff, and then riding a motorcycle re-shows insights into Kirk’s character. Both of those activities are at least moderately to heavily risky, and both involve antiques. Kirk has always taken risks, or else he wouldn’t have said: “Risk is part of the game if you wanna sit in that chair.” And recall Kirk’s apartment in TWOK, it was filled with antiques.

Secondly, the Enterprise. What the **** is everyone’s problem with it? It looks like the Enterprise. But, you know. COOLER. SLEEKER. And by far the most beautiful iteration of the Big E in years. Lay off the poor ship.

Thirdly, I think what’s been said about the plot possibility is true.

Fourth…ZOE TOPLESS!!!! *drools*

In conclusion….I feel the same feeling I felt when First Contact was coming out. Insurrection was a complete waste of time, and Nemesis, while not as bad as Insurrection, would have been much better if Berman hadn’t cut it to “just under two hours”. This movie’s trailer gives Trek an epic feel that I haven’t felt in years. Thank you JJ. You’ve made a fan of 20 years of Trek very happy. Now if only Paramount hadn’t pushed the movie back. *grumbles* And Playmates had better not **** up the toy of the Enterprise like they did the Ent-E for FC and Ins.

669. Pinky - November 17, 2008

It’s certainly an exciting trailer. But wonderment? … hm. not so much. Star Trek was about strange new worlds and new civilizations — exploring ourselves. Not so much about the fighting. Even the Borg stuff was more about getting chased and trying to out-think them… never about gun fights.

Maybe after this first one, once everyone is introduced to the cast, we’ll set out on a real adventure of discovery and exploration again…..

670. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

In the words of Dr. McCoy, “This film is Star Trek wrapped in Pretty and Shiny”.

671. Buzz Cagney - November 17, 2008

#659 Nice nickname! I had the pleasure of visiting HMS ENTERPRISE over the summer. It gave us a real kick to be on board a ship bearing the name- and the 7 year old boy beamed with delight when he sat in The Captains chair. MAGIC.

672. James Tiberius "my cabin in the Nexus hasn't depreciated" Kirk - November 17, 2008

Son of Surak:

Please stop driving by my house in the middle of the night, and dressing like me. I’ve seen ‘Single White Female’ and quite frankly, you’re scaring me. I’m even more scared that you have a James T. Kirk shrine in your basement. I know that that you think that I can do no wrong and that I may have a scholarly background, but hell, even George W. Bush went to Yale! Sheesh, one of my equestrian buddies, Jean Luc Picard even stirred-up some trouble in his academy days. C’mon, we’re only human, right? I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but MAN, was I pumped with testosterone in those days! You would not believe how much action I got when I was in the Academy! Bones was still giving me crap about it even when we were in jail! Annnnnd, Y-E-S, to clarify, I DID tell 5-0 my FULL name when he asked for it. The only other exclamation of a person’s name that may have topped my cocky show of defiance to that cop was when I screamed Khan’s name into my communicator when I was stranded in the Genesis cave. Man, I told Mr. Roarke what time it was! I didn’t even have to pull the “T.J. Hooker blows-away Fantasy Island” card!

An no, I don’t want to “…go to the sizzler and catch some grub”.

Sincerely,

James Tiberius Kirk

PS. Some of you are wondering why my roots are showing when I drive my Uncle’s replica ‘Vette into the quarry. Duuuuuuh! It’s what all the kids were doing to their hair in the 23rd century. Haven’t you ever had a ‘fro, ducktail or Flock of Seagulls haircut? Don’t be so lame!

>>>>>>>>>>>

536. Son of Surak – November 17, 2008
Jon (#512) “what’s tactical about cheating and changing the rules? It’s not like he can reprogramme the situation out on the field.”

Well, Starfleet Academy evidently concluded Kirk did not cheat, else he would have been punished for cheating rather than commended for original thinking. This turned out to be an invaluable leadership trait, because Kirk did, in fact, “reprogramme the situation” out on the field, critically, on a number of occasions.

He did it, for example, in “The Corbomite Maneuver,” by devising a brilliant ruse (the imaginary corbomite device) to outsmart the adversary there. He did it in “The Arena” by refusing to play by a rule — kill your opponent — set by the Metrones, thereby saving the Gorn crew and earning the respect of the Metrones.

The genius of Kirk has been that he can balance competing loyalities and values without betraying any of them, usually to the benefit of all of them. It involves discovering a creative solution requiring a justifiable risk, of which his Kobyashi Maru solution was the first (so far as we know).

673. Scuba - November 17, 2008

TRAILER MUSIC INFO:
It seems that the music from the trailer is a mix between two songs.
1) “War Begins” by Brian Tyler from the soundtrack of Children of Dune
2) “Down with the Enterprise” by Two Steps From Hell

When the music kicks in after the car chase, it’s clearly from “Down with the Enterprise”, but as the song continues it begins to sound more like “War Begins” due to the pitch of the notes. The pitch of some of the notes in “War Begins” are slightly higher than those of “Down with the Enterprise” and the trailer appears to contain these higher pitches.

As far as the trailer itself, I’m not about to try to analyze each clip since I don’t feel we have enough definitive info yet. What I can say is that I saw it before Quantum of Solace and, when I left the theater, I was thinking about Star Trek and not Bond.

As far as canon, I love it as much as the next Trekie/Treker/what-have-you. However, I agree with those above who state that Trek has broken canon many times before. Sometimes it’s unavoidable and stands in the way of good storytelling. I trust that J.J. and company will do the best they can to satisfy our canon needs. All-in-all, I can’t wait until March and I’ll be watching this trailer again and again to tide me over.

674. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

668.

Yeah, those Playmates ships were pretty good until the Enterprise_E came out. That ship is one of my favorite starship designs, and they really f***ed it up. I hope they’ve seen what Art Asylum has given us and taken note.

675. The Wild Man of Borneo - November 17, 2008

Man, yeah thank you JJ. Thank you for ruining 40 years + history of star trek. This movie makes no sense. Where is Gary Mitchell?? Where is Kelso? Why is Pike so much older than Kirk? Why isn’t Kirk on Talos IV as a kid? I bet you they overlooked so many things. This is supposed to a be a Trek period piece, right? Why does everything look so different. Isn’t Kirk supposed to a lieutenant on the Farragut before the Enterprise? ANd where where the hell is Robert April??

676. Jon S. - November 17, 2008

Actually, J.J. Abrams’ directing looks pretty solid. There were some creative, effective shots in there, and the lack of Shakycam pleases me.

677. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

Robert April was killed by Kelso under orders from Nero who was using Future Guy’s communication thingy while Gary Mitchell flew a shuttle into a rock on Talos IV.

Take a red pill guys, seriously. We’ll all live longer. Six months to go.

678. The Last Maquis - November 17, 2008

It’s Funny this Star Trek Movie was Made to Appeal to a General Audience, and Not Star Trek Fans, that’s Probably why all the “naysayers.” Good for a Movie, not so good For a Fan.

679. Can't Wait for May 2009 - November 17, 2008

In the trailer for all the Paul McGillion fans out there. You can see him in the hanger has a Starfleet instructor. He is on the left side of the screen. He is alittle small but you can back him out if you look.

680. The Wild Man of Borneo - November 17, 2008

#677

hahahaha, at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if that really happens.

681. Wayne Spitzer - November 17, 2008

I’ve watched the HD trailer more times now than I care to admit, and I’m pretty much in love with it. What they’ve gotten right so far exceeds what they’ve gotten wrong–well, this fan from ’66 is delighted. I never was sure how Trek became synonymous with, you know, the guy in the Spock ears in Shatner ‘s SNL bit; TOS was always a unique combination of Gene’s progressive vision with baser tendencies: the womanizing, the fights, the humor. It’s awesome to see that exuberance again–it’s the one thing this experiment had to get right, and did. And I love these interpretations of the characters already. Bring it on!

682. Chris Basken - November 17, 2008

It’s probably been mentioned, but the gate young Kirk smashes through actually has a sign that says “Open Quarry Ahead”.

683. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

678.

Maybe not for some fans, but this could be good for Star Trek, and I was skeptical two years ago, too.

680.

Uhhh…. really? Bob Orci probably would have thrown up in his mouth if someone had suggested that to him. He’s a Trekkie. He’s proven it on this forum. Let’s give him and the rest of the Trek team a break.

684. Trekwebmaster - November 17, 2008

Well guys, the reason why I am excited, this movie is and has:

a good storyline from what I have gleaned.

reminds me of some of the great comic book stuff which I would have pulled my teeth to have made into a movie.

it makes me feel like a kid again when i see a film that takes me back to when i first saw TOS on tv.

trek being more than the sum of its parts…yes this film does that.

realizing that trek isn’t some moldy antique that sits around in an attic, but instead has been revived and rejuvenated…it makes me feel young.

realizing that there are “roses by another name, and the smell is still as sweet,” called star trek.

I have and will keep an open mind…is that too much to ask?

i will think outside of the box…it’s much less crowded and alot more liberating that way.

I am gonna give this movie a chance…disregard negative perspectives from people who haven’t seen the film…and wait and see it myself.

Why is everyone so negative when they haven’t seen the darn film yet? I don’t understand it.

Trekwebmaster

685. Seven of Four - November 17, 2008

Don’t speak for me, I’m a fan and I’m really excited about this film.

I think we’re getting the terms “fanatic” and “fan” mixed up. Some people here are fanatical (angry, inflexible) and some are simply fans (supportive, excited, hopeful).

My guess is that the fanatics mostly voted for McCain/Palin.

686. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 17, 2008

640-

A thoughtful post, spot on. Though, it’s pretty much wasted here, I’ll admit. But, that’s their decision. Their money. They can waste it any way they want, and they will. You and I have the same right; and believe you me, I’m staying clear. I’m not here to convince them of anything, just offering an opinion. nothing more.

I’m a First Generationer from the glory days. I’ve had my fun and moved on. I’m not interested in any of it anymore, in any form. I’m just here for the back and forth

As for my opinion on the trailer…Zach Quinto’s a good man. Bright future. The rest, forget it.

Good Lord.

687. MaybeThisMovieWontSuck - November 17, 2008

675— Have you seen the movie yet? I know I haven’t.

688. The Wild Man of Borneo - November 17, 2008

#683

If he was really a Trekkie. I mean someone who cared about Star Trek, then he wouldn’t have made a movie that looks like Star Wars. It seems like this team is just making an action flick. It looks like it’s aimed at the Transformers crowd. They are messing around with the Enterprise, the characters, the history, hell…Everything. Those episodes, those 3 seasons of history, those 6 movies. THrown out the window. The history is so screwed up here, it’s bad. And it’s funny how everyone was bad mouthing Berman for “screwing” up Trek history his time traveling plots, and here comes JJ Abrams and his writers screwing up the history more than Berman ever did and giving us another time travel story and you guys praise him.

I’m sorry, I want to like this movie. But this looks like Star Wars Episode 7 and the way they’re pitching it there is no sense of wonder or discovery of the human soul like in TMP or the best episodes of the original series. This looks like an action movie. Nothing more.

689. Chris Basken - November 17, 2008

684: “Why is everyone so negative when they haven’t seen the darn film yet? I don’t understand it.”

Because it’s more secure to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. Those that are condemning this movie before seeing it and basing that condemnation on the minutia of technical details and obscure continuity have enjoyed being the big fish in the small pond of Trek for many years. They see that this new movie is smartly-made, at least from what they can detect from the trailer, and will more likely than not be a huge blockbuster that will usher in a new age of modern Trek.

The pond is about to get a lot bigger.

690. The Wild Man of Borneo - November 17, 2008

#684

Are you kidding me? Look how it’s being pitched. It’s being pitched like a generic action movie. Trust me, if Berman did something like this…messing with canon this bad. Everyone would be getting their pitchforks.

691. EFFeX - November 17, 2008

#689, that’s my assessment as well. Good points.

692. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

Favorite moments from the trailer:

– My name is James Tiberius Kirk! (F*** yeah, it is!)

– Enterprise in (true) drydock. Beautiful, and I had a WTF moment when I first saw that new pic of her.

– Pine looks like Jim Kirk somehow.

– The Vulcans have cool cities.

– Enterprise goes to warp. (drooooool.)

– Kirk and Spock on the bridge. This is Star Trek.

– Kelvin fights, shuttles flee. (My jaw dropped at the beauty, chaos, and sheer scale of that first Kelvin battle shot.)

– The bridge looks much better on screen. I like it, barcode scanners and all.

– Orbital skydiving is old hat for Kirk. (And it looks amazing. We’ve never seen anything like this in Trek before.)

– The Enterprise arrives at Vulcan. (THE Red Alert klaxon, Kirk and Uhura running through those pretty corridors, and Captain Christopher Pike being a badass. Who’d have thought he’d ever get introduced to a general audience?! This is the most Trek-ish part of the trailer, I think. And the bridge scanner under the viewscreen is there, too! Best Viewscreen shot ever.)

– Uhura is hot. ‘Nuff said.

– Enterprise from the front…. still looks like the Enterprise. Imagine that…

– Kirk is truly holding on for dear life.

– Hikaru Sulu, everyone!

– Montage! Music! Ahhhhh, my brain is going to explode!! (In a good way.)

– Is it me, or does the U.S.S. Kelvin already seem like a truly kickass, legendary Starship going out in a blaze of glory?

Damn, I love this trailer.

693. Timmay - November 17, 2008

I just want to know if Kirstie Alley is going to reprise her role as Saavik. Yeaaaah Saavik…yeaaaah.

694. Wayne Spitzer - November 17, 2008

#690

I think you’ve made some great points in your responses to #684–I too was a little horrified at the Star Wars-style treatment at first. I think it’s the two-shot of Spock and a bruised up Kirk, on the bridge, looking at the screen, BOLDLY (kind of rules out Berman right there), that sold me. But I can appreciate your take, as I can everyone’s (well, almost everyone’s) here.

695. Steve H - November 17, 2008

Whoa ! .. all the posts ! .. it’s 667 and I grew tired at 99 …. !

In the HD clips at apple… the HD 480p of Trailer # ! still says, “Christmas 2008″ , for what it’s worth …

A new Trek movie and trailer is NEW ! .. it’s extending the franchise ! I always envied “Dr. Who” for extending itself with different actors. I’m glad the ST Universe finally did this with TNG, DS9, Voy, and Enterprise. All the series had some real gems and some real wasted air time.

Action and adventure gets my attention. I hope it’s fun !

I hear that McCoy and Scotty come off well. Sulu looks good too, and Uhura. I’m hoping for some Triad fun, Kirk, Spock & McCoy [ I really liked DeForest Kelly as well as Nimoy ]

If you could suport ST III, V (!), and the 1st and 3rd TNG movies … you should be able to give this one a fair chance.

I’m hopin’ for the best !

“Buckle Up” ! ;-)

696. Jonny Boy - November 17, 2008

Let’s also not forget that it wouldn’t be the first time Trek has aimed for a more Star wars-style of action. That opening battle in FC is one of the most badass moments in Trek and Berman and others admitted they looked to Star Wars for inspiration.

688.

I give up. I’m not going to try to change your mind (because there’s nothing wrong with the one you have. Hehehe, Spock joke. Ahem, sorry.)

I’m sorry that the next year or so will be terrible for you. Fortunately, There’s always the Trek that once was. As for myself, I’ll be adding this Blu Ray to the collection to stand alongside its (soon-to-be) bretheren when they are all released next year. Still, I hope you will at least try to go to the theater with an open mind if only to enjoy two new hours with old (but also new) friends. Live long and prosper.

697. The Wild Man of Borneo - November 17, 2008

conversation and discussion! You guys are great!

Live Long and Prosper!

698. Kerr Avon - November 17, 2008

THIS IS JJ ABRAMS’ DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE SEE IN THE TRAILER:

We open on the young Kirk (Jimmy Bennett) hurtling down a desert highway in a stolen car. There’s nothing overtly Star Trek or even overtly science fiction and that, says Abrams, was kind of the point. “I felt that it would begin the movie in a way that felt unexpected and sort of grounded.”

“There are a couple of sequences that take place in Iowa and some in San Francisco and it was just important that the movie feel connected to familiar terrain before it became about things that you more might expect.”

“The scenes on Earth were important to feel a sense of future but also a real sense of now as well. Star Wars is a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away but Star Trek is our future, so it’s important that we not feel disconnected from that.”

“The idea with the trailer was to start with something unexpected and Earth-bound and then thrust you into the world of Trek.” Cue Kirk’s pursuer – a decidedly futuristic-looking traffic cop. The youngster identifies himself as James Tiberius Kirk.

Chris Pine as Kirk, gazing up at the USS Enterprise, at this point still under construction. The voiceover (Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike) speaks of misspent youth and squandered potential. “Kirk, at this point, is all potential and he’s rather aimless. He’s a good guy but he does some foolish things, mostly because he doesn’t quite know how to use his power and what to do.”

“The night you meet him in the movie is the scene in the bar. That’s pretty much a typical night for him. The woman he’s trying to pick up, in this case Uhura, just happens to be the one who’s there that night. It’s not that he isn’t capable or smart but he’s directionless and part of his story in this movie is becoming the man that we all expect to see. ”

Vulcan, where we catch our first glimpse of the young Spock (Jacob Kogan).

Spock’s parents. His human mother Amanda Grayson (Winona Ryer) and his Vulcan father Sarek (Ben Cross).

Zachary Quinto as Spock – the swirly lights replace the classic speckling effect as Abrams’ interpretation of the transporter beam.

Spock aids in the evacuation of Vulcan after Nero drops a “red matter” bomb into the planet’s core, which builds a “singularity” (a black hole) inside the planet.

Eric Bana as Nero: the rogue Romulan at the heart of the film. “What was interesting to me was that this wasn’t about the Klingons. It was fun to use the Romulans the way we did. The fact that they hadn’t seen them for so many years, that it so immediately breaks – for anyone who knows – the rules of Trek. We start the movie with Romulans crossing paths with Starfleet and jump right in breaking the rules, which I think is kind of fun. It felt like we had seen so many iterations of Klingons done that this was a way to do something in the familiar vernacular but not so familiar that it felt overdone.”

“The TV series always presumed this friendship between Kirk and Spock. What I love about what this movie does is that it shows they didn’t start out fast friends; they actually had a very rocky beginning and a lot of conflict. How they come to be the Kirk and Spock that we know is very dramatic and rife with tension.”

Kirk, Spock and the hitherto unheard-of Engineer Olsen freefall towards the drilling platform that is burrowing into Vulcan’s surface. Olsen, you won’t be surprised to hear, is the one in red. “Only people who know the show will laugh at this. It’s Sulu and Kirk… and redshirt guy who’s gonna die. Yes, Engineer Olsen dies.”

“This is a very funny scene where Kirk is in Uhura’s room, watching her undress, and she very quickly realises he’s there.”

“I should say that, in fairness and with enormous disappointment for the fanboys, Chris is in his underwear as well.”

Simon Pegg as Scotty. “Simon’s married to a Scot so he’s had a lot of practice with the accent. He is comic relief, but not in that way that Ricky Gervais is in the sitcom in Extras – like the worst version of comic release. You can have a laugh but it’s not one of those things that will make you cringe. He was able to bring all the comedy but not at the cost of what feels real.”

Hikara Sulu (John Cho) lays into Romulan soldiers with his extendable pocket katana. Cho’s Sulu, it has to be said, is an absolute badass.

The drilling beam, burrowing into the surface of Vulcan. A nice view but not one that Kirk has time to enjoy.

Nero in rags being manhandled by Klingon guards (yes, they’re Klingons under the masks). “Part of Nero’s back story is that he was being held in a Klingon prison, so that’s what you’re seeing here.”

Karl Urban as Bones: “Dear God, man!”

“This isn’t one of Spock’s seven year pon farr situations. It’s not that Vulcans don’t feel emotions but that it’s their choice to suppress them: to purge emotion and choose the Vulcan way. That’s really part of what Spock’s conflict is: being half human, an anomaly. That’s one of his struggles and he does become unhinged in this movie.”

“Zoe Saldana is undeniably a pleasure to behold.”

Nero’s shadowy vessel. We know from the preview footage that it manages to take down 47 Klingon Warbirds single-handedly.

You know you’re back in Original Series territory when Kirk is having his way with the ladies. “You have to, don’t you? Though there’s a lot of urgency to the movie and not a lot of downtime with the ladies, Kirk is presented in this movie, as you saw in the bar scene, as someone who is rather, um… myopic.”

The USS Kelvin, the ship upon which Kirk’s parents serve. It (and they) meet a sticky end at the beginning of the film at the hands of Nero.

The iconic logo and the sound of the transporter in the background. We refer, of course, to the transporter beam; Jason Statham is not in this picture. “I think that what this movie’s bringing is a remarkable new and energetic young cast and a treatment of the world of Star Trek that I think is as intimate as the story is massive in scope. This is a treatment of Star Trek with action and comedy and romance and adventure, as opposed to a rather talky geekfest.”

699. Devon - November 18, 2008

#640 – “I think film makers and TV producers are starting to lose sight of Roddenberry’s vision of the future. It’s not about cool looking space ships and huge explosions.”

Apparently you’ve never seen any other trailer for any other Star Trek movie?

“It’s about people and the situations they face”

Looks like we’re getting that.

BTW, I respect Gene for what he did, and with all due respect to Gene or anyone else here, but if I hear anymore declare what “Gene Roddenberry’s Vision” was I’m going to blow.

“They took Nemesis, added the screw-ups of ENT, threw in lots of Star Wars, tossed in some Galaxy Quest, and then made Abrams the director. And then someone beat it with a hammer until it was nice and powdered, added some water, and tried to use a Japanese method to make polished crap.”

It’s awfully funny. You declare that “Star Trek” isn’t about the visuals yet that’s solely what that basis for your critque is regarding this movie. Amazing. You don’t even care what the story is or if it “stays true to Roddenberry’s vision” or whatever? Brilliant.

700. Son of Surak - November 18, 2008

OCD-1701 (#646) says: “That’s a pretty bold statement about film you haven’t seen yet, and even making it personal. Please see your earlier comment about “shaky self-esteem”. Sounds like you want Trek created in your own image.”

****
Excuse me, OCD — who’s making it personal? Did I touch a nerve with the “just-stating-to-shave” jibe? Sorry about that.

But the fact is, we’ve all just seen two minutes of the film, two minutes that have been carefully selected to provide clues as to who the film is supposed to be about and what the film is supposed to be like. Part of it obviously deals with the coming-of -age of James T. Kirk. And for reasons I describe above, there is cause for skepticism. Chris Pine in a Fonzie outfit doesn’t look promising; Kirk became the youngest starship captain ever — he couldn’t have gotten there by being a punk.

And by the way, Kirk never abandoned his son (the dialogue in TWOK indicates Kirk didn’t even know he had one until he met him). And the Kobyashi Maru solution earned him a commendation, not expulsion. And Kirk commandeered a starship only to literally save the soul of his best friend and invaluable Starfleet asset (remember –no saving Spock with that ship would have meant no Spock to defeat Nero next May).

So if you think Kirk ever disobeyed a major order for anything that the alumni of Iowa Boy’s State would be seriously disappointed in him for, let’s here it OCD. Otherwise, maybe you should go back to watching your Hannah Montana, because your interpretive sense seems to be more on that level. It’s okay, though. When you grow older, things will be different.

701. Son of Surak - November 18, 2008

(#672) James Tiberius “my cabin in the Nexus hasn’t depreciated” Kirk – November 17, 2008
“Son of Surak:
Please stop driving by my house in the middle of the night, and dressing like me. I’ve seen ‘Single White Female’ and quite frankly, you’re scaring me. I’m even more scared that you have a James T. Kirk shrine in your basement. I know that that you think that I can do no wrong and that I may have a scholarly background, but hell, even George W. Bush went to Yale! Sheesh, one of my equestrian buddies, Jean Luc Picard even stirred-up some trouble in his academy days…”

*****

Hey, that’s cute, 672. When I was fifteen, I’d have gotten a big kick out of that. There’s always room for fun stuff in the midst of adult discussion, isn’t there?
Trek on. Chop chop!
Son of Surak

702. Devon - November 18, 2008

#675 – And I respond with several “Who cares?” And Robert April is a non-entity that even an smaller number of people care about.

703. Devon - November 18, 2008

#674 – I will admit the Enterprise-E was the worst of the batch. But keeping mind it’s a mass producing toy company i wouldn’t count on too much in the way of “Art Asylum” type quality.

704. Phaser...where are youuu? - November 18, 2008

Ah, nothing like an errant roll of gaffer’s tape to ruin a perfectly good trailer… ;-)

705. Devon - November 18, 2008

#686 – Since it’s supposedly “spot on” then you won’t care to elaborate for us? Would you mind telling us in great detail what the story is and what is wrong with it? Or does your NDA prevent you from doing that?

706. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 698

Heya, where did you find that? Is there any more? Sounds interesting.

707. Anthony Pascale - November 18, 2008

698 is just an amalgam of stuff from JJ’s road trip, all of which has been reported on here and linked…don’t you guys read the articles or do you just skip to the comments?

708. Scott Xavier - November 18, 2008

How can this be the construction of the enterprise? Maybe just a retro refitting?

709. Jonny Boy - November 18, 2008

703.

I know, But one hopes!

710. Jonny Boy - November 18, 2008

Just noticed that the Starfleet Command emblem is next to the Federation logo in that shipyard shot with Kirk. Awesome.

711. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[594] Thats nice, but in germany Bones is called Pille… they did this since TOS, I wonder of they keep it up… maybe the movie will even explain how McCoy got his nickname.

German dubbing is ususally so complete that jokes and puns get translated into totally different contexts, so the german moviegoers can “get it”…

712. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

Re: 706 – It is on the Empire news site that another poster linked to earlier in this board. I just copied and pasted it for you, as Empire had annoyingly linked it over multiple web pages that I had to click through. I just made it more convenient for you to read!

713. Pinky - November 18, 2008

#698 — “This is a treatment of Star Trek with action and comedy and romance and adventure, as opposed to a rather talky geekfest”

If this really is Abrams’ quote… ooh, I’d must tell him to be careful. A lot of people are fans of Star Trek because of the talking, because it takes things beyond simplistic ship-goes-bang mentality. Personally, I always thought Star Trek survived for all these years because it was talking about things and not just zooming around. Star Trek without discussion and intelligent issues is not star trek at all…. And I sort of take offense to the show I love being called a “rather talky geekfest”. That sounds like JJ is being rude about exactly what star trek is.

714. Son of Surak - November 18, 2008

Anthony Brooks Fellows (#646) wrote: “for my opinion on the trailer…Zach Quinto’s a good man. Bright future. The rest, forget it.”

I think Quinto might have been fine working on his own, but he had the good fortune of having to collaborate with Nimoy here. With Nimoy’s Spock in the picture – literally – Quinto was tethered to Nimoy’s interpretation of the character.

As for the others, Urban delivered McCoy’s line in the trailer in a way that makes me highly optimistic that he might have captured the essence of Bones. And the brief shot of Pegg left me with a visceral reaction that Scotty is alive and well. As for Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov, who knows? Kirk seems to be the weak link — whether it’s the script or the actor or both, or (I’m hoping) an unreprentative sample of Kirk onscreen, I’m not sure. But this Kirk is not a character I recognize.

The postulations about an alternative timeline are intriguing — if what we’ll see in this film turns out to be part of an alternative timeline, the timeline’s “restoration” might allow the creative team a chance to respond to any negative audience feedback when developing Trek XII. We’ll see.

715. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 712
Thanks!

@ 713
I think, by “talky” Abrams is referring to the technobabble, which tends to occupy a lot of space in Trek script. It’s that whole business of “show, not tell.”

@ 707
I actually didn’t get to read that article, but maybe I will, later. Thanks!

716. Yammer - November 18, 2008

This trailer rocks.

At the same time, and for the first time, I can appreciate what the haters detest about this movie.

It is fear, pure fear. The loss of our established mental images, with the unsavoury prospect of sudden replacement by different — and therefore threatening — new faces and environments.

And yet… it is completely Trek. Not ONLY by definition but by love and respect. You have to dig the gooseneck viewers on the bridge, the miniskirts — miniskirts! – the overall beefiness of the Enterprise (built to enter orbit — fascinating) yet with configuration to its overall line…

Great stuff.

717. Pinky - November 18, 2008

@715 about 713

I understand and I hope you’re right that he just means reducing the technobabble. However, in Star Trek, the beauty of the science was that it meant real things, it wasn’t just people talking gibberish. It actually means something. Something scientifically plausible. Without the babble, I think we might end up with something like Fringe … where people are talking but none of the science they spout is thought about beyond those two lines of the script. Years and years have built up that technobabble … because it actually means something.

718. boborci - November 18, 2008

664

LOL!

719. Jackson Roykirk - November 18, 2008

> Oh and the car looks like a ‘65 Stingray to me. I wonder what metaphor
> that is supposed to be?

Well, several things come to mind:

1. The Kirk driving a vintage ’60s Vette off the cliff is a metaphor for J.J. and company throwing out the old and starting fresh. Pretty obvious.

2. The Vette connects us to The Kirk and his era. We only saw cars in TOS when the TOS crew went back in time. And the whole point was to put distance between us and them by making us look comically primitive. It was as if they were visiting a backward alien culture. Instead, J.J. moves us viewers forward in time. He juxtaposes an automotive icon we can all instantly recognize against RoboCop on his hoverbike. The Kirk doesn’t just drive a few miles. He literally zooms forward from the 20th to the 23rd centuries in that scene. Same Earth, same dirt road. Different century, different technology.

3. Having said all that, the RoboCop scene just feels like it was written specifically to be the first scene of a trailer. It is, literally, way over the top. It starts out looking like “Gone in 60 Seconds 3″ but soon the hoverbike and RoboCop clue us in to the SciFi nature of the film. Then The Kirk speaks his name and we know it’s Trek. I’m just glad the trailer doesn’t start with “In a world…”

So yeah, it’s possible to read too much into it. Especially since (probably) none of us fans have seen the complete scene yet. But I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Orci and Kurtzman really did write that scene specifically for the first few seconds of the first teaser trailer. Along with Nero’s “The wait is over” closeup for the end of the first teaser trailer. It’s as though Nero’s real meaning is “The Trek Franchise isn’t dead just yet…”

p.s. I think those huge structures in the background of the chase scene might be giant grain elevators and/or silos. Farming should be nearly 100% automated 200 years from now, and done on an even more massive scale for efficiency. Just a wild guess.

720. cagmar - November 18, 2008

For crying out loud! The new Star Trek: Official Movie Site is a buggy, slow, disruptively flashy mess. None of those Apple trailers run properly, not even the itsy-bitsy tiniest ones. Mercy.

I can’t imagine how poor Chekov must feel on that bridge!!

721. Paul - November 18, 2008

@ 718

Bob please can you clear something up for me. I could not see Leonard Nimoy in the trailer at all is he in the trailer or not?

If yes where please!!!

If no is that because his scenes are of a spoiler nature so you cannot show us him yet. I & many other ST fans would love to see a picture of him in this movie.

Thank You.

722. Jackson Roykirk - November 18, 2008

Oh, and one more thing…

If your kid were as out of control as The Kirk? Send him to military school, er, Starfleet Academy. He needs discipline. The local cops and all your neighbors with daughters will thank you…

723. devon Richards - November 18, 2008

One thing about the Earth-bound construction that makes a great deal of sense is the fact that the interior gravity plating would not be installed for a considerably long time into the project.
Were the majority of the construction conducted in space, the literally billions of tiny components that have yet to be installed would be floating everywhere. Not all materials respond to magnetism, and small pieces of cut cabling, or flashing, would float around and eventually got clogged in the instruments as soon as the gravity plating in engaged.
Imagine building a warp engine outside a gravity well, and then subjecting it to 1G for the first time – The alignments would be ruined, and the materials would be forever subjected to damaging stresses.
Just my thoughts on that.
If I may continue, I’d like to postulate that the “Vulcan crisis” actually takes place some time before Kirk is even promoted to Lieutenant. Imagine this story is “Wrath of Khan” but it takes place on Pike’s ship, and Kirk and company are the cadets dealing with their first mission/crisis. Spock and Scotty are the only ones of officer rank, and we’ve seen Scotty got sent to a “Radar station in Nome, Alaska” for killing a superior’s pet with the transporter. So – Pike and Spock are the only “official” crew members and the rest are aboard due to the emergency.
But, this emergency takes place loooong before Kirk becomes a captain. While he may be on the fast-track in the officer training program at the Academy, he is still a trainee, and this could explain why Elder Spock encourages him to wrestle (literally) command from his younger self.
I would hate to think that they would skip all of Kirk’s history, all the rich and dour stories of his life as a young officer, just to see him promoted in the film.
Then again, you command the Federation Starship that saves the entire planet Vulcan, what do you think the Vulcan High council will lobby for?
You save one of the founding planets of the Federation, they aren’t going to give you a cookie.

724. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

What’s with the comparisons to Galaxy Quest? Surely just hyperbole, right? GQ was about the CAST of a TV show that gets involved in an actual Sci-Fi scenario because aliens have been watching the show. It was funny, yes. This is not a movie the cast of a TV show, it’s about Kirk and Spock.

And the ships? No resemblance. So, those of you comparing this to GQ, I have to say, you’re just making yourselves look ignorant.

725. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#717 “However, in Star Trek, the beauty of the science was that it meant real things, it wasn’t just people talking gibberish”

There was a time when I loved technobabble. But I realize that TOS was never about it. It was a typical TNG flavour and, in my opinion, they gone too far. Warp coils are ok, but phased-quantum-subspace-tachyon-particles are… well… gibberish (in my opinion).
Take Generations: it’s weird hearing this kind of babble from Scotty. He never talked that way in TOS.

726. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

720 Jackson Roykirk – “But I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Orci and Kurtzman really did write that scene specifically for the first few seconds of the first teaser trailer.”

My thoughts exactly. I think there’s a good chance that scene won’t even be in the movie. It’s so self-contained, it does look like it was done specifically as a trailer.

727. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

And now on to those of you who compare this to the Star Wars prequels. Alright, so some battle scenes are reminiscent of the (amazing) opening sequence of Revenge of the Sith. But the ship design is totally different. And the great satisfaction for SW fans of the opening sequence of Revenge of the Sith was precisely that we’d never seen capital ships in close-quarters ship-to-ship melees (usually SW is about fighters against capital ships). So, if anything, the opening sequence of Revenge of the Sith was more of SW indulging in a little of the kicks normally reserved for ST episodes (when they can afford to show capital ships on capital ships in full glory and not just with interior shots of bridge stations blowing up).

728. PJ Shepherd - November 18, 2008

Re: #338 At 1:40 are we in the Mirror Mirror universe where the insignias are on the wrong side?

I think it’s an inside joke showing they’ve watched a lot of TOS: in reruns, they’d accidentally flip a few frames and the insignias and hair parts would be mirrored…

The movie looks like it’s going to ROCK – the Enterprise is SCREAMING fast, my only quibble is the overly well-lit bridge – desk lamps at the helm and navigation stations?! The bridge lighting pendulum has swung to the opposite side of ST-TMP when they boldly went into space (and V’ger)…. in the dark!

729. Databrain - November 18, 2008

What’s with the people in the baseball caps standing in front of the cadets? I thought no one wore baseball caps in the 23rd century. Oh, that must be to pull in the baseball cap cult, so again, they can appeal to ‘wider audiences’. Bleh

730. sharpied79 - November 18, 2008

Is it wrong of me to admit I got slightly aroused watching this trailer? Maybe I am far too obsessed with Star Trek and really should go and get a girlfriend? Nah, bolloks to that, the trailer rocked… By the time next May comes I will be seriously damp in the pants at the thought of seeing this movie…

Long live The Trek! Hurrah!

731. Pinky - November 18, 2008

@725… perfect example! I mean “phased quantum subspace tachyon particles” sounds like gibberish and probably means very little to the average Joe. But, I re-iterate : it actually means something in science.

That’s all I’m saying. And yes, TNG did a wonderful job of making all of its science real. Part of anything being real (as JJ et al. so want this film to be) is having it grounded in real science.

732. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

Batman, James Bond, Star Wars Ep 1 – 3….
That was all a little bit flat, not very profound. Too much action, too many visual effects, too many cliches. Not enough depth or morale.
This trailer feels very much the same…
I have a feeling the movie is going to be one hundred percent commercial. Folks are going to love it. I think, I won’t.
TOS was pretty much commercial itself. So I’m not sure why I ever fell in love with it and still love it so much. There was something very different about TOS and its cast.
I’m not sure I will find this special something in this new movie.
Yes, I do admit, my heart beats faster at all these Trekkie cliches. I admit, Kirk is hot. The design is fabulous, Spock comes off super-fantastic.

Yet, there is something missing…

Yes, I am going to watch this movie but with the sinking feeling that the magic of TOS will remain untouched. Very well, maybe it’s better that way.

733. boborci - November 18, 2008

721. Paul – November 18, 2008

Nimoy is not in this trailer. When he finally appears in one…

YOU WILL KNOW

734. boborci - November 18, 2008

726. 4 8 15 16 23 42 – November 18, 2008

In the movie, too…

735. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 725
Regarding Scotty in ‘Generations’. Now that you mention it, I do remember Scotty explaining the benefits of a resonance burst from the main deflector dish… or something… with some hesitation.

There was this fellow who wrote a neat formula for creating Trek tech terms. I believe it was published in “The Nitpicker’s Guide to TNG Volume II”. I tried it out and was amused to discover it really worked. :D

736. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#732

Sci-fi in the 60-70s was slow paced and reflective. I love that way of making movies, but in 2000 things are different. You can still tell a good story, but dynamism and energy blasts are essential to appeal a significant audience. You can break these rules but you have to accept living as a niche show. Or don’t live at all.

737. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ Pinky

I wonder how Trek tech talk would sound if Arthur C. Clarke had written it? :3

738. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

734 — Okay, thanks for the clarification. Now I will tuck my tail between my legs and subject myself to the agony booth… ;-)

739. allister gourlay - November 18, 2008

Well im 50 next january and have been a trek fan since i was a sproglet – i think it looks amazing and I got that trek buzz again – ive not had since seeing the trailer for TWOK!

740. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#725 “Regarding Scotty in ‘Generations’. Now that you mention it, I do remember Scotty explaining the benefits of a resonance burst from the main deflector dish… or something… with some hesitation.”

Eh eh, that’s what I mean. Some friends of mine looked at me asking: “oh, come on, what the hell is he saying?” I had to explain them that modern Trek was full of that… babble… and I feel a real geek :)
Plus, Generations was rubbish (imo) and Trek lost my friends as potential fans.

741. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@736
That’s exactly why I hardly go to the movies any more.
I’m fairly young. But I’m not part of this fast-paced generation. I like to ponder, think, reflect on a movie. I guess I’m a young dinosaur. Part of a dying race.

Sorry JJ. I don’t love it. I really tried but I’m just not falling in love with it.

742. Devon - November 18, 2008

Just me again. Wanted to echo the question regarding “Spyglass Entertainment” instead of Level 1. Just curious is all.

743. voyager - November 18, 2008

Databrain, you’ll never be happy with this movie will you?

I just have to ask, why are you still posting here?

744. Databrain - November 18, 2008

713
Personally, I always thought Star Trek survived for all these years because it was talking about things and not just zooming around. Star Trek without discussion and intelligent issues is not star trek at all…. And I sort of take offense to the show I love being called a “rather talky geekfest”. That sounds like JJ is being rude about exactly what star trek is.’

Exactly. And all these people here spouting about how much they hate genes original vision are not and never were fans of star trek, but fans of JJ abrams. They aren’t excited about ‘more trek’ being released, they are excited about another JJ abrams flick coming out. That is why they perpetually insult star treks original and only valid treatment in the original series and the next generation era.

My argument against this mentality is not that it is ‘against something new’. it is that it is against something that extracts the very essence of star trek from itself. It’s talkative, philosophical nature, which is what distinguished it from starwars and any other action-sci fi drivel on the market. It’s like saying let’s talk about quantum mechanics by delving into how to make pumpkin pie. It’s a ridiculous, pathetic non-trek solution to bringing trek to the consciousness of ‘the masses’.

You’re not bringing trek to them! You’re bringing some action-sci fi drivel that has no relationship, philosophically or otherwise to treks original purpose on this planet. And the purpose it served in peoples minds and hearts. Such films will be forgotten as generic sci fi action. And as evidence look at the remake of planet of the apes. Virtually no one cares about it anymore. No one cared about it but for the few seconds it was on everyones mind when it was first released. Star Trek is better than that, always has been.

745. boborci - November 18, 2008

739. allister gourlay – November 18, 2008

no greater compliment

746. boborci - November 18, 2008

741. ScottyGirl – November 18, 2008

don’t worry… you will like find pace gives you ample time to ponder…

747. Pinky - November 18, 2008

#740 Well, technobabble is part of science fiction. So, you don’t like science fiction, go watch fantasy…. with its magical light-swords and telekinetic mind games— but don’t call it telekinetic. No, it’s “force pull”. You say telekinetic you might lose someone. :P

748. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 736, 741

That’s a good observation, but I think it applies to movies from the 40’s to, what, the 80’s? The cinematography tended to linger, and that technique did force you to look at the actors and try to make sense of what they were saying. It’s like, you were actually there, face to face with the character. It’s as if filmmakers relied largely on the principal angle, and on very rare occasions intercut to other angles. But these days every line of dialogue requires an angle of its own! That’s not to say it’s bad– it’s just different.

749. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

736 / 741 — I like both. I love Forbidden Planet, TMP, & 2001 as well as Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and Tarkovsy’s Solaris & Stalker (can’t get much slower and more cerebral than those), but I also appreciate the fast cuts and pacing of modern American fare. I don’t think there has to be a huge chasm between the two styles either. I am not allowing this trailer to cast doubt on the possibility that certain key scenes in the new movie will be measured and deliberate, while the action scenes will be scintillatingly chaotic and breathtakingly furious.

750. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Sci-fi in the 60-70s was slow paced and reflective. I love that way of making movies, but in 2000 things are different. You can still tell a good story, but dynamism and energy blasts are essential to appeal a significant audience. You can break these rules but you have to accept living as a niche show. Or don’t live at all.’

Star Trek always lived as a niche program, and survived rather well by expanding its niche audience during the next generation years. Turning Star Trek into everything else is a formula for sealing its doom. Because I don’t see forums on the internet discussing, in great detail, the dynamics and philosophy of ‘die hard’ or ‘buck rogers’ even.

That might be what the writers were attempting to accomplish from the get go of this project. To finally kill trek once and for all. Who knows. All I knows is what made trek memorable will be gone, and what made everything else forgetful, will make this film just as forgotten.

Yes, action films generate revenue, whoopy. Yes they make more in their opening weekend than thought provoking films. WOW! But notice how, in the months and years following their release these films become more and more like shadows in the minds of the many, until they are at last almost completely forgotten. No matter the namesake, as mentioned with the planet of the apes remake that no one cared about past its first week of release.

751. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

Questions for Bob Orci:

Bob, I raised some questions for you in a post in another discussion thread on this site yesterday but I think I just missed you… To cut to the essence of my questions in that previous post:

1. Will the film have some of the philosophical core or will it be more of an action film?

2. I would find a film with a military emphasis extremely distasteful. How is Starfleet defined in this film? I hope there is not a military emphasis. Is space exploration emphasised or is it all about hunting down Nero and his cronies?

3. I have heard a lot of talk about the characterisation of Kirk in this film but what about Nero? Does he have a strong backstory?

Many thanks.

752. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#747 “So, you don’t like science fiction, go watch fantasy”

On the contrary. I like sci-fi, and the “hard” kind :)
I am criticizing technobabble when it alienate fans.

753. voyager - November 18, 2008

I am finding it very hard to even take what you’re saying seriously, Databrain. You find it impossible to listen to what others are saying, and you constantly spew the same thing about Abrahms wanting to kill Star Trek. If that’s true, then WHY DO THE REST OF US LIKE IT?

754. voyager - November 18, 2008

Oh wait, I forgot, we’re not true fans and we hate roddenberry’s vision.

right.

755. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

Re: 749. You have very similar tastes to me. I ADORE Solaris and Stalker, in particular, as well as 2001, Day the Earth Stood Still, and TMP.

I am not a fan of rapid-edit films, though. I love majestic, slow takes that allow you to ponder… I hope this film has at least some scenes like that and is not just rapid-fire action shots….

756. SPOCKBOY - November 18, 2008

Looks like history is repeating itself.
Here’s what Kirk really looks like in a sports car ; )

http://tinyurl.com/6568yh

: )

757. Hallbjorn - November 18, 2008

I’m just blown away by this trailer and I’m looking forward to it !!!! Why can’t May 2009 be today’s month ????’

758. Kev - November 18, 2008

On the official website if you select Story and click on the icon incoming data you can dowload a wallpaper of Uhura. Not sure if this is what you meant by easter egg

759. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘On the contrary. I like sci-fi, and the “hard” kind :)
I am criticizing technobabble when it alienate fans.’

It didn’t alienate fans, it brought them in. The next generation, which is arguably the most tech-babble oriented of all the series, generated more viewership than any trek, prior to or since. Explaining that as alienating the fans is like saying if you like starwars, give the light saber duels a rest. What the next generation succeeded in doing was expanding the niche market. That is the best trek could ever do. It cannot ever appeal to masses beyond its niche, unless either it becomes something it’s not, or something happens in the world to expand everyones consciousness to what trek is about.

760. voyager - November 18, 2008

757: Man you’re telling me.

Abrahms is it done yet? Let’s just do christmas like we originally planned. We won’t mind if you speed it up a little bit…unless you still have some nice things to show us before the movie is released.

761. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#750 “Star Trek always lived as a niche program, and survived rather well by expanding its niche audience during the next generation years. […] I don’t see forums on the internet discussing, in great detail, the dynamics and philosophy of ‘die hard’ or ‘buck rogers’ even.”

Databrain, I understand your point of view. I am sort of a dinosaur when it comes to sci-fi, so I love 2001, THX, Planet of the Apes, Forbidden Planet (proto-StarTrek) and so on. But, you know, call me naive but I think that a good, captivating story will always be good and captivating, with or without sfx, with or without dynamism.
Batman and The Dark Knight are modern movies filled with thrill and action, but I think that they will be remembered.

762. voyager - November 18, 2008

“unless either it becomes something it’s not,”

oh, enlightened one, please tell us all…what IS Star Trek about?

763. Databrain - November 18, 2008

I am finding it very hard to even take what you’re saying seriously, Databrain. You find it impossible to listen to what others are saying, and you constantly spew the same thing about Abrahms wanting to kill Star Trek. If that’s true, then WHY DO THE REST OF US LIKE IT?’

The rest of who? obviously I am not the only one here arguing against the blatant dumbing down of something I love. There are obviously several others. Perhaps you pinpointing me is just a sign that I am stating the most vivid, thus annoying argument.

764. boborci - November 18, 2008

751. Kerr Avon – November 18, 2008

!. Yes. I would say the contains at least 3 philosophical cores which I can’t wait to discuss mid may. We knew Trek HAD TO TRY for thoughtful territory. However, it is also action packed.

2. There is no more military emphasis in our Trek than in any other, and probably less than in some (including WOK).

3. I would argue — ABSOLUTELY.

Vague answers indeed, but at least I’m going on record as acknowledging that we value those things you seek in Trek,

You will be the final judge.

765. Databrain - November 18, 2008

oh, enlightened one, please tell us all…what IS Star Trek about?’

Just admit that you were never a fan of genes vision, THUS never a fan of trek. Just admit you are here to support JJ not trek. And most especially not true trek.

766. voyager - November 18, 2008

“Perhaps you pinpointing me is just a sign that I am stating the most vivid, thus annoying argument.”

Please, keep telling yourself that…

767. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 759
Hi. Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying the tech-talk made TNG a success?

768. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[720] Good Thinking about the Stingray, Jackson. I thought Nero said the line “the wait is over” to his followers, because he is still in his prison fatigues when he utters it…

769. Ken - November 18, 2008

Wow! This movie is going to be something special. The opening sequence works on two levels. If you’re a regular movie goer, it looks like some typical action flick, and then you are shocked that it is Star Trek. If you know it’s the Star Trek trailer, you are intrigued because it looks like a typical action flick.

Also, nice use of the “War Begins” track from Brian Tyler’s Children of Dune soundtrack.

770. thorsten - November 18, 2008

Bob, is there a meeting of the two Spocks before or after Spock Prime asks Jim Kirk to keep quiet about their encounter?

Thanks for the great work!

771. voyager - November 18, 2008

“Just admit that you were never a fan of genes vision, THUS never a fan of trek. Just admit you are here to support JJ not trek. And most especially not true trek.”

You have no idea how wrong you are. The fact that I can accept that this is a Star Trek movie and like it because it deals with the ideals that Gene Roddenberry created when he first made Star Trek makes me more of a Star Trek fan and a fan of his vision than you ever can be.

On that note though, I’m not going to deal with you anymore, it seems as though your only purpose here is to bring us down, KHAN, but you see, even in the cold of space, the darkness always is defeated by the light. You, my friend, are the darkness, and I will not let you ruin the joy inside of me as I anticipate what might be the best Star Trek movie that has ever been made. And the fact that I can give it a chance — that’s plenty enough for me to be able to prevail over you.

Sorry everyone else is that sounded kinda weird, I was just getting all carried away and philisophical and stuff…

772. Andy S - November 18, 2008

Is there another trailer planned for the near future?

773. voyager - November 18, 2008

770…to be honest I don’t think he’s allowed to give out any of the plot details in themselves without being incredibly vague, so questions like that are just a waste of time here. It is a good question though, but I think you might have to wait until May to find out.

774. Databrain - November 18, 2008

Databrain, I understand your point of view. I am sort of a dinosaur when it comes to sci-fi, so I love 2001, THX, Planet of the Apes, Forbidden Planet (proto-StarTrek) and so on.’

I don’t know, if by ‘dinosaur’ you’re saying you’re old enough to be my dad, than that might be true. What I find insulting though is the notion that all people of my generation are too dumb to get what trek was originally about. The philosophy and the moral stories and the techno-babble. Thus they have to dumb it down for us. That I will see chris pike having sex and immediately this will activate my testosterone and make me want to see the film, and to thus spread the word to my friends.

What’s further insulting is the thought that, if this film is just action-sci fi drivel, it will start a new craze, a new trek phenomenon that will be anything like the geek factor of the mid-90s. If this film is action-sci fi drivel what will happen is it will generate enough to break even and perhaps a little more, then in the weeks and months following this, it will be thusly forgotten as any other non thought provoking film has been. Stop insulting the younger generation!

People who would be drawn to trek would be drawn to it regardless of their age. It’s just how life is. Some people like red wine, some people have no taste for it. Just let those who would like it like it, and those who would not, not. Stop trying to make everyone like it, because in doing so you will make no one like it.

775. Andy S - November 18, 2008

When will we see Nimoy?

776. Databrain - November 18, 2008

or at least remember it..

777. boborci - November 18, 2008

770. thorsten – November 18, 2008

Probably shouldn’t answer that, but since it’s late…

After…

778. voyager - November 18, 2008

775: He’s in an upcoming trailer according to Bob.

779. boborci - November 18, 2008

775. Andy S – November 18, 2008

The next trailer will probably give you a glimpse of Nimoy.

780. thorsten - November 18, 2008

Thanks, Bob, fits great in my theory. Hope JJ saved you some of that marzipan ;))

781. voyager - November 18, 2008

Oh bob I love that answer!

782. Chris Pike - November 18, 2008

764. boborci – November 18, 2008
751. Kerr Avon – November 18, 2008

!. Yes. I would say the contains at least 3 philosophical cores which I can’t wait to discuss mid may. We knew Trek HAD TO TRY for thoughtful territory. However, it is also action packed.

I LIKE that comment, I’m excited!

783. voyager - November 18, 2008

Don’t you people at paramount ever sleep?

784. boborci - November 18, 2008

783. voyager – November 18, 2008

“Don’t you people at paramount ever sleep?”

I just work at Paramount. I’m from DreamWorks.

785. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 18, 2008

If I understand correctly by what you all guess about the plot, Spock travels back in time to where Vulcan is attacked by Nero and Kirk gets command of the Enterprise.
First, if this is in an alternate timeline, how does Spock know when and where Nero will attack? Maybe this will be explained in the movie ;)
But why doesn’t Spock travel back in time to before the attack on the Kelvin? By preventing the attack on the Kelvin the timeline would not be altered at all. Or Spock could travel back in time to before the escape of Nero to prevent him from travelling back in time in the first place. This all seems to indicate that JJ and his writers wanted to change the timeline on purpose.

The new alternate timeline would mean that the TOS episodes will never happen (the same with TNG, DS9 and Voyager). I believe that Star Trek IX will even happen before The Menagerie, as it will be the maiden voyage of the Enterprise. So Pike won’t be captain of the ship for several years. This changes everything. This might even change that Kirk never meets Khan, the he will never have a son. Spock may never die to save the Enterprise, Picard may never assume command of the Enterprise-D… Aside from creating a paradoxon for Spock (how can he travel back in time when his timeline never existed?) this will destroy the whole history of Star Trek.

Why? To get a fresh start for those characters? So that we don’t know what will happen to them?
For me this is disrespectful not only to the Star Trek fans and the history of Star Trek but to Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
Killing of Kirk by falling off a bridge was disrespectful not only to the character of Kirk but to William Shatner as well, but THIS will be even worse. It will destroy everything! There won’t be a “William Shatner Kirk” or a “Leonard Nimoy Spock” anymore. The characters won’t be the same.
If this all plays out the way I see it, this movie will destroy 40 years of Star Trek and laugh at it.

786. voyager - November 18, 2008

You didn’t answer the question…

787. voyager - November 18, 2008

The Star Trek references are starting to make my head hurt.

Coffee, black.

788. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

764 – Bob Orci.

Thanks for your replies. I am VERY heartened by them. I realise that realistically a Hollywood production has to be commercialised, given the huge amount of money invested in it, but, if as you state, you keep a number of philosophical cores by not “dumbing the film down” to the “lowest common denominator” as is so often the case, then that is GREAT!

I am even more glad that it will be less military than some previous endeavours. We see enough of that on the news every night and I personally have a very strong aversion to anything that glorifies the military.

Thanks for your responses. Good luck with the film’s success! :-)

789. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[784]
Is there still that Peeping Tom poster in your office?

790. JM Enterprise - November 18, 2008

744. Databrain

Your right, I am a big JJ. fan, but i’m also a massive Trek fan, right from the Original TOS, on BBC2 in the UK, in the 70’s re-runs down till today.

And after I began to lose faith in Trek during ENTERPRISE and with the NEMESIS movie I found LOST, a series with that same sense of dialog, wonder and ore, that TOS and TNG used to have.

And yes JJ’s sence of vision has brought with it more action because times have changed and that’s what the younger audience want, hell I want that now. Not the same old story-telling of the past, but Trek with an edge that could live on for another 20 or 30 years.

This Movie, judging from the outstanding trailer could be just the vehicle.
Tears welled up in my eyes when I watched that trailer last night.

A movie that could do Trek justice, like I’ve never felt before with any of the movies. That’s what I’m waiting for, and I think this might just be it.

So sit back and enjoy the ride!

791. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[788] Told you ;))

792. voyager - November 18, 2008

“But why doesn’t Spock travel back in time to before the attack on the Kelvin? By preventing the attack on the Kelvin the timeline would not be altered at all. Or Spock could travel back in time to before the escape of Nero to prevent him from travelling back in time in the first place.”

Here’s some advice about trying to make sense about time travel” Don’t.

-Janeway

793. boborci - November 18, 2008

789. thorsten – November 18, 2008

Indeed!

794. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[793] Good old Karlheinz Böhm,
almost killed his career that movie…
he moved into charity after that…

795. Digginjim - November 18, 2008

The trailer looks like great fun and I have no problem with the reinvention…. in fact, the only gripe is that the bridge set looks just awful. What the hell are all those screens everywhere, and the little red lights… and why is the layout so radically different from the orginal bridge? Everything just smack sof redesign for its own sake – oo, look how clever we are. Not detecting a great deal of the rodenberry exploratory spirit from the trailer… ho hum.

Apart from that minor quibble I think the movie looks like a lot of fun and ILM seem to have outdone themselves. I’ll certainly be in line.

796. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@774

Saying all young folks are too dumb would be quite a dumb thing to say. I, for one, didn’t say that. But the majority of younger people has been trained not to take their time and reflect on things, which makes them more vulnerable to deceptive marketing strategies.

I am fairly young myself but was raised by parents who did not rely on TV as educational method. I read and read and read… So I belong to a slow-thinking and more conscientious minority in this world. My TV time as a child was little and precious and Star Trek TOS took up most of my TV time. I’m still glad about that.

I had a wonderful childhood and find that I do have a happy marriage partly because of what I learned from Star Trek TOS and didn’t learn from other more crappy shows.

Our TV has been broken for ages now. And we don’t bother to have it repaired. BBC isn’t worth it. Nor is Pay TV. We are mostly watching 50s and 60s shows on DVD. So much about modern television.

I, as a fairly young person, can connect more to Bewitched, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits or Tales of Tomorrow than I can to any of todays shows. And I wasn’t even born in the 60s. Yet I appreciate the morale and the value. Even Bewitched held a lot of good humanitarian values. And it was still commercial enough to sell.

797. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ Bob Orci

Hi! If you were given the chance to rewrite any of the previous Trek films, which one would you want to work on, and how would you change it?

Just curious. Thanks! Can’t wait for May 2009! :D

798. Databrain - November 18, 2008

And yes JJ’s sence of vision has brought with it more action because times have changed and that’s what the younger audience want, hell I want that now. Not the same old story-telling of the past, but Trek with an edge that could live on for another 20 or 30 years.’

I am part of that younger audience. Why do you continually insult my intelligence? And there are several other’s out there just like me who think the same way.

No matter what time era you are from, or are living in today, some will get it and some will not. That is how it always has been and always will be, until something serves to expand the minds of the masses altogether, like the visitation of aliens to our planet, or something like that.

There is no reason to dumb something down. Let nature takes its course and let those who got it, get it, and those he didn’t, watch action movies till their hearts content.

799. Brooks - November 18, 2008

Wouldnt it be interesting if Star Trek existed in same universe as Lost and Alias? (We know Lost and Alias are connected)

800. voyager - November 18, 2008

You still don’t get it.

You won’t ever get it.

Have you noticed that you’re NOT part of the majority anymore?

801. Databrain - November 18, 2008

774 said
‘And yes JJ’s sence of vision has brought with it more action because times have changed and that’s what the younger audience want, hell I want that now. Not the same old story-telling of the past, but Trek with an edge that could live on for another 20 or 30 years.’

I am part of that younger audience. Why do you continually insult my intelligence? And there are several other’s out there just like me who think the same way.

No matter what time era you are from, or are living in today, some will get it and some will not. That is how it always has been and always will be, until something serves to expand the minds of the masses altogether, like the visitation of aliens to our planet, or something like that.

There is no reason to dumb something down. Let nature takes its course and let those who got it, get it, and those he didn’t, watch action movies till their hearts content.

802. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Have you noticed that you’re NOT part of the majority anymore?’

trek fans were never part of the majority.

803. Geoffers - November 18, 2008

Oh dear oh dear…

Why.. do the folks who have made their mind up that they hate this film, keep on coming back to a site called “trekmovie” (the hint is in that title folks).

If you are so set that the movie will suck, stop, stopping-by to check on it’s progress… Or is it some want to be proven right that drives these people on..

Just to add my two peneth.. I think it looks great.

But then again, I can’t be a “true fan”, as I liked Enterprise, oh and Nemesis, oh and TMP, NG, Voyager, DS9, and every single film.. nah I can’t true fan, cos my head isn’t so stuck up my rear nacell as to pick every iteration appart!

So let’s have a break down…

What is wrong with having a Robo police officer.. in the realms of Sci-fi, is it not possible we may have such things in a few hundred years time?

Hover bike… well me not being a “true” fan, I have read plenty of Trek books where hover vehicles are refered to… and in a lot of on screen Trek, there has been hover trolleys etc.. but sorry, me mentioning that kind of rains on the “see, see! he has made it like Star Wars” bregade.

Saucy romp scene… erm, so Kirk was never a womaniser in Trek before?

The “new” Enterprise – oh silly me again, course the look of the Enterprise never ever changed slightly over the films and original series…

“It looks awful going on the trailer”… THEN STOP COMING BACK CHECKING UP ON IT!

I really do not get a lot of these folks “oh it looses the spirit of the original 60’s show”…. maybe, just maybe, it’s the doubters, the moaners, the anal “Pick it appart” types that have changed… as I see it, the 60’s show, was about “fun”, as much as anything else.. maybe that’s what a lot of the moaners are missing!! a sense of FUN!

“Scotties accent is wrong”… mmmmm and this comes from mainly (I’m guessing), Americans, whom.. without being rude, have never probably met a “real” scotsman (and yes, I live in the UK, and yes I have scots in my circle of friends and family)… and … sorry chaps, I can tell you that having spoken to “real” scots, they reckon he has done well!

I can’t help but think, the people involved in this film, must read a lot fo what goes on here and think “jeeeez, why did we bother”. Well gents.. from this one “not a true fan type”… I say THANKS.. THE FILM LOOKS GREAT!

804. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

746. boborci

Bob! Thank you so much for responding.
I indeed hope I will find that in your movie. As I’ve said before I will definitely go to see it because I want to give it a chance.

…besides to be fair. I suppose a trailer needs to be so fast paced and packed with action. I am interested enough to go and watch this movie. Absolutely. And I do hope, I can fall in love with it then.

:) And again thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I appreciate.

805. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

Just thought of one more interesting question for Bob Orci…

At the end of the film, once poor old Mr Nero is taken care of, is there some kind of announcement to Kirk that he is to captain the Enterprise out on a 5-year exploration mission?

806. Steff De Vos - November 18, 2008

where is spock (Leonard Nimoy) in this trailer? Is he even in the movie? William Shatner will love it.

807. Nina-in-CA - November 18, 2008

Question: Is the “Orion slave girl” Kirk is banging an actual *slave girl*, or is this assumption because all Orion females shown in the franchise have been slave girls? Because I find it weird that she’d be rooming with a Starfleet officer like Uhura. Can she be a Starfleet officer as well?

And this talk about what’s “true Trek” and what’s not… Oh man, one can brangle about tainting and dumbing down the philosophy of Trek all day (and here I was tempted to argue on behalf of us ~plebeians~ that it’s not like Trek was ever, you know, Camus) but let me tell you, it sure looks likes some people are annoyed that the cool kids will have a standing invitation to the nerd party come summer ’09.

808. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

798 – Databrain, I am not unsympathetic to your point of view, I want to see STXI engage some philosophical territory. Bob Orci indicates upthread that we can expect to see that sort of thing. As I’ve indicated before, I do not think you can base a thesis that STXI is “dumbed down” on the trailer, since trailers should never be taken at face value.

So, I ask, why is it a foregone conclusion that STXI is pure action and no reflection?

809. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@807
Who says the girl is Orion? Is she green?
Oh… I didn’t even notice. Oh no I must be colorblind. Seriously was that girl green?
Terrific!

810. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘I really do not get a lot of these folks “oh it looses the spirit of the original 60’s show”…. maybe, just maybe, it’s the doubters, the moaners, the anal “Pick it appart” types that have changed…’

I am in my mid-20s. I haven’t ‘changed’ because I was always opened to messages that were not of the normal persuasion. As far as I see it, the original series and the next generation contained messages that were outside of the norm. To some, albeit, lesser degree, deep space nine and voyager did too. Enterprise had nothing reminiscent in it of the original trek philosophical nucleus. This film, thus far, seems to be carrying forth this latest dumbed down trend. Just, what is the point is all I ask? Why not just make an action-sci fi film like pitch black or something that has nothing to do with trek? Why use treks name to promote the agenda of appealing to the dumb founded masses?

811. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘So, I ask, why is it a foregone conclusion that STXI is pure action and no reflection?’

it isn’t my foregone conclusion as I continue to reiterate the IF factor in my statements. I am merely carrying forth a conversation based on what I thus far know, just as anyone else here is doing from their albeit differing perspectives.

812. Nina-in-CA - November 18, 2008

#809:

She looked… greenish in the HD? Though she’s in shadow so it’s hard to tell!

If the “Orion slave girl” is a Starfleet officer that would be EXCELLENT. That’s a shout-out to all the objectified females throughout Trek history.

813. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[810] “Why use treks name to promote the agenda of appealing to the dumb founded masses?”

But this is not happening at all…
Orci, Abrams, Lindelof and all the others went through a lot of hard work and thinking to deliver a fantastic movie that brings back the spirit of original Trek… and when it will be a huge hit at the box office, all the better.

814. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘And this talk about what’s “true Trek” and what’s not… Oh man, one can brangle about tainting and dumbing down the philosophy of Trek all day (and here I was tempted to argue on behalf of us ~plebeians~ that it’s not like Trek was ever, you know, Camus) but let me tell you, it sure looks likes some people are annoyed that the cool kids will have a standing invitation to the nerd party come summer ‘09.’

There is no psychological nuance in my statements pertaining to my apparent ‘nerd’ status of being. I was actually rather popular in highschool, and am now quite popular and liked in college. That has naught to do with anything I am saying. Refrain from using psychological semantics to establish an ad hominem defense against the statements I am making, and perhaps state something directly in respond to them instead of attacking a personality you know nothing about.

815. Devon - November 18, 2008

#809 – Someone over at another Trek message board did a color enhancement of that clip. She’s green for sure.

816. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

Ah, I see, I think the conditional aspect (“IF factor”) of your statements sometimes gets lost in the huge stack of comments here….

Actually, it is a relief to me that Bob Orci makes his statement above that he “would say the contains at least 3 philosophical cores [….] We knew Trek HAD TO TRY for thoughtful territory. However, it is also action packed.”

I agree that some kind of thought-provoking element is central to good Star Trek.

However, I must note that even certain Enterprise episodes strove for higher concepts.

817. Drunk And Disorderly - November 18, 2008

803. Well, I’m a Scotsman, and a Scotsman who believes in ‘Pure Wads’ and I can confirm that Simon Pegg is NOT doing a Scottish accent!!!

818. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@815
Wow!
I like that.

As Pegg said in his lovely brogue:
I like this ship. Tis exciting.

I still have a few doubts at the same time I’m beginning to warm up to certain aspects of the movie. For one thing, it appears to be sexy.

TOS was very sexy. I always missed that in the lay-offs.

:)

819. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@816. 4 8 15 16 23 42

Yes, Bob Orci’s statement reassures me too.

820. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

^ last one to Databrain 814

812 Nina-in-CA — “If the ‘Orion slave girl’ is a Starfleet officer that would be EXCELLENT. That’s a shout-out to all the objectified females throughout Trek history.”

Agreed, though of course by being in Starfleet she would by necessity be EX-slave.

My only advice to her is, stay away from James T. Kirk, he’s a classic BMOC when it comes to women, and we know that he spilled his seed in Carol Marcus and didn’t even know/care to follow up as to whether he’d knocked her up (no excuses about broken condoms please, it’s the 23rd century we’re talking about).

821. Captain - November 18, 2008

At Holger #12: You were saying the words i have in mind for about several days, and weeks respectively, after seeing the new design and the pictures of the “new crew”. There definitely is nothing to add to your opinion. However Abrams claims that this film is not for us “old” fans but for a new audience. Sad.

822. DJT - November 18, 2008

Is there a West Hollywood screening coming up?

823. Nina-in-CA - November 18, 2008

#814:

LOL, fair enough, but maybe you can also dial back your absolute douchebaggery and try not couch your statements in that holier-and-smarter-than-thou tone. “Ad hominem” indeed! What a load of horse sh*t.

824. Databrain - November 18, 2008

818
‘I still have a few doubts at the same time I’m beginning to warm up to certain aspects of the movie. For one thing, it appears to be sexy.’

Forgive me, but you seemed to ‘warm up’ rather quickly. I would guess you are a seeder, someone who is here to try to influence thought and to make dumb young males consider seeing this film. After all it’s ‘sexy’. Not to be paranoid, but I actually wouldn’t doubt if you were a male. Okay, apologies in advance for this accusation, but I just smell a ruse.

825. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@817. Drunk And Disorderly

That nickname fits like a glove I believe.
Besides you’ve posted that before.

Just for the record. I am Scottish too. I’m from Edinburgh and I know some people who say I sound like somebody from Norther Ireland, New Zealand or South Africa.

What the heck! There are so many Scottish brogues. I’m from Edinburgh, Ratho is a small community south of Edinburgh. I don’t understand what people in Ratho are saying!

You get my point?
Don’t look for THE Scottish accent. It doesn’t exist. But Pegg sounds lovely and very different from Doohan who also sounded lovely, quite charming in fact.

826. Databrain - November 18, 2008

Nina
‘LOL, fair enough, but maybe you can also dial back your absolute douchebaggery and try not couch your statements in that holier-and-smarter-than-thou tone. “Ad hominem” indeed! What a load of horse sh*t.’

tell you what, go watch lost, then a series of die hard films, then pitch black. You will be happy, I promise. As it does not take much to bring happiness and contentment to certain mind sets. Maybe even a lollipop?

827. Cheve - November 18, 2008

I know this is going to make many people happy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY

ST 90210

828. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@824 Databrain

Lad, I suggest you put your coffee aside and take a long nap. Now you don’t make sense any more. Catch some sleep fellow. You need it.

829. Nina-in-CA - November 18, 2008

Databrain, I did exactly as you said, and you were TOTALLY RIGHT. My itty bitty little brain is satisfied. Why didn’t I do this before??

830. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Lad, I suggest you put your coffee aside and take a long nap. Now you don’t make sense any more. Catch some sleep fellow. You need it.’

Actually I think I will go do some mind-body exercises instead, sir. Thank you for the advise though, sir. have a nice day now, sir.

831. Databrain - November 18, 2008

I feel as if being in the presence of so much hatred has resulted in an alien invasion into my cerebral cortex…I will not exercise this infection out of me.

832. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@830
You too sunshine

833. elodie - November 18, 2008

hi! fanastic trailer!

here is the french version of the trailer :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkewXLG2Dgs

Zachary Quinto’s french voice is the same he has on Heroes, and Eric Bana’s french voice is the same he had on The Hulk.

Enjoy!

834. El Chup - November 18, 2008

#785

I know exactly how you feel, and when I made this very same point in one of the other threads Bob Orci responded with the usual, brief “we hope you come to with an open mind”.

To me, any writer, or for that matter director, who needs to tell fans to come to the product with an open mind knows full well that there’s something about it that the loyalists won’t like.

What disturbs me about this whole affair is that fact that Paramount don’t seem to realise that this is the one thing that you can’t mess about with in terms of flushing away 40 odd years of established canon. In making this movie for the big, non-fan, audience they will think they have a major success on their hands, assuming that it makes money, and will rush out a sequel. All well and good. But, in the process, if they alienate the established fan base then they will alienate all those people that, for 40 years, have plowed billions of dollars, pounds, euros and so on, into their bank accounts in the form of merchandising and convention revenue. You can’t generate that in the long term with a few “hot for the minute” movies. Do you think The Dark Knight or Casino Royale will be generating that kind of fan income a few short years from now? No way in hell.

Alienating the Roddenberry era (and I suppopse the Berman era) fans is the worst move the studio could have made.

Still, I suppose we should be in some way grateful that Orci & Kurtzman bothered at all to have any remote link to established continuity. I was expecting a total reboot – still, not quite good enough to me and not enough to excuse the insult that this movie will be to fans of you and I, and the people who worked for years to bring us all the Trek that came
before.

835. Databrain - November 18, 2008

now*

836. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

Re 819 and 816.

Yes, “Scottygirl” and “4 8 15 16 23 42″, I think the three of us have been VERY reassured by that statement! We all seem to have similar sentiments about what we prefer in our Sci. Fi.

I hope it is true and that this Trek has some depth and substance. I am also certainly in favour of long shots and moments of slower pacing to balance out the faster action scenes that we will invariable have.

837. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

Databrain, as I said before, I sympathize with your desire to see STXI retain a though-provoking bent to it, but I must also add that a statement like “Why use treks name to promote the agenda of appealing to the dumb founded masses?” smacks of elitism. I won’t even try to lecture you on the merits and perils of the “ivory tower” (I myself have been accused of snobbery), but I do hasten to note that Star Trek has always tried to cultivate BOTH intellectual AND mass appeal. Spock’s logic has always shared the screen with dancing Orion girls, etc. In the words of Nina-in-CA #807, “it’s not like Trek was ever, you know, Camus”.

838. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@836
Yes. That’s exactly what I hope will be the case. Well said Kerr.

839. Dom - November 18, 2008

Adore the trailer. It reaffirms Trek as an adventure series.

Couple of observations: the complaints about the boy calling himself ‘James Tiberius Kirk’ are a little strange. IIRC, Diane Carey’s Final Frontier and Best Destiny were looked at by the Supreme Court. In that, George Kirk refers to teaching his son to say James T Kirk, because of his awkwardness about the middle name Tiberius. There’s some pride in this child’s pronouncement of his name and a real attitude! This kid is clearly already exceptional!

I just sent the link to my Mum and Dad, aged 61 (baby boomer) and 72. They watched Star Trek on its original transmission and got me into it! They loved the trailer.

840. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

836 / 838 – :-)

841. Jon - November 18, 2008

I wish people would stop talking for the entire fanbase of Star Trek as they express their displeasure for this film. This isn’t a case of ‘them or us’- new fans versus old fans. Paramount might alienate a few hardcore sticklers who have nothing better to do than hang around websites comoplaining about a movie which is 6 months away, sure- but a lot of Star Trek fans can’t wait for this film, are open to some change and will welcome it with open arms- it’s looking far better than it the direction it could have gone.

842. voyager - November 18, 2008

I fear that Databrain may be the android known as B4.

Cute and all, but doesn’t make a damn sense.

843. Nina-in-CA - November 18, 2008

#839: Hear ya on the reaffirmation of adventure. As much as I loved some of the modern series, they lost that frontier edge and made space practically genteel, TNG especially.

844. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 18, 2008

#834
Maybe a total reboot would have been better. This way the 40 years of Trek in form of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and the movies would still stand on their own and would not be erased by this movie.

If they wanted a fresh take, then why didn’t they create a new crew and set the movie in the future – maybe without any references to all other Star Trek material that came before?
This is like taking the picture of Mona Lisa and not only painting a new, more modern version of it, but painting the new version over the old, eradicating it.

845. Nina-in-CA - November 18, 2008

#844: ‘If they wanted a fresh take, then why didn’t they create a new crew and set the movie in the future – maybe without any references to all other Star Trek material that came before?’

Speaking as a general sci-fi fan and a tangential Trek fan, I wouldn’t have been interested in a movie with a new cast. I think any new group of Trek characters would have an uphill battle for the hearts and minds of even the sci-fi-watching audience, because the last few batches of ‘new’ characters from the recent TV series weren’t very compelling.

But I’m not trying to argue with your point about the half-reboot/total reboot situation, which is a fine point. Just sayin’. :)

846. Trekmatt - November 18, 2008

Hi Bob,

I just wanted to say that the trailer looks great! Am really looking forward to this movie, so thanks very much to you and everyone else for doing what seems so far to be a great job :)

847. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

844 Admiral_Bumblebee — “This is like taking the picture of Mona Lisa and not only painting a new, more modern version of it, but painting the new version over the old, eradicating it.”

If that analogy really held true, then we wouldn’t still have TOS on DVD, and all restored to boot, readily available. I don’t think STXI is a flat-out reboot anyway (compared to, say, Bond, Batman, or BSG), but even if the extent of the changes distress you a bit as they stand, take heart in that TOS isn’t going anywhere. I still love TOS, but I am excited by this new vision — it promises to augment, not attempt to supplant, TOS.

848. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

^ distresses

849. manuel.davidoff - November 18, 2008

I just want to say WWWWWWTTTTTTFFFFF!!!!!!!! for me it’s just another star wars

850. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 844

“If they wanted a fresh take, then why didn’t they create a new crew and set the movie in the future…”

Roger Ebert said something along these lines in his review of ‘Nemesis': http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20021213/REVIEWS/212130305/1023

851. USS ME - November 18, 2008

i watch TOS sometimes as im going to bed. Last night after going through the trailer frame by frame, i could see the links to this prequle film.
Yes things might be different, but it feels right. i can see the beginnings of the people we know and love.
im so excited. the future of trek seems bright. i hope from this film we have a series. Movies are great but a series would really see trek going on for years and years

852. OtterVomit - November 18, 2008

“Cute and all, but doesn’t make a damn sense.”

I love irony!

853. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@851

Hm. I’d prefer movies. A series of Movies.

854. voyager - November 18, 2008

Irony is a dish best served cold.

855. USS ME - November 18, 2008

@853
yeah i could dig that.
anything really, just not one new movie and then nothing

856. Geoffers - November 18, 2008

Welcome to “Databrains Forum” … THE voice on all that’s Trek.. LOL..

857. voyager - November 18, 2008

I’m surprised that ncc-1701.com didnt’ update with the new trailer. We still don’t know the reasoning behind that mystery alien corridor (presumably on Nero’s ship).

858. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

re 853. A planned trilogy would be great – not just an endless series dragging out for years with no definite ending like the old series. Depending on what this one covers, maybe a tight series showing the beginning, middle and end of the 5 year mission?

859. Kerr Avon - November 18, 2008

re 853. A *planned* trilogy would be great – not just an endless series dragging out for years with no definite ending like the old series. Depending on what this one covers, maybe a tight series showing the beginning, middle and end of the 5 year mission?

860. Lt. Barclay - November 18, 2008

@851

No, please, no series.

If this movie is indeed successful, what would be the point in remaking TOS just with a new cast, more action and stuff?

This movie is “supposed” to bring new audiences, but I don’t think it would fit well within the context of a series. For me, Star Trek movies (overall) were always supposed to be more action-oriented with more effects and big budget (after all, we can’t just have a movie like a normal episode), while still maintaining the core Trek principles of the series. Of course, nothing has ever been like this movie… but a series just wouldn’t fit well.

I just believe that a new Star Trek series CAN be done with thought-provoking dialogue and scenes, debating morals and concepts, updated for the modern audience and NOT necessarily be “dumbed down” or turned into a Star Wars movie.

I hope this movie just helps with the “rebirth” (economically speaking) of the franchise in a better way.

But again, if this movie is successful, we might not see anything again like the Star Trek we knew of before. It’s a risky situation.

861. Chris Pike - November 18, 2008

850 Excellent point. Roger Ebert – That review is great, spot on. If the new film can embrace those ideals, we’re in for a treat and a lot more Trek.

862. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 861
I really love that last paragraph in his review, when he invites the creative minds behind Star Trek to once again make “wonder, astonishment and literacy” part of the series again. Now, although this new movie isn’t “a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future” I hope it works out just the same. :)

863. Chris Pike - November 18, 2008

862. Yspano

Absolutely!

864. S. John Ross - November 18, 2008

Watching it again, I continued to be encouraged by Karl Urban and Simon Pegg. If I end up seeing the film, I think it’ll be entirely because of them.

865. Jean - November 18, 2008

Here is the FRENCH version ov the trailer:

http://www.allocine.fr/video/player_gen_cmedia=18847026&cfilm=114887&hd=1.html

866. BK613 - November 18, 2008

625
we also know that JTK was in the car longer than appears on film. Somewhere in his joyride, he puts the top down. And the cop isn’t chasing him the whole time in the trailer–only after the closeup of the speedometer do we see/hear the cop.

626/627
Oh I know what metaphor I could think of, tossing a classic-but-60s-styled car into an abyss, while allowing the character driving it to barely survive.

867. Loudie - November 18, 2008

The guy playing the Captain in this was auditioned for the part of Scotty – he should have got it!!!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OT08xFj836I&feature=related

PS
If anyone needs a translation, let me know. lol

868. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 18, 2008

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startreknews.php?id=50627

A more detailed description of the 20 minutes shown… (sorry if this has already been posted)…
Scotty invents the transporter with the help of Spock???
Kirk with big hands not being able to write a warning message???
The great navigtor Chekov cannot speak the word Vulcan to the computer in order to set the course???

WTF???? What is going on? What is this????

869. Of Bajor - November 18, 2008

@826 Dude, you truly are a prize twat!

870. josepepper - November 18, 2008

Took me a while to get where they were going with it but once I got to see the construction and a few space scenes the ship is really growing on me. I can see how they progressed from the TOS version. The interiors seem a little sterile and a bit too bright but I think its all a matter of us getting used to the new vision, I’m ready to give JJ the benefit of the doubt here. Its also hard to wait while they release more and more of the film, by May we will have the entire plot, lots of trailers and images from the film. Not too much left to the imagination im afraid. It should have been released on christmas

871. Ian B - November 18, 2008

Please, somebody close down the internets and stop the spoilers. I am too pathetic and weak to not read them, and then I feel sad, like a lapsed alcoholic blearily studying the empty whisky bottle on the table before him.

:)

As far as the trailer goes, the whole thing looks wonderful.

872. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@868 Admiral_Bumblebee

Whoa! Wait a minute! As I understood it Scotty didn’t invent transporter technology but merely improved it by being able to beam an object onto another object that is moving faster than light.

Bob Orci, was that right?

873. Just another German trekker - November 18, 2008

@827: Yeah, made me happy (:

I still refuse to give up hope, that the new movie will be GREAT!
Yet, there are SOME things in the trailer which just make me cringe:
The whole hoverbike vs. Chevy-thing
That Boba Fett-Robocop-guy (Let’s call him the “TrekkoCop”)
Kirk apparently fighting Cthulhu (Well, OK, THAT might actually be fun ;) )
Kirk peeking at Uhura undressing? (That scene MIGHT, of course, be out of context in the trailer…)

PLUS: The Enterprise-design just doesn’t grow on me. Not because it’s not canon and that kind of bullshit, but because to me it just looks… pieced together (the Excelsior’s secondary hull, deflector dish KINDA taken from the TOS-Enterprise, the neck, the lower sensor dome and probably the whole saucer section of the refit E and the nacelles – uhmmm… either some kind of jet engine – noticed the “inlet” beneath the bussard collectors? – or part of some 50’s car…)

At least in HD you can clearly see that Kirk is making out with some blonde and not with Uhura (THAT would have been just too much – even the worst fanfic author would shy away from something like that!)
Oh if you pause at the scene where Kirk seems to fire a phaser you could actually get the impression that the phasers might be reminiscent of the laser pistols used in “The Cage”!

874. P Technobabble - November 18, 2008

841 – Jon
I’m with you on this one. It’s quite annoying to hear the Negative side speaking as if they (and only they) represent the “real” or “true” Star Trek — and being mean-spirited about it to boot. They’re starting to become rather religious… maybe now is a good time to watch STV again… .
I think any sociologist or psychiatrist might have something to say about the emotional attachments people can come to feel for fictional characters, or a fictional world, eh? I don’t have a problem with people voicing their opinions, or criticisms, but it should be done in a thoughtful, civilized manner — especially here, where the Star Trek Universe proposes humanity as a more thoughtful, civilized society (or doesn’t that apply to the critics?). They should realize they are coming of as a bunch of pompous hypocrites who don’t even deserve the forum space they’re taking up by spouting their narrow-minded, inside-the-box mentality. Someone criticized Bob Orci for asking us to “have an open mind.” In the midst of all the arguing and criticism coming from the “My Mind’s Made Up” crowd, what else could he possibly say? Why would anyone presume that his asking such a question implies he is insecure about his work? This is utter nonsense. I believe Mr. Orci and Co. realized full well what they had taken on, and understood that Trek has (and always has had) a loyal fan-base. The new film is also a business, and certainly numerous meetings were held between JJ Abrams, Paramount execs, the writers, etc. to strategically come up with a concept that would make Star Trek a viable entity to the world at large, and not just another overblown episode attended only by Trekkies. Why aren’t some people getting this part of it?
Based on the trailer, this film has the look and scope of a motion picture, and, in spite of it’s new appearance, there is nothing unrecognizable about it. It is Star Trek.

875. star trackie - November 18, 2008

Saw the trailer in HD last night during the Sarah Conner Chronicles. I think the only disappointment anyone is feeling is when the font comes up at the end that reads May of 2009! It’s rocks you so much so you want to see it tomorrow. But it looks like they placing this trailer in all the right places.

876. Holger - November 18, 2008

62 closettrekker: I didn’t post when I was enthusiastic. At that time there wasn’t much to discuss because there wasn’t much information and I didn’t feel it’s necessary to post ‘I’m so excited, this is gonna be marvelous’.
But it’s true, almost every lacked information on the movie put me off some more. And now this trailer is the crown jewel of off-putting.

I’m sorry if I’m negative, but I believe that the people who don’t like what they see (so far) should speak out, too. I wouldn’t want Bob Orci and maybe JJ Abrams to get the impression that there is unanimous cheering among the fans about what they’re producing.

877. harris250 - November 18, 2008

Ah yes…..TOS dies with the Corvette…
Also, in the trailer Scotty sz “I like this new ship it’s fun”. This is a message for the newbies, that this Trek will be fun. I guess the JJ and crew think the old Trek was not. I think I’m getting back on the raped childhood bandwagon…

878. Red-Shirted Monkey - November 18, 2008

There’s another Easter egg that extends the trailer’s voice-over narration by Bruce Greenwood as Christopher Pike! In case you can’t find it, here’s the transcript:

“You’ve always had a hard time finding your place in this world, haven’t you? Never knowing your true worth. You could settle for less, an ordinary life. But you feel like you were meant for something better. Something special. Is it possible that I know all of this just from meeting you at my promotion to Fleet Captain? Beep Beep. And where in the devil are Colt, #1, and the rest of my crew? Boyce, bring me my martini! They can’t read through primitive emotions. Filling my mind with…”

879. Chris Fawkes - November 18, 2008

I guess there are three fans who don’t like it so not sure how they will be making a sequel without that extra thirty bucks.

For the rest of us and many non fans this trailer looks great.

I was watching the trailer on my computer when a friend came over. She had previously declared she would never go watch a trek film but promptly changed her mind as soon as she viewed it.

I think that will be a reflection of the general viewing public.

880. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[873] well, JAGT, the way I see it Kirk makes out with Uhuras room mate, then Uhura comes home, he has to hide under the bed. Uhura talks to her friend while undressing, Kirk watches this by accident ;))

881. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[877] Harris, Scotty says its exciting…
but it will be fun too, for sure.

882. harris250 - November 18, 2008

Watch where they market the movie….Sara Conner Chronicles…what trash…marketing tells you all you need to know about who this movie has been produced for and it ain’t middle aged men feeling nostalgic for the “day”. I cringe when I see that Stingray go over the cliff. Many posters here can’t even ID the car!!

883. Q Macedonia - November 18, 2008

Fascinating.

We all new that there were going to be changes in Star Trek, and with the trailer, we saw part of them. But i can live with that.

At one point in the trailer when the Red Alert siren goes on (which is the same btw) my heart whent warp speed guys. Bob thank you for this.

I guess the good and timeless stuff from TOS were kept and the outdated were removed or improved. And i tottaly agree with it. I wouldn’t want to see the crew walking around in the 23 century with hand-held comunicators.

Nice job and thank you for this. 5 more months to go.

884. harris250 - November 18, 2008

#877

I need to check my sources better…but you get the idea…

885. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[882] Thas was easy, I am a 65 model, too…

886. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@876
There is no unanimous cheering on my side… I am still very much undecided of what to think. Generally I like some things, I’m not sure about others. I will wait to form a complete opinion until the movie is out and I’ve seen it. Only then, it would be fair to jubilate or condemn.

So I want to give this movie a fair chance. Trailers apparently have to be fast paced, action packed and short to sell. So… I’m hoping for some great morale story and a lot of background and deep character exploitations (I also hope to see more of the supporting characters than in the original series). And I hope this movie will end with a big bang that makes me say Oooh I want more of that.

There are some points in the trailer that tickled my interest. That is the bad-boy attitude of Kirk. I get to like the idea that he’s a square-jawed posterboy of a young trouble maker. It fits to the legendary character of James Tiberius Kirk.

Seeing Quinto as Spock feels totally convincing. His looks, his stamina as an actor that just all feels right.

But I’m also hoping for a well dosed mix of humanity, morale, story background as well as action in that exact order.

Where Scotty is concerned, I have seen too little of him to judge but Simon Pegg as an actor has convinced me all the way through so we can only hope for the best. Although I already do like the idea of him and Kirk sneaking onto the Enterprise through the transmitter.

887. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 18, 2008

I agree, it’s Star Trek for Star Wars fans. Not TREK at all. Treat this as just another Voyager episode.

I wont go see it.

The redesign of the Enterprise is total CGI BS. When the Big E was first designed, it had to be plausible. The Secondary Hull looked the way it did because there was a Shuttlebay in the back, cargo hull and engineering deck. There is no room for Botany, recreation or the bowling alley. Seriously, there’s no room for spare parts, spare shuttles (4 on the main deck, 3 in “crates” below, like on an aircraft carrier) no room for anything a long rang mission without resupply could need. The entire set up is BS. remember TMP when Bob Wise imagined Star Trek for the 2001 crowd and the Big E was white and sterile because that was his idea of sci-fi? Then Nick Meyer comes in and warms it up to save the franchise.

BSG works because it’s a lived in universe lifted from Blade Runner. The Renaissance was not as clean as a Ren Faire. Star Fleet had 14 long range mixed use cruisers, one permanently at Earth to field test new ideas, The Connie. Over the course of 3 years, three were lost fighting the Enterprise and M-5, Defiant was lost in Tholian space, Exceter was contaminated (presumed lost, but more than likely towed back to base) Intrepid was lost to the Space Ameoba.

Space is Hell. As well it should be.

Enterprise is supposed to be 20 years old by the time Kirk gets it. Scotty has hell with the engines because they’re USED. GENE and MATT were WW2 vets who knew bad design, good design, and how to make the best of what you have. The cardboard set vs. the iPod set isnt the problem. Bad Design is. Might was well be a Star Wars ship for all the bad design.

I know some of you kids are into CGI. There’s more to building something than just making it look “cool”. Gabe Koerner had a much better design. That ship had room for supplies.

888. Antni - November 18, 2008

in the scene where you see Nero escaping from 2 guards are these confirmed as romulan guards? Because when you look at the still if you slow down the trailer their helmets have ridges on the forehead like the klingons would.

889. harris250 - November 18, 2008

#887
Here, here….
We live in a world where kids think playing a guitar on a game console is playing a guitar. Where playing sports on a computer is the same and getting dirty and learning how to throw and hit a curve ball.
We expect them to be concerned about design and story integrity…Please…

890. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 18, 2008

A few last quibbles and I’m done

The Big E is built in San Francisco, not Iowa.

Kirk’s father was a Lt. Commander in Starfleet, and his uncle’s horse farm was in Idaho. He’s from Iowa, he only works in outer space.

Yeah, that car chase doesn’t do it for me.

And sex has to be everywhere, does it? Star trek 90210.

Last thing: Kirk’s “pain” was Carol leaving him and taking David with her. Read Ashes of Eden if you havent already. The best of the Shatnerverse.

I miss girl6

891. Neil - November 18, 2008

I’m only up to Post #395 in catching up, but one thing I thought I’d add to the mix here.

I’m tired of hearing all the references to the “pretty boy” that’s been hired to play Kirk.

Am I the only one who remembers that back in the day, Bill Shatner was widely considered one of the most handsome men in television? And that Walter Koenig was cast as Chekov because the producers wanted a hot young guy to appeal to girls the way the Monkees did?

For crying out loud, people, don’t preach about the canon of Trek if you don’t even remember the most basic points about the history of the production of the television show.

892. P Technobabble - November 18, 2008

879- Chris
My wife is a complete non-Trekkie, thinks Star Trek is stupid, and has, historically, had ZERO interest in it. Last night I tricked her – she wanted to see the trailer for Twilight, and I “accidentally” brought up the Star Trek trailer. As the trailer started, she asked, “What’s this?” I mumbled something, and then we both watched the trailer. When it finished, she said, “I’ll go see that with you.” I’m tellin’ ya, JJ’s gotta be doing something right. (I finally showed her the trailer for Twilight, and she said I’ll have to go see that with her. Fair enough….)

893. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[887] What about the USS Constellation?

894. fizzbin - November 18, 2008

#890 we don’t know yet if he moved to SF later to live with his uncle so it may be San Francisco and not Iowa. We’ll have to wait and see. I’m not assuming anything til I see the whole story.

895. Fred - November 18, 2008

It may be that the actual history was messed up by Nero’s first incursion, which changed everything about Kirk’s life. Spock can’t completely fix it, but he can get it to where the crew does come together when they should have, even though not the same way as before.

So, a different path to get there, but same destination; Kirk in command of the Enteprise with his crew.

896. Iowagirl - November 18, 2008

#367
Passt doch…;)

#891
– Am I the only one who remembers that back in the day, Bill Shatner was widely considered one of the most handsome men in television? –

Well, I don’t remember it first-hand, but I definitely agree! And that’s exactly the point… Pine is a pretty *boy*, Shatner was a handsome *man*. Kirk definitely is a *man*. Having said that, in STXI he probably isn’t..:p

PS: I do like James Siberius Kirk – apart from the fact that he can’t pronounce his name properly, the young rascal is rather dashing and kirkish.

897. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@895

That would sound reasonable and beievable

898. james tiberius bonehead - November 18, 2008

it’s all quite laughable watching you guys squabble over something like this….it was a tv show…..NOTHING to do with real life….and you kn*w that it’s just Paramount trying to get the goose to lay one more golden egg…..and you know that there are suckers for (many of you amongst them)…..so suck it up and stop bitching….one day one or 2 of you may discover girls and may move out of your parents basement….until then ENJOY

899. uus jon - November 18, 2008

@887&889
woo wooo carm down dear, its only a movie.
try to be constructive not just arguemenative.

please dont tell me and other what we think

900. ScottyGirl - November 18, 2008

@898

Bonehead, why don’t you stop wasting your and our time and devote yourself to your many girls.

I’ll be off now. I have a date with my husband. And you?

Cheerio!

901. Andros - November 18, 2008

“And sex has to be everywhere, does it? Star trek 90210.

Last thing: Kirk’s “pain” was Carol leaving him and taking David with her. Read Ashes of Eden if you havent already. The best of the Shatnerverse”

Did you ever see TOS? Sex was everywhere on that series so this is very much in line with 40 years later where the sex would be. Also…lets not bring novels into this.

902. Ian B - November 18, 2008

#887 “When the Big E was first designed, it had to be plausible.”

Oh, please. Big flying saucer at the front; no logical design reason. Stuck on spindly neck to the engineering section (structural weakness, no reason). Engines on spindly sticks, another structurally weak design. And so on. Bridge stuck on the top in a vulnerable spot, despite having no windows. No good design reason for that either.

It was designed to look good, and to look different to traditional “rocket ships”. It wasn’t an exercise in engineering design, it was an exercise in making a good looking spaceship. The fact that years of obsessive retconning and explanationising has given “plausible” reasons for various Trek things doesn’t mean squat. How many starships were there when the series started? Nobody knew. Indeed, the Federation didn’t even exist… UESPA, remember?

It’s science fiction. It was just a fun science fiction show. Let’s all pray that’s what we’re going back to with this movie, after all the years of a dwindling minority coming to blows over a misplaced Jeffries Tube.

903. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[900] I strongly hope that Bonehead does not have a date with your husband too ;))

904. interlocutor - November 18, 2008

i know the credits page says winona ryder plays amanda grayson in this movie but the human woman lying on the couch with the vulcan man in this trailer looks an awful lot like carrie anne moss. it’s definitely not winona ryder. what gives?

905. uus jon - November 18, 2008

SEX? in star trek?never!!!

really. i would estimate that the first things that come to non-trekies wehn asked about trek would be
spocks ears
kirks fighting
bright colours
enterprise
and lots and lots and lots of kissing with alien girls. if kirk doesnt make out with a alien, its a bad day.

906. Just another German trekker - November 18, 2008

[880] Ah, I see, I see! – Seems logical to me… Uhmmm… college comedy in Trek (: – OH NO, THE FRANCHISE IS DAMNED!!!

907. uus jon - November 18, 2008

@902(01) hehe
Jeffries Tube lol
what a joke

908. S. John Ross - November 18, 2008

#905 speaks gospel truth when he says: “and lots and lots and lots of kissing with alien girls. if kirk doesnt make out with a alien, its a bad day.”

AMEN. Now all we need is a Kirk played by a man of some kind, instead of this balsawood prettybody (did I say balsa? I meant Pine … I get them confused)

909. S. John Ross - November 18, 2008

Freudian slip? PrettyBOY. :)

Either way: 300ccs of gravitas. Stat. Before a strong breeze whips this one away.

910. Databrain - November 18, 2008

I wonder how many of you are hired to come here to spread the loyalty. There is no logic emanating from you at all, only hatred for gene roddenberrys vision is what I am seeing. I am only being honest about my perceptions, as they coexist in this realm with yours.

Those people who are insulting the next generation need to remember one thing. the next generation was the culmination of genes vision. one of the reasons he created it was to correct many injustices that he had to persevere through during the original series.

Like the injustice of having to make every female character wear a skirt with leggings. The injustice of poor effects, the injustice of early cancellation. Also he felt he did not get his vision across completely in the original.

Furthermore The next generation was, by far, out on a limb, in terms of its ‘adventure’ stories. The thing you must realize is that a lot of them were cerebral adventures, not typical formulaic ‘action hero with phaser’ adventures. Which made them amazingly thought provoking.

Episodes like cause and effect come to mind. And to those who are saying the next generation compromised the fan base. What alternate dimension are you living in? The next generation single handedly brought star trek into the 90s and even the 21st century in syndicated form.

It’s viewership exceeded anything before or since in the trekiverse. So what if it didn’t appeal to the masses? The masses had plenty of other mindless drivel to pacify themselves with. Star Trek, when it was integral, was not about pleasing them. But about going out on a limb to provoke minds.

Again, the next generation was the culmination of genes vision. That is why it was so cerebral, stoic, metaphysical and just plain thought provoking. It made you have to make an effort, it made you see the merit of future humanity. And if you didn’t see the merit, you just didn’t get it. And I am fine with that.

911. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[906] You know what they say, JAGT, Academy days, the best time of your life!

912. Cheve - November 18, 2008

905. uus jon – November 18, 2008
SEX? in star trek?never!!!
———————————————————-
Sex was parts A and B of almost every plan James T Kirk ever had in TOS, so I must disagree and say that sexiness and sex itself was one of the main plot devices that made the story move forward in TOS.

913. thorsten - November 18, 2008

Databrain, what is wrong with you? Read that Statement of yours again…

“I wonder how many of you are hired to come here to spread the loyalty.”

Do you seriously think Paramount pays people to write here?

“There is no logic emanating from you at all, only hatred for gene roddenberrys vision is what I am seeing.”

You are the only one talking about Hate.
Calm Down. We are all friends here…

914. JL - November 18, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Thrilled beyond by the trailer. I have not been this excited about a Trek film since Wrath of Khan. Thank you and the others for doing so many good things to re-energize TOS Trek and to do it justice. And I believe you are doing just that. CAPTAIN PIKE is in the film, for god’s sake — what better way to show fans you care and you are paying attention to detail? You are showing respect as you re-launch this franchise!

I was also impressed that the original “RED ALERT” sound effect was there, as well as — well, I have to assume this since it has been heard at the end of both trailers — the “TRANSPORTER” sound effect.

Now all we need is the original “DOOR SWISH” and “COMMUNICATOR” sound effects and this Trek will be nearly complete!!

(I’m guessing holographic wrist communicators, btw)

Thanks again
A Fan in Cleveland

915. George - November 18, 2008

Did anyone notice that when Spock in coming down the hill with Amanda that it looks like he has a tricorder on one side and what looks like a phaser on the other. Now I don’t know what he has in his hand but I guess we’ll find out.

916. JL - November 18, 2008

910

“There is no logic emanating from you at all, only hatred for gene roddenberrys vision…”

Maybe cut back on the drinking, I don’t know…

There are very few “haters” of Gene Roddenberry’s vision (that I am seeing).

You are amplifying this to a great degree.

This film is respectful and it is paying tribute.

Step up to the times. Atari 2600 is not the best videogame system anymore.

917. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘You are the only one talking about Hate.
Calm Down. We are all friends here…’

Everyone here who, without question, espouses the ‘reimagining’ has, in one way or the other, directly or indirectly revealed a hatred for genes vision. It has been called everything from ‘silly’ to ‘non-sensical’ to ‘unrealistic’ (as if sci fi has to be realistic by todays standards) and an entire slew of other hateful comments aimed at the original future humanity vision. No one has directly taken on anything I have stated, all any of you are doing is spewing ad hominem attacks on my person hood. And by the way my statement above is a legitimate paranoia, not an insult on anyones person hood.

918. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Step up to the times. Atari 2600 is not the best videogame system anymore.’

I wasn’t even alive when the Atari 2600 was out. Your presumption is both dumb and unsound. I will bet you 9 bars of gold pressed latinum that you are, at least, 10 years, of not more, my senior.

919. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

-It looks great..even i never understood this strange need for returning to origins..maybe because i , personally , hate the original uniforms and the original ships..like any other REAL trekkie i like just the uniforms from First Contact and aliens from TNG..offcourse

920. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[915] Communicator, George?

921. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#912 “Sex was parts A and B of almost every plan James T Kirk ever had in TOS”

And (almost) every TOS episode had a “chick of the day”, a formula that survived in a lot of tv series through the 70s and early 80s. Sex and tv entertainment are a golden couple :)

922. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘And (almost) every TOS episode had a “chick of the day”, a formula that survived in a lot of tv series through the 70s and early 80s. Sex and tv entertainment are a golden couple :)’

This is one of the things gene corrected with the next generation. The culmination of his vision of the future.

923. Ian B - November 18, 2008

I just think this whole “Gene’s Vision” thing is strange and overstated. What was this great vision? So far as I can tell, a rather naive californian liberal utopianism. Well the thing is, things have changed since the 60s. We’re living in that vision to a large degree, certainly here in Europe. Sexism and racism are illegal, everyone has to be nice to each other, the state controls everything, and nobody has any money.

It’s hardly much of a revolutionary message to put in Star Trek, when it already permeates the real world around us.

924. JL - November 18, 2008

922

“This is one of the things gene corrected with the next generation. The culmination of his vision of the future.”

Yeah cause we all know that show was so much better than TOS! And that Next Gen was totally original and didn’t Xerox the formula from what was done in TOS.

Problem is, Next Gen was a Xerox but not a very good one.

Maybe he should have left some of the spicy ingredients intact.

925. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘I just think this whole “Gene’s Vision” thing is strange and overstated. What was this great vision? So far as I can tell, a rather naive californian liberal utopianism. Well the thing is, things have changed since the 60s. We’re living in that vision to a large degree, certainly here in Europe. Sexism and racism are illegal, everyone has to be nice to each other, the state controls everything, and nobody has any money.’

I have no idea what life was like in the 60s, I was born in the late 80s, when the next generation was on the air, so I only even first saw that in syndication. That one certainly outshines the original in terms of its ‘utopian vision’ of the future. Which is really just a vision of people tackling other problems outside their own egos, thus reducing the amount of necessary conflict between humans and increasing their awareness of the need to join heads and hearts and work together as one.

I don’t know, any european I have known tells me they would never give up their lifestyles for one more akin to that of the united states. What with the free college, healthcare and the idea of everyone having food, clothing and housing. You should try talking to a few europeans before pretending to be one next time.

926. Neil - November 18, 2008

Okay, next thought…

I hate to provide an education into how the movie business works, but apparently since there was never a TOS episode that dealt with 21st-century marketing techniques, maybe some of you need a lesson.

TPTB knew that the trailer would be running in action-oriented venues like the Bond movie, and in Terminator on TV. Thus, the first trailer is produced in such a way as to appeal to the audiences who would go to those films.

QoS is an action movie. Only a complete idiot would produce something other than an action-oriented trailer to show to that audience.

Conclusion: The trailer shows the parts of the movie that would appeal to an audience who spends money on action movies with lots of crashing vehicles, fighting and naked chicks. It is not necessarily a summary of the entire film.

Class dismissed.

927. Lt. Barclay - November 18, 2008

I have to agree with #922 on this one. I mean, realistically speaking of it as a TV series/movie, sex might work great as a lure for viewers to watch something. It’s a well-known working formula in the entertainment business.

But fundamentally speaking, having a “chick of the day” wouldn’t essentially consider women more as an object to be used or just something fun to see, rather than considering them to be dignified and as equals, a part of a crew who works together in a better future?

I’m not saying it does not exist in the 23rd century (otherwise, how do humans reproduce? Cloning? :), but there is just no real need to be shown explicitly. Say what you want, this is basically a device to make more people watch the movie. There is no significant plot advancement with that.

Just food for thought, don’t flame me :)

928. Follow the Trekker - November 18, 2008

We have waited for a new Star Trek-film since 2002 and when the wait seem to be over, some people are über-negative. Whatah**l is the matter with you?

Many of us have been waiting for a new Star Trek-film for 13 years, since First Contact. In the last 10 years only two films have been produced. It has been a desert for us Trekkers.

We should be greatful for the contributions of Abrams and the crew. It appears to me that they will be the ones who bring back this great franchise and that will probably result in new tv-shows as well.

Give them a chance and stop whining about Gene’s vision, the new enterprise and this and that and so on and so forth…… It’s unworthy, really.

Follow the Trekker
A Borg from Sweden

929. JL - November 18, 2008

And there you go. Nice overview, Neil

930. uus jon - November 18, 2008

@912
i was being sarcastic. :)
i hope its a green lady under kirk in the trailer. and i hope the shot cuts away with some sort of sexual simile. ie a train going into a tunnel, ship taking off. like a hitchcock film.

“….We have failed to uphold Brannigan’s Law. However, I did make it with a hot alien babe. And in the end, is that not what man has dreamt of since first he looked up at the stars?”

931. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Give them a chance and stop whining about Gene’s vision, the new enterprise and this and that and so on and so forth…… It’s unworthy, really.’

Unworthy of what? All the money they spent on this film that could have been spent doing something trek-like, like feeding homeless people, building an institution that helps tackle this problem, making people more aware of the need to help? Rhetorical questions.

932. Databrain - November 18, 2008

And stop ‘whining’ about the whiners. And have a nice day.

933. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 18, 2008

#928
Even if this movie would be utter crap? Better crap than nothing at all?

And by the way? Who is this Gene anyway? Star Trek would have been much better without him, for sure!
Oh wait, without him there would never have been a Star Trek. Damn!

934. Just another German trekker - November 18, 2008

You know what:
As soon as they cast Karl Urban, the whole movie was DOOMed! – WOOOHOOO (: – Sorry, someone HAD to say that (:
Bones! – Gimme back my brain!

935. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[917] Okay, let me be clear here, I love Gene Roddenberrys Star Trek, okay?
And I do this since 38 years, so I know what I am talking about.

But there is absolutely no problem for me to speak out for people like Orci and Abrams. People who carry the torch into another millenium, with passion and conviction. Because that is what Trek lacked in the last years.
They respect Roddenberry. And they did a great job and finding a formula for channeling Gene into the 21st Century.

936. Ian B - November 18, 2008

925, I “talk to” Europeans every day because I live here, in England to be precise. Either that or I’m a shill in the pay of Big Oil, I’ll be bound, yes, that’s more likely.

937. Follow the Trekker - November 18, 2008

# 931. Databrain

All the money thay spent on every other Star Trek-series/film could have been allocated to those purposes as well. But they weren’t. Instead they gave us Star Trek, which we love, and that’s exactely what is happening right now. But this time the work is done properly.

If you don’t like, don’t go and see it. I shall watch it twice in that case.

938. James - November 18, 2008

Databrain – can I postulate that, reading between the lines of your posts, you’re worried that ST:XI will be some bastardised version of Trek which doesn’t encapsulate the true spirit of Roddenberry’s original vision?

OK, fair enough. To be honest, a lot of us are worried about that, to varying degrees. But let’s put this in perspective here – we’ve seen about a dozen still shots, seen two trailers and heard lots of rumours. We don’t know a vast amount about this film.

With regard to TNG being the golden era of Trek, I’m inclined to agree with you. However, a relaunch of TNG wouldn’t work, because it’s not what fans want now. TNG has been done to death – it had 7 series, and then VOY and ENT arguably copied it. DS9 was the only series post-TNG that offered anything different.

Star Trek has moved beyond Gene Roddenberry. If it continues to adhere strictly to his vision then it ceases to become entertainment and it becomes a memorial. It might last longer, but like all memorials, it will eventually be forgotten.

That doesn’t mean that the new film can’t do justice to his vision. It doesn’t mean it can’t honour what has gone before, and break out in a new direction at the same time. And if it can do that, then it is keeping the spirit of Trek alive. And the spirit of Trek, the idea of Trek, is the very essence of it – it’s what attracts us to it in the first place.

939. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[936] Hi Ian, greetings from the old european heartland!

940. Bill T - November 18, 2008

Databrain – all I can tell from the trailer is that they chose to show a bunch of action. It shows nothing of the essence of what the movie is about. You say you know Gene’s vision. It was born in the 60’s and in the Viet Nam war era. The people who lived in that era are more likely to grasp his vision since they are from the era it was born out of. The non interference directive and such came from that. You’re in you 20’s and think you know everything about Gene’s real vision. I’m 55 and think I do too. This is a trailer. This particular one may be aimed at a Transformers audience. I’m going to wait to see the whole film before I make any decision. You ought to read through your posts. I can’t believe you are so full of yourself and spouting all this just because of on trailer containing two minutes from the film.

941. Q Macedonia - November 18, 2008

If we were to embrace Star Trek for at least another 40 years, we really should over the things like where was Enterprise built. I really don’t give a #$@.

The franchise cannot survive much longer if it doesn’t receive a certain amount of fresh blood. We all now what going on with our universe 2 years ago. Everyone taught that this was it. It was fun while it lasted, but Star Trek is history right now. Manny Coto, tried to stick to the TOS in Enterpise, but appart from good some good stories, it didn’t work. It felt like it gave TOO MUCH tribute to TOS, instead of bringing something authentic to the franchise.

Now we are 2 years later excited as never, and we are discussing trivial things like where the ship is built and why Kirk is driving a corvette. We should stop for a second and be thankfull for a moment that Paramount is considering Star Trek as prime product. The worst thing that can happen is that the movie will be bad. God knows how many bad movies and episodes Gene made. This is their (JJ, Bob…) first try, first picture. If they don’t make a good movie, we, at least I will be there to send a message and give them support to make another one. If they don’t hit TWOK publicity the first time, maybe in the second or third movie they’ll get there. Gene started with TMP, and made TFF. Don’t forget that.

Bob Orci. Macedonia is a small country but is with you guys all the way.

942. Trekkie - November 18, 2008

Czech subtitled trailer:

http://trekkies.cz/view.php?cisloclanku=2008110038&rstema=&stromhlmenu=

943. JL - November 18, 2008

940

“You ought to read through your posts. I can’t believe you are so full of yourself and spouting all this…”

Agreed.

The world is filled with different ideas and interesting concepts. As Trek fans (TOS fans for sure), we should all be — at the very least — intrigued by the premise of a Trek relaunch. All this focus on the bad stuff, the supposed “evil” people behind this new film and their “rotten” intentions, well, it is really a tired act.

944. JL - November 18, 2008

“FRESH BLOOD”, 941 — excellent way to put it, great post

945. captain shroom - November 18, 2008

Well said 941.

Really, the nitpicking is tiresome. For a TV show that seemed doomed from the beginning Trek has survived amazingly well. The fans can take credit for that. Rather than celebrate this, some choose to complain. I just don’t get it.

Seems to me Paramount has put a truckload of cash into this movie. They have hired arguably the most talented producers in the business today. I might add one who has successfully repackaged science fiction/action to a wider audience with shows like Heroes, Lost and Alias. He even managed to breath new life into the monster movie genre.

What more could a fan want? To expect a movie to mirror a production from 1966 makes no sense. My cell phone is more impressive than the bridge of the old Enterprise. The 23rd century hasn’t happened yet, no one knows what it will look like, but surely more impressive than a television set.

946. Cervantes - November 18, 2008

WHATEVER ‘alternative timeline’ shenanagins we end up with in THIS particular ‘TOS’-themed Movie, I am now warmly secure in the knowledge that I have now seen an ‘onscreen’ portrayal of ‘older’ Kirk surving the odds yet again, DESPITE what the creators of the ‘GENERATIONS’ Movie decided during their possesion of the franchise….

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M2JeKeVynbY

….it’s all so obvious now….the events shown concerning Kirk in the ‘GENERATIONS’ Movie….were just an ‘alternative timeline’, and the Kirk I followed in the original series is the one that LIVES!!

947. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

917 Databrain — “No one has directly taken on anything I have stated”

Actually, I’ve been trying to have a reasoned, fair discussion with you….

“So what if it didn’t appeal to the masses? The masses had plenty of other mindless drivel to pacify themselves with. Star Trek, when it was integral, was not about pleasing them. But about going out on a limb to provoke minds.”

I still don’t understand how you see Star Trek as purely thought provoking, and not at all geared toward the “masses”. Sure, Star Trek is thought provoking, no contest there. And I agree with you 100% that TNG took a number of opportunities to push the envelope further in this regard. But almost every episode of every series & film of Star Trek was tailored to deliver the “message” in an entertaining, crowd-pleasing manner.

I dare say the intent of Star Trek has been to bring thought provoking ideas TO the masses. The moment ST fans start to insulate themselves and act like they’re in a high tower above the great unwashed, as it were, ST starts to lose its power to educate and edify.

I hope it’s clear I’m not advocating wholesale “dumbing down” Star Trek to the level of pure action. I’m just wary of elitism developing in the fanbase.

948. table10 - November 18, 2008

777. boborci

Im all for spoilers, doesn’t ruin my enjoyment at all, but as for this comment…. WOW

Very surprised you let that one go, cause thats a pretty big one.

I hope you fon’t get in trouble for it, lol

949. Cervantes - November 18, 2008

Great trailer by the way!

950. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

Dumbing down Star Trek may be disrespectful to thinking fans.
But thinking about the “masses” as dumb, stupid people is disrespectful as well.
What’s wrong in having a lot of exciting, bombastic, explosive fun while getting some kind of intelligent message?

951. LordCheeseCakeBreath - November 18, 2008

Mr. Orci: I’m finding that half the fun is the wait and speculation. Do you feel the same way?

Thanks for all your hard work on this project.

LCCB

952. snoopy - November 18, 2008

Databrain, you are without a doubt a glowing example of the worst kind of fan star trek has.

Your venom, hatred, accusations of side motives in those who make comments positive about the movie and blinding arrogance in what you consider ‘gene’s true vision’ are the very attitudes, the very superiority, and mistreatment of others that is shunned in star trek.

Do you think your attitude would impress in the universe you so love? Do you imagine kirk or spock or picard as characters would approve of your attitude, paranoia and attempts to polarise and segregate? Do you think the way you are treating others now falls in line with ‘gene’s vision’?

Do you really think any of the protagonists in trek would act like you?

Take a time-out Databrain, because while you may have watched star trek, you clearly were not paying attention to it. If you plan to keep preaching gene’s true vision, maybe you should practice it first.

953. James - November 18, 2008

@946:

Ah, I like!

Maybe there could be a properly re-edited version of Generations done – to sort out a few mistakes and one CRIMINAL OFFENCE – i.e. killing Kirk, especially so poorly.

Tagged on the end of the credits – ‘Reimagined by Star Trek fans’

Hehehehe… perhaps it should also say ‘… and Shatner fans’

;-)

954. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#951 “I’m finding that half the fun is the wait and speculation.”

See Cloverfield :)

955. James - November 18, 2008

Incidentally, do we know of anything further on the viral campaign? I’ve checked ncc-1701.com – no change.

Anyone?

956. falcon - November 18, 2008

@887 – I just had to respond to this.

Design many starships, do you?

“Plausible” doesn’t equate to “possible” or “do-able”. At least not in most cases, and not without heavy, heavy computer intervention. (Just look at the F-16 – without its computers and fly-by-wire system that thing is just a $40-million-dollar lawn dart. Unstable as hell.)

Fans have re-designed the Enterprise to the point where some of them could almost build it. But nobody knows for sure what a spaceship in the 23rd century will look like, never mind how it will perform, withstand the rigors of below-zero/above-boiling-point temperatures at the same time, and oh yeah, go faster than light. I think it’s a given that we can’t do those things in the 21st Century.

IT’S A BLOODY TV SHOW! So what if they redesigned the Enterprise? It’s still the Enterprise! Do you think the sailors who sailed on the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to bear the name moaned and groaned because it didn’t look like the old CV-6 from WWII? Or that it had nuclear reactors powering the screws instead of good old fashioned diesel boilers? (Okay, maybe some did.)

The name “Enterprise” carries with it an ideal, and a promise. The ship in Star Trek does no less. Design is secondary.

957. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Take a time-out Databrain, because while you may have watched star trek, you clearly were not paying attention to it. If you plan to keep preaching gene’s true vision, maybe you should practice it first.’

What part of genes vision am I not practicing? I have been tolerant, conversational, analytical philosophical, humanitarian and waiting for direct answers to some of my statements. Which I still have not received.

You, and those like you, on the other hand, have been, toward genes vision, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, flagrantly insulting and outright intolerant. Think, reflect on the things said by your party, and then restate them.

958. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Dumbing down Star Trek may be disrespectful to thinking fans.
But thinking about the “masses” as dumb, stupid people is disrespectful as well.’

Dumbing down something as intelligent as trek is basically equivalent to calling most people too stupid to comprehend it in its original form. The makers of such a film would be the ones insulting the general intelligence, not those pushing for more.

959. TJ - November 18, 2008

Half of the fun (well ok A LOT) of the fun of visiting this site is reading the comment. Wow! Insane, all the twisted knickers over things not being EXACTLY the same reminds me of all the old school BSG fans getting bent outta shape about the new BSG.

I’ve been a life long Trek fan, 3rd generation in my fam infact…hell I was practically watching it in the womb…and I am DYING to see this movie. You always have a little trepidation because you dont want to be disappointed, or have memories but I always figure if I dont watch, I’ll never know!

The trailer looks AWESOME! Yeah its the typical sexed up, action heavy, rock band promo but meh! Thats par for the course and a 1 min monlogue would be BORING!!! Star Trek was as much about the action and excitement at any cerebral complexities.

Bring it On!!!! Is it May 09 yet?

960. Bill T - November 18, 2008

The trailer represents a little over two minutes of the film. Even if you stretched out the action scenes in the trailer that still leaves an hour and forty-five minutes of potential Star Trek greatness. Why all the worries about a trailer? I have seen great trailers for bad movies and vice versa.

We know that Kirk had his share of women in the TV show. We also know he had one true love at the academy and another one he knocked up. We know he wasn’t a boy scout. We know he was grim, a stack of books with legs. In one of the described clips Kirk says he’s going to be an officer in 3 years instead of the usual 4. There is plenty of room for him being a stack of books with legs in those 3 years. We also know that the most important directive given is the Prime Directive and he personally broke that on numerous occasions against the advice of his first officer. I can’t see anything in this two minute trailer that shows me Kirk is nothing like Kirk.

961. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[958] Databrain, I told you before, no one is your enemy here. Just relax.
You don’t sound like 25, more like 82…

962. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Sure, Star Trek is thought provoking, no contest there. And I agree with you 100% that TNG took a number of opportunities to push the envelope further in this regard. But almost every episode of every series & film of Star Trek was tailored to deliver the “message” in an entertaining, crowd-pleasing manner.’

And it did just that insomuch as it ever could or would throughout the run of the next generation. Remember, the next generation was more eccentric and thought provoking than the original series, and yet it garnered more viewers than the original did. It did not do this at all by catering to action-film audiences. It did it by being integral about it’s messages and pushing the envelope both artistically and philosophically. And it did so with the blessing of Gene, who created it to augment his own vision of the future that he felt was not fully put forth in the original due to limitations set forth by television execs.

963. Chris Pike - November 18, 2008

954. “Paulaner – November 18, 2008
#951 “I’m finding that half the fun is the wait and speculation.”

See Cloverfield :)”

I also enjoyed all that Cloverfield speculation build up. But the film itself was way, way more than half the enjoyment. I’m an older one and it’s been many a year since my heart was racing like that through any film.

964. Databrain - November 18, 2008

‘Databrain, I told you before, no one is your enemy here. Just relax.
You don’t sound like 25, more like 82…’

I am relaxed. You obvious equate being relaxed with talking about things in a light hearted ‘LOL’ manner. Fortunately you are not mirriam webster and I am not interested in proving that I am ‘relaxed’ to you.

965. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[960] You are right, Bill. From the moment when Kirk arrives at the shuttle, gives away his bike and joins Pike you know that he will give his very best at the academy. We know from JJ that he will get in trouble anyway, but that is another story…

966. Databrain - November 18, 2008

Oh and again, with the insults toward the younger generation.

‘you don’t sound 25 you sound 82′

as if to say you must sound rather clueless and have no real opinionation at 25. I won’t even respond to such idiocy and prejudice again.

967. JL - November 18, 2008

Here’s one for ya.

How do you know this film is going to be “dumbed down,” anyway? You’re attempting to make an argument based on a few photos, and a couple of minutes of footage.

Maybe you’re not making that allegation; maybe you’re just guessing. Either way, you are making statements which pretty much trash the premise of the film, it’s imagery, the people behind it etc etc — all without seeing a finished product.

And you can say that we positive thinkers are assuming things also… that the film will be good, etc — but the difference is (and pay attention here)… you are distributing a lot of negative energy and most people — Trek fans included — do not appreciate it.

There are Trek fans and there are Trek whiners. Guess which one you sound like?

968. Holger - November 18, 2008

892: You may of course say that I can twist everything into the negative, but I don’t think that JJ has done something great when people who have always hated Trek now go: Geee, I like this! This shows to me that Trek has been turned from something which has a special character (which some loved and some hated) into something which everybody likes … i.e. something without any special character!
If your wife says after the movie ‘I wanna get more acquainted with science, engineering or philosophy’ then that would be something. (OK, maybe your wife is a scientist already, I can’t know that, of course.) Let’s see if that happens :-)

969. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[964] hehe, I am too old for the LOL stuff. If you want to complain on, just go ahead. I did not get your Webster reference, though…

970. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#925—“That one {TNG} certainly outshines the original in terms of its ‘utopian vision’ of the future.”

That might be because TOS never aspired to portray anything ‘utopian’ to begin with. The ‘utopian’ element was revisionist Roddenberry to be sure.

TOS was sold as a “western in space”, or “wagon train to the stars”, as some prefer to call it. It was never a “geeks only” club.

It was full of action and human drama. It was ‘sexy’. Sure, there were bits of social commentary, but human beings (for all of their flaws as much as their redeeming characteristics) were very recognizable to the fans.

There is a major difference between depicting an optimistic vision of the future for Humanity during a time when many believed its future to be bleak, and depicting any sort of “utopia”.

TNG was not sexy.

For many of us, it was in fact, disappointing. We were accustomed to larger-than-life heroes like James T. Kirk, Spock, Leonard McCoy, and Montgomery Scott.

I never saw anything in the characters of the TNGverse that made me want to invest in them.

I do not begrudge anyone who prefers the 24th Century version of Star Trek, but to me, it was very bland—even boring.

—holdecks
—ship’s counselors
—android pinnochios
—children on the bridge
—excessive technobabble
—caveman Klingons
—politically correct utopianism
—a ship captain (of the USS Hilton) who sips Earl Grey, enjoys opera, etc.

This was not my Star Trek. It was something else.

I am one of those people whom they have already inticed to give this movie a chance, simply by making it about the iconic TOS-era characters.

I never paid a dime to see any TNG-era movie, nor was I ever more than passively interested in anything on television from the late 80’s-early 90’s “Roddenberry box” (as Ronald Moore called it) or from the Berman era.

With that said, TNG does not need me to like it. It has plenty of fans.

But there are all kinds of Star Trek, and there are all kinds of Star Trek fans.

I look forward to possibly seeing some Star Trek that I can be a fan of again.

971. Holger - November 18, 2008

JL, I totally agree that there’s no hate intended here and we all wanna be friends. But that non-withstanding, I believe your statement that

“This film is respectful and it is paying tribute.”

is exactly the point over which there is such wide disagreement.

972. Databrain - November 18, 2008

938 said
Star Trek has moved beyond Gene Roddenberry. If it continues to adhere strictly to his vision then it ceases to become entertainment and it becomes a memorial. It might last longer, but like all memorials, it will eventually be forgotten.
That doesn’t mean that the new film can’t do justice to his vision. It doesn’t mean it can’t honour what has gone before, and break out in a new direction at the same time. And if it can do that, then it is keeping the spirit of Trek alive. And the spirit of Trek, the idea of Trek, is the very essence of it – it’s what attracts us to it in the first place.’

The problem I have with the statement ‘break out in new direction’ is that it isn’t doing any such thing, if the film is anything like the trailer. All it would be doing is venturing into the same domain that several other films have already gone. Planet of the apes remake, transformers, the starwars prequels, etc. There is enough of that sort of ‘product’ out there to last a century.

The problem I have is that people continue to use reverse semantics, such as ‘break out in new direction’ to justify the very real possibility that what is going to happen is that this film will be transformers with star trek qualities and characters. That is not a new direction, it is an adoption of a non-trek formula to try to promote a trek product.

And what I keep trying to emphasize is that every bit of creativity you could ever squeeze from trekdom has already been squeezed from it. All you can do at that point is recombine elements and/or continue a story and add some further exposition to the trek universe.

Assuming that JJ and companys vision for trek is further out and beyond anything Gene may have been (if this is what any of you actually think) able to conceive of is just misguided. I actually don’t even think you think that. I think you think this will be an action film and you don’t mind being that.

I do mind anything with trek labeled on it being considered action before substance. That is my pride in what the nucleus of it has always and will always be. Trendifying it would not be ‘fresh’ it would be destructive.

973. Databrain - November 18, 2008

”JL, I totally agree that there’s no hate intended here and we all wanna be friends. But that non-withstanding, I believe your statement that
“This film is respectful and it is paying tribute.”
is exactly the point over which there is such wide disagreement.”

So you are basically saying it is alright for people to praise a film they have not seen, but not to question the merits of it, based on what has been seen thus far?

974. snoopy - November 18, 2008

Yep databrain! you sure are the very model of all those fine qualities you list!

TOLERANT- (Inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others; forbearing.)

‘Everyone here who, without question, espouses the ‘reimagining’ has, in one way or the other, directly or indirectly revealed a hatred for genes vision.’

‘Just admit that you were never a fan of genes vision, THUS never a fan of trek. Just admit you are here to support JJ not trek. And most especially not true trek.’

‘What’s with the people in the baseball caps standing in front of the cadets? I thought no one wore baseball caps in the 23rd century. Oh, that must be to pull in the baseball cap cult, so again, they can appeal to ‘wider audiences’.’

ANALYTICAL-(Expert in or using analysis, especially in thinking.)
‘I wonder how many of you are hired to come here to spread the loyalty.’

‘I would guess you are a seeder, someone who is here to try to influence thought and to make dumb young males consider seeing this film.’

‘That might be what the writers were attempting to accomplish from the get go of this project. To finally kill trek once and for all.’

HUMANITARIAN-(Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion)
‘tell you what, go watch lost, then a series of die hard films, then pitch black. You will be happy, I promise. As it does not take much to bring happiness and contentment to certain mind sets. Maybe even a lollipop?’

Also, you will find i am a member of no party, nor am i required to justify the opinion of anyone who thinks the movie is good. Why would i be expected to?

975. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#971—-The very fact that these characters are being reintroduced to a new generation over 4 decades after TOS is very much a tribute, IMO, and I fail to see how anyone can deduce that they are being anything but respectful to those characters at this point.

Such conclusions would make very little sense and there is no evidence of that at all.

Most of the naysayers appear to me to be the same posters who have been screaming that these guys will somehow ruin Star Trek long before there was a 2 minute trailer for the film.

976. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 18, 2008

962 – Databrain — “Remember, the next generation was more eccentric and thought provoking than the original series, and yet it garnered more viewers than the original did. It did not do this at all by catering to action-film audiences.”

Yes and no, in my opinion. “The Measure of a Man” is about as close as you can get to an examination of philosophical concepts in fiction (barring a certain class of art movies), but on the other hand “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is both conceptually interesting AND action-packed. I would argue there are more of the latter than the former, on balance.

Closettrekker, say what you will about Earl Grey and opera, but Picard is a even-handed, level-headed, diplomatic & strong-willed. He’s about as realistic a depiction of what a true leader is like as you will get on Star Trek or anywhere else. MInd you, I like Kirk (though I relate to Spock more), but Picard is pretty well infallible. But you can have Troi and her unitard any day; don’t care much for her.

977. Kev - November 18, 2008

Databrain is nothing but a muppet!

978. Holger - November 18, 2008

970:
-James Dean Kirk
-Cars and motorcycles speed-racing
-Robocops
-Spock violently freaking on duty on the bridge
-Sulu sporting extendable katana on duty (not as hobby)
-Street gang Romulans

Is that your Star Trek? Mine it isn’t.

“TOS was sold as a “western in space”, or “wagon train to the stars”, as some prefer to call it. It was never a “geeks only” club.”

Yes, but Gene also said that this was his sales pitch, and then he said laughing (in a filmed interview, I guess from the 70s, judging by the shape of his shirt collar) that the studio bosses didn’t get what he had promised them.

979. Databrain - November 18, 2008

”TOS was sold as a “western in space”, or “wagon train to the stars”, as some prefer to call it. It was never a “geeks only” club.”

it was ‘sold’ as that, but it was always Genes intention, according to majel barret, to inject philosophical intonations into it. he merely ‘sold’ it to the network as a ‘wagon train’ or whatever so they would take his bid for the slot they provided him with and then he gambled and put forth his philosophy regardless. Of course he had to keep it toned down a little because of fear of cancellation, which occurred nonetheless. Hence why the next generation was his redemption series.

980. Paulaner - November 18, 2008

#970

I agree with you. I enjoyed TNG, but I always found it aseptic and less emotional than TOS. In TNG, the Federation is a perfect world where people strive to be perfect. That’s too distant from the real human nature and creates a gap of unbelievability. The “in future money doesn’t exist” thing is silly and naive, in my opinion. TOS is more “fleshy”, more visceral, and I connect to it more easily. But every fan has its own vision, and I respect all of them.

981. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#785 – “But why doesn’t Spock travel back in time to before the attack on the Kelvin? By preventing the attack on the Kelvin the timeline would not be altered at all. Or Spock could travel back in time to before the escape of Nero to prevent him from travelling back in time in the first place.”

See, these are the sorts of questions that point out an inherent weakness in time travel stories of all sorts. (Look how many similar questions were raised in the wake of “Generations”.) If it’s a time travel story that one likes, one tends to overlook such things. Otherwise, they have a tenency to jump out at the viewer/reader.

I had an uncomfortable feeling when I first learned that ST09 was going to have a time travel plot, and it’s this sort of thing that’s the reason why, aside from my personal opinion that time travel has gotten way over-used in Trek.

“This all seems to indicate that JJ and his writers wanted to change the timeline on purpose.”

Oh, of that there is no doubt. The writers, certainly, knew enough of Trek’s backstory that it wasn’t done in ignorance. It was absolutely a conscious, deliberate choice. (Them being writers and all, it really doesn’t happen without them choosing for it to. ;) )

“The new alternate timeline would mean that the TOS episodes will never happen (the same with TNG, DS9 and Voyager).”
(snip)

Perhaps. Or the differences might be limited to the pre-TOS backstory and once the 5-year mission begins, things play out as in the Prime timeline. Fact is, we may not know for years, if ever, the details of that.

“Aside from creating a paradoxon for Spock (how can he travel back in time when his timeline never existed?) this will destroy the whole history of Star Trek.”

Well, to echo what’s been said before, if one accepts the idea of a multiverse of parallel timelines (see the TNG episode “Parallels”, for example), then the idea would seem to be that the new movie’s events create a branching continuum, separate from the original. (The “Back to the Future” trilogy also applied comparable logic.)

For our purposes as viewers, though, unless there’s some sort of major correction by the end, this movie’s success would likely spell the end of the original timeline *in practice*, because it’d be highly unlikely they’d go through all this and then just hop back to the Trek we’ve known. But addressing that question is something I’ll leave to Bob Orci.

“Why? To get a fresh start for those characters? So that we don’t know what will happen to them?
For me this is disrespectful not only to the Star Trek fans and the history of Star Trek but to Gene Roddenberry and his vision.”

To be fair, I don’t know that Mr. Roddenberry’s vision plays into it, but I certainly agree that it’s disrespectful to a) all the work that so many writers and producers put into at least trying to keep the fictional world basically coherent and cohesive, and b) the fans that care about that.

See, I’ve been thinking about a lot of this, and what seems a real shame to me is that a lot of the story elements that we’ve been reading about didn’t even *require* such a major rewrite of history. They could have been woven into what we know pretty easily. (Now, maybe we’ll learn more that will change that assessent, but I can only go with what I know at the moment.) The fact that they consciously rejected all that is what feels like a kick in the teeth.

I guess my real question to Bob (and whoever else from the production might be reading this) is: For the Trek fan who really doesn’t like reboots, and who cares about the Trekverse that we’ve already got, does this movie offer anything of substance?

982. Holger - November 18, 2008

973: “So you are basically saying it is alright for people to praise a film they have not seen, but not to question the merits of it, based on what has been seen thus far?”

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s a matter for dispute whether the movie is respectful of the original. No one has seen the movie so far, so everyone has to base opinion (positive or negative) on what we have got so far.

983. reinvigorated hitch1969© - November 18, 2008

I’ve read all the comments here and some of you dudes completely crack me up.

This new movie is going to be more Star Trek than the original series plus TNG plus DS9 plus Voyager plus Enterprise put together times Spock prime numbers.

Mark my words. old h69 said it here first.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

984. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#973—-It would be imprudent to do either at this point, IMO.

It is impossible to form a sound judgement on this film based upon an attempt to piece together little bits of dialogue and scenes in a 2 minute trailer.

The trailer is something aimed at audiences who have long ignored or ridiculed Trek and meant to intice them to give it a look. That’s just good marketing strategy. Surely you are intelligent enough to realize that.

985. Holger - November 18, 2008

975: “Most of the naysayers appear to me to be the same posters who have been screaming that these guys will somehow ruin Star Trek long before there was a 2 minute trailer for the film.”

Is that a problem? One can see one’s expectations confirmed by a 2 min trailer. In my case, my expectations were not confirmed, but worsened.
We shouldn’t accuse anyone of dishonesty just because he didn’t suddenly go crazy over the movie because of that trailer.

986. Databrain - November 18, 2008

”I agree with you. I enjoyed TNG, but I always found it aseptic and less emotional than TOS. In TNG, the Federation is a perfect world where people strive to be perfect. That’s too distant from the real human nature and creates a gap of unbelievability.”

It is more believable to assume that the human race will not be all that much like the humanity of today, that it will have evolved greatly as the result of technological advances we are not anywhere near in todays world. That the implementation of such can and will change the face of humanity.

What is unbelievable is the notion that the human race will be exactly as it is today, petty and intolerant toward one another in many ways still. Fighting over ‘jobs’ and necessities. Not in a world where replicators provide any and all things at ones disposal. Not in a world of limitless potential.

Sorry to break the news to you all. But the next generation is a realistic portrayal of humanity as it could turn out in several hundred years and after constant exposure to technological advancements that change not only our economy, but our minds and hearts for the better.

Oh but I keep forgetting, it’s boring to not watch people fighting over jobs and money, it’s boring to watch them tackle quantum variables as a team, instead of as a quibbling bunch of naked apes. It’s boring to watch them interact with beings so far in advance of us we can refer to them as gods. Have you picked up my sarcasm yet?

987. captain shroom - November 18, 2008

Mr. Spock, your ‘child’ is having a tantrum.

988. James - November 18, 2008

@972 – Databrain:

‘The problem I have with the statement ‘break out in new direction’ is that it isn’t doing any such thing, if the film is anything like the trailer. All it would be doing is venturing into the same domain that several other films have already gone.’

This is pure conjecture. Trailers are simply tiny samples – footage taken out of context to promote interest in the film. We don’t know enough about the film to know what it’s doing. Hopefully it will do something new whilst honouring the original. Don’t read too much into it.

‘And what I keep trying to emphasize is that every bit of creativity you could ever squeeze from trekdom has already been squeezed from it. All you can do at that point is recombine elements and/or continue a story and add some further exposition to the trek universe.’

Are you saying that Star Trek is DEAD? I don’t believe it, not for one microsecond. I personally think there is plenty of room for more creativity within the Trek universe.

‘Assuming that JJ and companys vision for trek is further out and beyond anything Gene may have been (if this is what any of you actually think) able to conceive of is just misguided. I actually don’t even think you think that. I think you think this will be an action film and you don’t mind being that.’

What I personally think is that more people have contributed to what Star Trek is than JUST Gene Roddenberry, and that therefore his particular take on what it is is no longer applicable, as it has evolved beyond that.

‘I do mind anything with trek labeled on it being considered action before substance. That is my pride in what the nucleus of it has always and will always be. Trendifying it would not be ‘fresh’ it would be destructive.’

I agree! The action should always compliment the substance – it should be justified. That’s how you get brilliant storytelling. However, just because the trailer shows mainly action scenes doesn’t mean that ST:XI is definitely going to be dumbed down. The trailer is designed to get people interested, nothing more.

989. James - November 18, 2008

@984 – Closettrekker

‘It is impossible to form a sound judgement on this film based upon an attempt to piece together little bits of dialogue and scenes in a 2 minute trailer.’

Absolutely!

990. Databrain - November 18, 2008

”The trailer is something aimed at audiences who have long ignored or ridiculed Trek and meant to intice them to give it a look. That’s just good marketing strategy. Surely you are intelligent enough to realize that.”

it is also intelligent to realize the possibility that, if they are willing to make a trailer that is designed to ‘entice’ those who have ridiculed trek before, or might ridicule it now, they just might make a film designed to do the same.

991. Pinky - November 18, 2008

@767 … ok, you’re wrong. Let’s first agree that TNG was the most successful and popular of the Star Trek tv series, whether some here think it’s sterile or not. Tech-talk helped make Star Trek legitimate sci-fi.

But that’s completely besides my point. I was saying I hoped JJ’s reference to Star Trek as a “rather talky geekfest” wasn’t an insult to the discussion and intellectual deconstruction of issues that made Star Trek such a special and dear adventure… that’s all.

992. Holger - November 18, 2008

985: Explanation: by dishonesty I mean that it would not be honest to repeat one’s preconceptions from before the trailer, without seriously taking the trailer into account first. That’s what closettrekker is implying some critics are doing here, if I understand correctly.

993. commander K, USS Sovereign - November 18, 2008

I think they will correct the timeline at the end of the film..or maybe older Spock will fix it..
or mayyyyyyybe the federation never actually work out they are romulan’s but just some invading aliens. (although we, as the audience would know, as well as older spock). That seems more logical.

994. Databrain - November 18, 2008

”What I personally think is that more people have contributed to what Star Trek is than JUST Gene Roddenberry, and that therefore his particular take on what it is is no longer applicable, as it has evolved beyond that”

it isn’t his ‘take’. he was always the nucleus of it, the prototype, the bible, so to speak. Writers of the original, and definitely of the next generation, definitely respected that nucleus and wrote around it, not against it.

995. Adam Cohen - November 18, 2008

British tabloids are so terrible in their factual accuracy– read their captions to freeze frames from the trailer. It’s a mess!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1086917/TRAILER-Star-Trek-gets-sexy-makeover-new-film-love-scenes-motorbikes-hunky-stars.html

996. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 18, 2008

Closettreker 970

You forgot ship’s Kindergarden

Er… well I think Picard took care of that himself when he rammed the primary hull (IN REAL TIME WITHOUT ISSUING AN EVACUATION ORDER!!!! BRILLIANT!!!) into the Shinzonshadowvesselshipthingie in the tour de force that was Nemesis

sorry toooooooo easy couldn’t resist

997. thorsten - November 18, 2008

I don’t want to repeat myself,
but as a guy who learned reading with a Star Trek book,
the german edition of Mission to Horatius in 1970, and I don’t want to bore you with all the Trek stuff I did in between, and who saw the 4 clips of the movie last week, all I can say is that people who respect Star Trek took it and made something exciting, funny and goosebumpy out of it.

The movie, while made for an 2009 audience, has everything in it that made me love Trek in the first place. It just works.

998. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#978—“Yes, but Gene also said that this was his sales pitch, and then he said laughing (in a filmed interview, I guess from the 70s, judging by the shape of his shirt collar) that the studio bosses didn’t get what he had promised them.”

Nor did they get any depiction of a utopia in the future. What they got was a television show which had far more fistfights than morality lessons, and as the studio found out later, was very palatable to the now all important 18-30 year old male demographic.

It had plenty of action, and it was sexy.

That’s what I see returning to Star Trek in this movie. Now of course, whether they accompany that sexiness and action with a great story remains to be seen, but Nimoy certainly seems to think so.

As far as the “James Dean Kirk”, as you called it, I think that was an underlying quality in him the whole time. It just so happens that this time around, circumstances have convirged (due to the altered timeline) which make that attribute more prevalent in his youth.

I have no problem with that at all.

As for the Spock thing, who knows what context that is presented in, or how the trailer is edited to manipulate the scene? That smells of Mr. Abrams’ penchant for misdirection to me. Moreover, Spock is half-hman, and has many more human qualities than he would care to admit. It is Nimoy’s Spock who suggests that he would be vulnerable to provocation at this point in his life. Spock’s inner struggle is what makes him such an endearing character to me, not so much his stoic Vulcan facade. His closest friends know him best as every bit as human as they are. There are no absolutes with Spock, and we have seen very little of him from this particular time period (pre-TOS). What we ‘have’ seen from that time has always indicated that he was a bit less in control of his emotional responses.

“Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was most….human.”

999. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#997—Great to hear that.

1000. haissemguy - November 18, 2008

1000th?

1001. thorsten - November 18, 2008

Trek Lives!

1002. Republikraut - November 18, 2008

Of course there are things that the loyalist fans won’t like. But its the loyalist fans that have created this issue in the first place. Star Trek got so tied up in its own fans and its own mystique, it forgot the more casual fan who’ll dip in and out to watch it.

Old Trek, all 40 years of it, died when Enterprise died. The 3 million viewers Enterprise got in its final season are those “hardcore” that have pumped there money into the show. Its the 10 – 15 million people that will watch it in the first 3 weeks that the franchise needs in order to continue. Not the 3 million who have alienated the 10 – 15 million.

The canon needs to be altered in order for Star Trek to survive anymore. If you can’t get rid of the 1960’s view of the future, then the whole franchise is dead. No one cares about some obscure captain in the future. When the world outside the fanbase hears Trek, they know a maximum of 4 names.

Kirk / Spock / Picard / Data

Sadly Trekkers, you killed your own show through your geekdom, and your refusal to see 40 years of convolution unpicked….
Thank God someone is willing to annoy some of you, the closed minded ones, in order to bring back some quality entertainment… cause God KNOWS, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and every single last one of the Star Trek TNG Movies were overall, hideous.

1003. James - November 18, 2008

@994 – Databrain:

‘it isn’t his ‘take’. he was always the nucleus of it, the prototype, the bible, so to speak. Writers of the original, and definitely of the next generation, definitely respected that nucleus and wrote around it, not against it.’

Of course his contribution to it is incredibly significant – he started the whole damn thing. I’m not trying to demean his influence. All I’m saying is that he didn’t write every episode. He didn’t personally approve of everything that went into it. He came up with an idea, and that in turn led other people to come up with other ideas. That collection of ideas, and the creativity that they spawned, is Star Trek.

Yes, his idea was the nucleus – the prototype. The core – the beginning. Not the be all and end all – just a part of the greater whole. A very significant part, for certain, but not the all-encompassing whole. Star Trek is more than what Gene Roddenberry originally imagined because other people have had a creative input, too.

As far as ‘writing against the idea’, there’s nothing definitive to suggest that that is going to happen.

1004. Spockalicious - November 18, 2008

so – i’m not going to read all of the posts, so maybe someone has proposed this already…

but – i imagine the brief glimpse of PineKirk saying “buckle up” could be at the end of the film. i imagine him coming on the bridge as the new Cpt of the E, and Spock says, “they made YOU the Cpt???” – – thus eliciting the wise guy remark – “buckle up.”

1005. hitch1969©, sexily madeover in tha UK. - November 18, 2008

Yo AdCo™,

Check out the harsh British commentary over in that link you gave:

“Can’t believe they have a made another movie of this tired old American rubbish……All trekkies should be beamed up to the planet they are from…..
– Dom, Shepperton, UK, 18/11/2008 13:19″

Even Stanky McFibberish® ain’t that negative! aiiiiiiiight?

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

1006. JL - November 18, 2008

(Anthony must be caching again)

1007. JL - November 18, 2008

Why won’t my earlier post register??

1008. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#986—“Oh but I keep forgetting, it’s boring to not watch people fighting over jobs and money, it’s boring to watch them tackle quantum variables as a team, instead of as a quibbling bunch of naked apes. It’s boring to watch them interact with beings so far in advance of us we can refer to them as gods.”

So, you’re saying that TOS depicted a bunch of squibbling naked apes?

I never got that impression at all. I don’t understand what you are comparing.

TOS was the vision of a possible future for Mankind in which the human race did not destroy itself, but instead, bettered itself by eliminating many of the social ills which plague us today and continuing the human adventure by exploring the final frontier.

As a combat veteran former officer in the United States Marine Corps, I have seen plenty of “realistic leadership”. I’m not sure that’s what I want from the fictional entertainment provided by Star Trek. My preference is for the larger-than-life heroes of the Original Series.

Give me Captain Kirk any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

1009. Holger - November 18, 2008

998: Agreed, it could turn out that all the annoyances (to me) in the trailer are just fine in the context of the whole movie. And I hope for that.
You have a certain tendency to expect the best of JJ or his respect for Trek, and I have a certain tendency to expect the worst.
My attitude is based on his previous work and his interviews, and on seeing how successful Hollywood flicks were structured in the past few years. And now on the trailer.

“We are both extremists. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.”
(OK, I don’t remember the exact phrasing.)

1010. Testing 1, 2, 3 - November 18, 2008

I guess I can’t post anything longer than one sentence. Bizarre

1011. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

Databrain says he’s in his mid 20s. So he’s like the Wesley Crusher of these boards. That explains why he doesn’t understand the difference between a nerd and a geek, and why so many on these boards are driven up the wall with his naive whining.

Don’t feed the troll!

1012. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[1008] Hey, CT, I visited Peatross Parade Deck once

;))

1013. Cheve - November 18, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic8Bw4RN_dc&eurl=http://www.mundostartrek.com/index.php

Subtitled in Spanish (But not official yet)

1014. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

p.s. Data sucks!

1015. Fred - November 18, 2008

Weird… on another site they have more details on some of the segments shown by JJ, but some parts don’t even make sense. According to this, SCOTTY invented the trasnsporter with Future Spock’s help.

I don’t buy it. Maybe some kind of transporter refinement, but not the transporter itself. No way. I hope… If so, they really DID ignore Enteprise canon. Just makes no sense…

http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/11/18/More-Detailed-Description-of-Star-Trek-Scenes-Show-in-New-York-Major-Spoilers.shtml

1016. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#985—-“We shouldn’t accuse anyone of dishonesty just because he didn’t suddenly go crazy over the movie because of that trailer.”

I think you misunderstand me. My point was that I am not surpised that the same people are now criticising what was depicted in the trailer. I never said that they were somehow conveying a dishonest opinion…just a very predictable one.

I am sure that you could say much the same thing about those of us who were optimistic before the trailer. As you can see from the current poll, the trailer did very little to change anyone’s mind (although slightly more people are now excited about it after viewing the trailer). That poll is, of course, a small sampling, but one I take some small note of.

1017. JL - November 18, 2008

wow

1018. Geoffers - November 18, 2008

869… well done.. couldn’t agree more!

1019. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1009—I think that sums it up. I hope we are both happy in the end.

1020. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[1015] Fred, Scotty invents Transwarp beaming… with Spock Primes formula from the future. So that Scotty and Kirk can beam from a shuttle onto the Enterprise while at warp…

1021. Chris Basken - November 18, 2008

For those who claim people that like this new trailer aren’t “true” Trek fans, I can only say that a Trek fan is as a Trek fan does.

Do you like watching Star Trek for any reason whatsoever? You’re a Trek fan, period.

1022. hitch1969©, sexily madeover in tha UK. - November 18, 2008

no, Fred. TrekWeb is wrong. If I recall from another story posted here, Spock gives Scotty the formula that he invents in the future to transport to a ship that is moving in warp. I may have that a little wrong, but TrekWeb has it way wrong.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

1023. Fred - November 18, 2008

Ah, that makes more sense. I should know better than to stray from here!!

1024. Geoffers - November 18, 2008

1011 Whoooooo hooooo … well done sir! Sense at last!

1025. Captain Dunsel - November 18, 2008

Are we going to see Kirk cheat on the Kobayahi Maru test????

The point of a trailer is to generate excitement and interest. F’ing well done JJ. Everything looks great so far, highly optimistic for the release, May can’t get here fast enough……..

1026. Where was she built?!? - November 18, 2008

It looks like there’s an “IA” on the sign in the lower right of the frame at the Enterprise construction site. Is that meant to stand for Iowa? “IA” also appears on the Corvette’s license plate, I believe, so our state abbreviations are still around in the 23rd century.

I never had a problem with the Enterprise being built on Earth, but did they now move it from San Francisco to Iowa???

1027. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#834 – “I know exactly how you feel, and when I made this very same point in one of the other threads Bob Orci responded with the usual, brief “we hope you come to with an open mind”.

To me, any writer, or for that matter director, who needs to tell fans to come to the product with an open mind knows full well that there’s something about it that the loyalists won’t like. ”

FWIW, I had the same reaction, but I thought for a long time that he was suggesting that we might not like how they interpreted one or another of the myriad gaps in pre-TOS “history”, ’cause after all, fans have been plugging those holes on their own for decades, and not everybody might like any given solution that the writers came up with. That’s fine, and I was perfectly cool with the idea that one or another of my pet solutions might not be the one they used. No big deal.

But it really wasn’t ’til last week that I really started to give up hope that they’d still manage to make this work as a plausible pre-TOS story, that they weren’t even *trying* to make it fit. That was about when the feeling of betrayal set in. :/

#844 – “Maybe a total reboot would have been better. This way the 40 years of Trek in form of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and the movies would still stand on their own and would not be erased by this movie.”

To be fair, as long as one embraces the concept of a multiverse, what’s come before still exists just fine. Indeed, it has to exist, so Nero and Spock can make their journey back.

“If they wanted a fresh take, then why didn’t they create a new crew and set the movie in the future – maybe without any references to all other Star Trek material that came before?”

With this I agree.

#847 – “I still love TOS, but I am excited by this new vision — it promises to augment, not attempt to supplant, TOS.”

I’d agree with that, except for the fact that, if this movie is a success, I don’t expect the movies that follow to go back to adhering to the Trekverse as we knew it. At most, I’d hope that what would follow would be a new story that has few enough background references that it could get away with not directly contradicting TOS. But my faith in that is a bit shaky right now.

#928 – “We have waited for a new Star Trek-film since 2002 and when the wait seem to be over, some people are über-negative. Whatah**l is the matter with you?”

There is a certain point of view from which some of us may still be waiting for a new Star Trek film well past May 2009.

As I’ve said before, I’ll give the film every chance to prove my fears wrong. And nothing would make me happier than to eat a plate of crow and apologize for doubting Bob and JJ and the others. But *right now*, back here in November 2008, I’m still pretty concerned.

1028. Fred - November 18, 2008

I’m thinking that Spock blows his chance at command out of the water when he beams down to Vulcan to save his parents. That’s when Kirk probably takes over and shines at command, and why Spock never desired a command later, content to follow Kirk.

1029. FearlessJay - November 18, 2008

On the easter eggs – not sure if anyone caught this already, but If you click on the “incoming” transmission in the Story section, you get a pop-up of “Restricted Access” show Uhura wallpapers.

1030. JL - November 18, 2008

1025

“Are we going to see Kirk cheat on the Kobayahi Maru test????”

I hope so. Not sure if this was ever confirmed or hinted at.

1031. Jef aka "It's green!" - November 18, 2008

I didn’t like the way Entertainment Tonight cut up the trailer. They clipped the end part out. I think it was Nero speaking.

BTW: I stop actioned through one of those on-line trailers and saw a quick shot of that Enterprise picture from a previous update.

1032. snoopy - November 18, 2008

Isint it basically that spock prime tells kirk exactly how to unhinge his younger self?

1033. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1012—“Hey, CT, I visited Peatross Parade Deck once.”

Well done….Parris Island, S.C.

I have not as yet had the pleasure of visiting Germany (my European travels have been limited to Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, and Ukraine), but I hope to visit there in the near future.

1034. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1032—That seems to be the case…yes, or at least he tells him that at this point in his life, it will not be difficult.

1035. JL - November 18, 2008

I hope this time travel plot and the “old Spock/young Spock” thing isn’t too complicated or confusing for the audience to follow and enjoy.

1036. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1002 – “The canon needs to be altered in order for Star Trek to survive anymore. If you can’t get rid of the 1960’s view of the future, then the whole franchise is dead.”

Okay, I’m confused. Perhaps someone can explain this to me… I can agree that a new Star Trek should be produced in a modern style. Of course! But… Why is it necessary to throw out character backstories and stuff like when a few events took place in a fictional world for Star Trek to survive?

This makes no sense to me.

1037. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

- Well now ..because TREK is now just another ‘Let’s reborn 60’s designs’ (-!?!?!?!…..#*#* !!!………) i’m gladly return to STARGATE ….

1038. AmmoGod - November 18, 2008

At time index 1:27 of the new trailer you can clearly make out debris of 3 separate warp nacelles (the one located to the immediate right )might be the engineering section of the Kelvin) along with the saucer section debris of the kelvin itself. There is a possible fourth nacelle partly obscured by the saucer debris. So we can assume from this that there are at least 2 starfleet vessels that are destroyed during this battle scene, which implies the presence, albiet possibly only a bit part, of at least one additional starship in the movie.

1039. Browncoat aka Space Cowboy - November 18, 2008

In case noone else tells #32 the Dark Side, Star Trek had speeder-type vehicles on the small screen at least 3 years before Star Wars did……..TAS
see 1974s “Yesteryear” the healer that young Spock summons rush to the injured Sahlat’s [I-Chaya] side in such a vehicle.

1040. Bob, the Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - November 18, 2008

970 – SPOT ON!

TOS wasn’t about the future. Roddenberry sold it as “Wagon Train To The Stars,” and in one of the “Making of” books (maybe it was David Gerrold’s book) the show was described as really being about mid-20th century America. TOS had a sense of fun that was missing from everything that followed. I like TNG, but to me it felt that whenever the cast was asked to be light hearted or out of character, it felt forced. Really, could Picard have pulled off “A Piece Of The Action?”

Don’t get me wrong – I like all versions of Star Trek. It just seems that with each new series the show became a bit darker and lost the spirit of fun.

1041. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1003—“As far as ‘writing against the idea’, there’s nothing definitive to suggest that that is going to happen.”

More than nothing ‘definitive’, I would suggest that there is nothing at all to suggest that, and defy anyone to argue that there is.

1042. Kirk's Toupée - November 18, 2008

#1038………….you get my “Nerdiest Comment of the Entire Thread” vote!!

Well done, LOL…. ;-)

1043. titianmom - November 18, 2008

Starman, starman; of course we can’t bring back the original series…but we can at least keep the key players true to character, which I fear this movie will not do.

I’m 46 and I haven’t changed that much since I was 20ish. We all do change, of course, but people can, after 26 years, recog that I’m the same person.

I want this movie to work. The trailer, however, concerns me that it won’t.

1044. Yammer - November 18, 2008

910: Databrain, you are a fundamentalist. It’s not “hating” Roddenberry to agree with the blindingly obvious, which is that Trek has to evolve to be successful in the current. You cannot put the 1964 TOS or the 1987 TNG on movie screens in 2009. Well, you could, as an art film experiment, or a fanfic. But a reboot is what it needs.

Roddenberry created the Trekverse, and it is a wonderful thing. But he made mistakes aplenty. He wrote the episode where Kirk recites the Pledge of Allegiance! He set up TNG to have no conflicts among the crew, hence two extremely boring seasons until he was nudged aside by Michael Pillar. You credit him for correcting the sexism of miniskirts — shouldn’t we also blame him for introducing the Ferengi, a ridiculous compedium of anti-Semitic stereotypes?

1045. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1040—I agree. I don’t think it has been that sort of “fun” since the height of Star Trek’s popularity at the box office (the mid-80’s). TVH was, to me, the same kind of “fun” experienced in watching something like “A Piece Of The Action” in TOS.

1046. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

its a shame the shat isnt in this one :(

1047. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

- TOS was about a bunch of men wearing clothes for women running in a dusty space…

1048. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1047—-WTF?

1049. Jorg Sacul - November 18, 2008

Well, they saw a different trailer from the rest of us…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1086917/TRAILER-Star-Trek-gets-sexy-makeover-new-film-love-scenes-motorbikes-hunky-stars.html

I just love it when they write reviews without looking at pictures.

1050. Crewman Darnell - November 18, 2008

Ah, is this the right room for an argument? ;-)

I’ve got also got a few beefs from what I’ve seen depicted in the trailer and the stills. I’m certainly not overly enamored with the appearance of the iBridge, the uncircumcised warp nacelles or Kirks’ new sparkling blue eyes. With that said, I’m still going to give this movie a fair chance. It’s cool to see Bob Orci commenting in this forum along with everyone else.

1051. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

So what do you think the overall web interest for the trailer has been? SO far i have to say pretty mixed.

1052. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1046—-Not to me.

TOS-TVH= William Shatner as James Kirk=good Shat

TFF (aka The Great Trek Turd Of ’89)-GEN=James Kirk as William Shatner= not so good Shat

I’ll take my 2009 Star Trek without the Shat. Thanks.

1053. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 18, 2008

#1052 … “I’ll take my 2009 Star Trek without the Shat.”

We weren’t given a choice, sadly.

1054. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

Spock Prime may also just advise Kirk that the psychic pain of hundreds, thousands or millions of Vulcans dying is enough to relieve him of command. See TOS: “The Immunity Syndrome”

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Death_of_intrepid.jpg

1055. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

This movie looks awesome!! I can’t wait until May eigth. There are a lot of posts on here complaining about breaking cannon or it not being like Star Trek and that may be true. It may or may not be breaking cannon we’ll have to wait and see. We don’t know the story yet so don’t pre-judge. As for the film not looking like Trek, that goes without saying. The old formulas for trek are played out. You take the actors from the series, add maybe one name, add some special effects and you’ve got a two hour episode of TNG. While you and I will go see that, non trek fans won’t. That’s why Paramount went out and got Abrams.
If you really love Trek like I do, then you’ll want Paramount to do what they have to do to keep the franchise alive. If that means stepping on the toes of a small number of people to bring in millions of others, so be it.
What’s more, I don’t really want the same Trek over again. I have that. I can watch that any time I want. Give me something new and exciting and that’s what Abrams and paramount are doing.

1056. JWM - November 18, 2008

399: Perhaps in your zeal to prove yourself king of super-intelligent message board surfers, you overlooked this part of my post:

“Don’t care either way, but it’s a thought I had.”

I have no problem dealing with it, as evidenced in my own post. As I also said, it was just a thought. How is it being you? Fun?

1057. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1051—-Take a look at the poll on the right.

Of 491 visitors here polled, about 328 remained excited as they were before.

About 58 of them said that their feelings of skepticism had turned to excitement.

About 48 of them said they were excited, and now… not so much.

About 58 of them said that their skeptical opinions had not changed.

Skeptical opinions are often the loudest, but not necessarily really representative of fandom.

Bearing in mind that this is but a small sample, it seems to have stayed about the same (just slightly better) among established fans who visit this site and participate in the polls.

The real guage will, of course, be its performance at the box office on opening weekend. It is very likely that most of even those who are skeptical will still see the film (if only to arm themselves with ammunition to be critical).

How many non-traditional fans will see it is the real question.

1058. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1053—I had a feeling that one might draw you out.

What did you think of the trailer?

1059. Adam Cohen - November 18, 2008

#1005

hitch-baby!® Good to see you still kicking around. You are a legend, now more than ever!

1060. fizzbin - November 18, 2008

#1053 …the choice was taken away in STVII Generations with his pointless death.

1061. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

Have you guys been on AICN.com or aint it cool news for some non nerdy folks lol, anyway I was on there yesterday and they are just tearing into the movie like oprah at a BBQ buffet.

1062. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

to CLOSETTREKER..nothing ..i just can’t stand to watch over and over at half men and half women…i like normal girls & boys..i like to watch to normal people..i hate XENA…suff like that…

1063. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

1057 – Respectfully, TMP was the highest grossing picture, but its aesthetics, high budget and contemplative tone were trashed in favor of the low budget, militaristic aesthetics and revenge plot of TWOK. So I’d call this a hairline disagreement. This movie will succeed, it will be a global media event and Paramount will make very good money on this. But the plot of this picture, time travel and all, as you and I have pointed out many times, is completely disposable.

If the film is not an artistic success, the bridge will be dark again, the nacelles will be circumcised and unauthorized personnel on the bridge will not be able to operate the ship because the buttons won’t be labeled, like TOS.

1064. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1060—I’m afraid that there still would be no “choice” among the fans. Ultimately, the filmmakers would still have to determine whether his presence in the film would be beneficial to the story, and not just as “pointless” as his character’s death in that TNG movie.

It is difficult for me to imagine a point in this movie where an appearance by Shatner’s Kirk might improve the story. Perhaps there could be. Orci seemed to think that the scene he wrote for him worked very well.

I have a feeling it will be described to us sometime in the future (after the release of the movie). We can all decide for ourselves then.

1065. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1061—Not surprising, since they “tear into” everything that comes up.

1066. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

I just dont understand how if spock changes the timeline and then goes back to the 24th century then what happens in Generations is erased you have the two toast a glass of romulan ale and the movie ends. Kirk is alive the fans are happy everyone wins.

Hell B4 could have came up with that idea!

1067. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1062—ok…but are you implying that Jim Kirk was somehow half-man, half-woman?

I don’t know how you get to that …sorry.

1068. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

Oh let me add to that now ESPECIALLY if Takai and Shatner are still fighting that this movie is going to have to address a few questions once JJ and the stars start doing interviews.

1. Why no Shatner in the film.

2. The Shatner and JJ arguements online

3. The Shatner and Takai fighting

4. Where the film fits in cannon.

It just seems that Star Trek is going to get publicity alright however it is going to come from outside destractions and not the film.

1069. Anthony Thompson - November 18, 2008

Interesting how the “countdown” clock on the official site is actually a “count-up” clock. JJ is a master of manipulation. He had TrekMovie reporting (incorrectly) that the official site would have the trailer on Monday. Then it turned out to be Apple’s baby, but it works only using their software! But the official site “clock” then had it showing there sometime today. Now it says 2 days plus, etc. Does JJ believe that annoying the fans is a winning strategy?

1070. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

- Glowing red and yellow tight clothes are for women isn’t it..?!?

1071. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1066—We do not yet know if Spock Prime even returns to the 24th Century, or if there is a Federation in that Century to return to.

Moreover, if Kirk never enters the “nexus”, is it even reasonable for him to still be alive in the post-Nemesis period that Spock Prime comes from?

Wouldn’t he be something like 160 years old?

1072. spiked canon - November 18, 2008

what apple software are you talking about…don’t you have a computer built in the last 3 years?

1073. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

1027. Alex Rosenzweig

If the Nazi’s won in WWI, none of us would be here. There would be nothing we could recognize today if such an event occoured.

I think that’s what the producers are trying to show in this retelling of Trek.

The real unfortunate thing is, that with this pic being made, we may never see a PRIME retelling of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy-Enterprise first meetings

At least I can’t seee how the real ST PRIME universe story will ever be told.

1074. Cheve - November 18, 2008

1069. Anthony Thompson – November 18, 2008

Anthony, clear the caché of your browser. Everyone else is since yestrerday exploring the corridors of the enterprise in the new website that is now in there.

1075. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1070—- I still don’t see it. I don’t know what you’re talking about. The color schemes of the TOS uniforms were never unisex. Furthermore, the women in TOS wore miniskirts and behaved like sterotypical females in most cases. The men wore pants and bled masculinity. There was never any gender confusion. I’m wondering if you ever even watched the show!

1076. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

Closettrekker – Once the Kelvin is destroyed, the entire timeline leading to Kirk’s so-called death is extinguished.

1077. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

Before I get flamed. The Nazi’s (in my post above,) is made in refrence to the new ST Romulan time-travel storyline.

1078. JL - November 18, 2008

1070

Strange comment to make considering the outfits in TOS were also tight-fitting.

And how are they “glowing”? The bridge is brightly lit – is that what you’re saying?

I don’t understand what you are getting at.

1079. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

- …Neahh…because i hate it….yeakkk….

1080. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1073—-Nazis in WWI? The Nazi party was not even conceived yet from 1914-1918.

I’ll assume you mean “if the Nazis won WWII”, no?

1081. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1076—-I get that, assuming that the original timeline is not restored by the end of the film. That was not my point. My point was that Kirk would still not likely be living in the late 24th century, whether he died on Veridian III, the Enterprise-B, or of old age.

1082. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

Its the 24th century too closettrekker, after all wasnt “Admiral McCoy” when he visited TNG, wasnt he 170 or 180 years old?

1083. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1078—-Believe it or not, he’s talking about TOS, and how he believes the men were only half-men, half-women in that series.

1084. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

- But…the 3-rd season was pretty good…although…

1085. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 18, 2008

#1058 … Well, I theater hopped and saw it 3 times after paying to see QoS this weekend. :-)

Pine is still looking pretty young to me (emphasis on the word “pretty”). We’ll see. Overall, though – a solid B+!!

1086. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

BTW I wonder if Jillian’s timeline from Star Trek IV will be messed up!!! :( Maybe she will hit the roof of her truck instead of the hood…

Oh and this is just my opinion I think Jillian is on the Kelvin when it gets destroyed.

1087. spiked canon - November 18, 2008

I slightly agree with 1073, but that’s a story for a book..not a modern movie

1088. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1082—I believe he was 137 in “Encounter At Farpoint”….That’s a long time before the post-Nemesis era. I’m not saying that they couldn’t pull it off, but it would seem rather convenient and contrite, no?

1089. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1078
He’s just baiting you. He’s complaining for the sake of complaining. Either that or he has the most acute case of “Homophobia” I have ever seen.

1090. table10 - November 18, 2008

1051. Captain Balki

Was wondering that too, maybe Anthony is planning an article about it, about the overal web reaction to the trailer.

1091. JL - November 18, 2008

1084 and the other statements by “echoman”

You have proven to be a fraud. Or a mental patient, I’m not sure which.

1092. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1073 – “If the Nazi’s won in WWI, none of us would be here. There would be nothing we could recognize today if such an event occoured.

I think that’s what the producers are trying to show in this retelling of Trek.”

Perhaps so. If it’s true that we’ll be seeing multiple alternate timelines as a result of Nero’s efforts to change things, we may see extremely radical change versus less radical change throughout the film.

“The real unfortunate thing is, that with this pic being made, we may never see a PRIME retelling of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy-Enterprise first meetings

At least I can’t seee how the real ST PRIME universe story will ever be told.”

Me, neither, unless this film fails just badly enough that Paramount isn’t willing to continue with Abrams, but not so badly that they think there’s no market for Star Trek. And that’s a real thin edge.

It looks like we’ll just have to stick with the various novel and comic book tales for the foreseeable future. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing. e.g., Kirk’s backstory in the “My Brother’s Keeper” trilogy is a lot more compelling than “bad boy Kirk suddenly emerges as a genius commander”.

1093. Iowagirl - November 18, 2008

#1053
New nick? Did I miss something? Anyway, it’s awesome! :)

#1075
…the women in TOS wore miniskirts and behaved like sterotypical females in most cases.

How exactly do women behave like “sterotypical females”? :)

1094. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1086—-“Oh and this is just my opinion I think Jillian is on the Kelvin when it gets destroyed.”

If you are referring to the character in TVH, that would not make sense. The Kelvin is attacked 4 days before JTK is to be born. That is about 50 years prior to her arrival in the late 23rd Century.

#1087—It’s actually a story that was already told to some extent in ENT, if I’m not mistaken, and visited in “COTEOF” when McCoy’s interference with Edith Keeler’s death results in that very thing.

1095. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1093—-I meant sterotypical to TPTB in the 1960’s, when the show was produced, as in being excessively frightened relative to the males on the show, etc. The trolling poster I was responding to seemed to suggest that you couldn’t tell the difference between the men and women on TOS. Please regard that statement in its proper context.

1096. rlwoody - November 18, 2008

Will the Trek purists just go away. Please. Let’s move this franchise forward and stop living in the past. For those who want to live in the past you can restrict yourselves to TOS and continue to read Shatner’s novels or something. For me I’m with the new movie and whatever modifications are made to canon so be it. For goodness sake its Sci Fi.

1097. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

asexuality was a TNG thing that Roddenberry introduced, but went nowhere. remember manskirts?

1098. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1093 Iowagirl
You’re probably joking, but anyway he meant that woman behaved as women do and the men behaved as men do. The women were efeminate, and the men were masculine. There wasn’t the tough guy women like we saw with Major Kira

1099. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

Well the timeline could be messed up and ST4 never took place thus Jillian never saved any whales, and might have been later born in the 23rd century.

1100. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1099—-Ok….”And if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon!”

1101. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1096 – “Will the Trek purists just go away. Please.”

Hmm… No. :)

“Let’s move this franchise forward and stop living in the past.”

I’m going to repeat the question I asked up-thread. What is mutually exclusive about “moving the franchise forward” and maintaining a consistent backstory? I’m not merely being rhetorical here; I really don’t understand how people are making that correlation.

1102. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

1081. Closettrekker

Yeah, your right WWII Clossttrekker. Typo. Sorry.

Alex…
“It looks like we’ll just have to stick with the various novel and comic book tales for the foreseeable future. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing. e.g., Kirk’s backstory in the “My Brother’s Keeper” trilogy is a lot more compelling than “bad boy Kirk suddenly emerges as a genius commander”

Thanks for the reference. “My Brother’s Keeper,” I’ll have to request that trilogy for my X-mas stocking stuffer.

1103. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

1100.. “Come, Come….Young minds fresh ideas be tolerant”

1104. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1096 rlwoody
I’m with you, if the purists had it their way we wouldn’t have any trek because Paramount couldn’t make any money on it. They would sell ten thousand tickets nationwide. And even then they would walk out complaining about the lighting in corridor C or something.

1105. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

-Yes..i really hate asexuality….

1106. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

Seriously though, I believe there is a good chance for Jillian to be in this movie at least in a cameo…It just adds up to me… More I think about it, even more than Shat being in it.

1107. commander K, - November 18, 2008

This place seriously needs a Forum/discussion board!!!!!

1108. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

There’s an old expression, “it’s easier to turn a Tiger into a pussycat than it is to turn a pussycat into a tiger.”

I really can’t see Kirk being anything but a rebellious, raconteur, a schemer, a conspirator, a prankster and a borderline evil genius. Diane Carey’s BEST DESTINY covers this pretty well. But has anyone ever in their lives met a modest, ‘by the book’ kind of kid who ended up being a strategic, charismatic genius?

1109. echoman2020 - November 18, 2008

-Well i think ..i think i’m going to watch the nightsky and , then i’m going to yell….very loud…

1110. Norm - November 18, 2008

Would everyone who is arguing please get your own blog and argue it out there? This is rediculous…its Star Trek, you obviously care somewhat about Star Trek if your on this site, so give it the benefit of the doubt. No one was being a child about Batman Begins and especially the Dark Knight…which IMO is what JJ is trying to do to Star Trek. So please, grow up.

1111. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

Alex, does not look like TOS is being picked-ep by anyone but the fans and the great CBS remastered efftort. Still, IMHO, CBS did not go far enough with some of the FX.

Rest assusred that the future will provide far faster and far more intelligent computers and software that will someday extrapolate all the characters and designs in TOS and pump them out into an interactive hologram for us all to enjoy TOS Style.

Give it time.

1112. George - November 18, 2008

920: thorsten

I was thinking that to but I heard that the communicators were supposed to be like the ones in STTMP.

1113. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1101—‘Will the Trek purists just go away. Please.’

“Hmm… No. :)”

Wouldn’t have it any other way.

“I’m going to repeat the question I asked up-thread. What is mutually exclusive about “moving the franchise forward” and maintaining a consistent backstory? I’m not merely being rhetorical here; I really don’t understand how people are making that correlation.”

I don’t believe there is any correlation, and aside from the asthetics, those ideas are most certainly ‘not’ mutually exclusive.

A story could have been told without the threat of a timeline incursion by time-travelling Romulans, and fit very neatly (or even loosely) into established backstory material.

But the writers have a story they believe to be intriguing and entertaining, and who knows how permanent the changes to the timeline may be in the end.

And if it is not, future stories will have the benefit of potential “jeopardy” for the characters, as opposed to being handicapped by knowing that, no matter what happens in between, there fates are already established.

I know you feel differently, but I would rather see these stories told about characters I love in an alternate timeline (as long as they remain those characters), than see characters like the ones in the TNG-era which I cared nothing about.

1114. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

That’s “their fates”, not “there”….Damned typonians.

1115. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1108 jeffriestuber
You make a good point. By the book commanders have in the past proven to be ineffective and predictable. It’s the commanders who take chances and think outside the box that win battles that they shouldn’t. Rommel for example. Montgomery had everything he needed to beat the germans in Africa but he was a by the book boyscout and Rommel made a fool of him.

1116. JL - November 18, 2008

1104

“And even then they would walk out complaining about the lighting in corridor C or something.”

HAHAHAW

so true

1117. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

1096. rlwoody – November 18, 2008
Will the Trek purists just go away. Please.

Trek Purists built this future we live in.

1118. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

Who’s the Kid playing young spock. Looks like the best performance yet. That kid scares ME! Plus, I bet he could take young kirk.

1119. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1116 JL
Thanks I’m pretty proud of that line.

1120. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 18, 2008

#1093… Yes, my friend. In honor of Mr. Nimoy’s participation in this movie, I’ve changed my handle. :-)

1121. JL - November 18, 2008

1118

As long as he isn’t wooden like little Anakin in episode 1 (ugh)

1122. Neil - November 18, 2008

It strikes me that there are those in this thread who would view anything that didn’t make use of the original sets, props, effects and ship models from TOS as some sort of blasphemy.

Too bad…because it’s that group of fans that, while largely responsible for the “success” of TOS (a show with lousy ratings that got cancelled after a few seasons), is also largely responsible for the “nerdy” image that can be so off-putting to people who don’t have foam rubber ears in their sock drawers.

1123. JL - November 18, 2008

1117

“We built this city!………….”

1124. JL - November 18, 2008

1119

you mean to tell me you have a love of sci-fi *and* a sense of humor and you’re an open-minded person? ALL at ONCE??!

1125. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1115—With respect to our British friends (many of whom still regard Montgomery as a spotless hero), that is a thoughtful, if somewhat flawed analogy. It was after Montgomery replaced his predecessor as commander of the 8th Army in North Africa that the Afrikakorps was defeated in Egypt at El Alamein.
However, the point of your analogy is well taken. Montgomery is often accused of being far too cautious and “by the book” to make the kind of impact he could have, especially in comparison to his very “out of the box” contemporaries like Patton and Rommel. By 1942, Rommel’s forces were depleted by reallocation of supply, etc., and not nearly as formidable in the face of the new British General in command of the 8th Army as they were the year before. He (Bernard Montgomery) is one of the most historically overrated battlefield leaders of the 20th Century. Anyway, I digress…

It is certainly not a stretch for me to believe that Jim Kirk would be more rebellious without the presence of his father (who may have been killed aboard the USS Kelvin this time around) than he was in the previous timeline.

Kirk is a prime example of the “outside the box” leader, and was prone to questionable behavior in the previous timeline as well.

1126. boborci - November 18, 2008

951. LordCheeseCakeBreath – November 18, 2008

“Mr. Orci: I’m finding that half the fun is the wait and speculation. Do you feel the same way?”

I do indeed… although I do feel for anyone who thinks Trek is getting ruined. It wouldn’t be as much fun for me, though, if we weren’t confident that we will change many skeptical minds.

1127. Admiral Bumblebee - November 18, 2008

It strikes me that there are those in this thread that would view anything as long as it is called Star Trek, even if it is crap and flushes 40 years of Trek history down the toilet, laughing at the fans for saying yes to everything they do to the series…

1128. kfir - November 18, 2008

What a different yet interesting approach for star trek..
This trailer works.. I saw the trailer to many people in the army and they say it looks cool and they will see the movie.. like myself:)

1129. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

1123. On rock and roll??

1130. Sat'Rain - November 18, 2008

Easter eggs: by clicking “Incoming data” icon a popup window display two new desktop pictures: Uhura and Nero
http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/desktop.php?file=d32_1024.jpg&width=1024&height=768
http://www.startrekmovie.com/downloads/desktop.php?file=d31_1024.jpg&width=1024&height=768

1131. Jay - November 18, 2008

1122 – I agree.

There is a reason Star Trek has fallen so far since TWOK.

The studio realized they had a rabid hard-core fan base, but they realized also that fan base was pretty small compared to the general sci-fi/adventure genre fan base. Therefore the budgets for Star Trek movies got smaller and smaller and the result was crappier and crappier movies.

If Star Trek is to surivive, it needs a big boy budget to compete with the big boy movies like Batman, Transformers, Ironman, etc. whose audience is generally the same that Star Trek is aiming for.

In order to do that, to have a big budget, it has to appeal to a wider audience to make money, and that means it has to change some. It has to change to reflect the world today, and the view that society has today and the vision they have of our future. It also has to add some big time “coolness”. It seems these are the things that are really irritating hard core fans, but too bad. That’s just the reality of the situation.

I for one am happy. I’ve been wishing for years that someone would make a big budget, blockbuster style Star Trek. Just to see what “could” be.

1132. Jeannie Spock - November 18, 2008

Hey, I’m a bit worried. I thought this movie was Spock’s story?. Seems to me that they are concentrating on Kirk going by the clips on the trailer and the long opening sequence.
No Nimoy either, I don’t think that is him by the bed with Amanda. If it is, they have made him look much younger.
Looks a bit action packed too. Nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn’t turn out to be a movie for 14year olds

1133. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1131
Agreed. And let’s not forget that TOS *did* push the boundaries of television storytelling. The sets, props and effects were pretty cutting-edge for that time.

Why someone would want to anchor the ability to tell a Trek story to a 40 year-old storytelling standard is beyond me.

Good thing TOS wasn’t in black and white, lest the purists be found protesting in the streets over the way that color uniforms had destroyed the franchise.

1134. Captain Balki - November 18, 2008

Okay listen to my theory on jillian.

1. Time Travel/Spock in white robe

2. The truck in the background of the trailer is blue/Jillian’s truck is blue

3. The whales

4. The quote from the the leaked script last summer about “can I come with you” from a woman named Jillian

This to me makes me think there is at least a chance.

1135. Dort - November 18, 2008

All I know is I’m sitting here trying to figure out why the Helmsman/Navigator need a UPC code scanner (those handles on the top front of the console with the red lenses are actually product code scanners). Do they have to inventory any anomolies they encounter, or are they just used to track the women Kirk introduces to his prime directive?

1136. JL - November 18, 2008

1127

“It strikes me that there are those in this thread that would view anything as long as it is called Star Trek, even if it is crap and flushes 40 years of Trek history down the toilet, laughing at the fans for saying yes to everything they do to the series…”

Not true. This is just not true.

If this film appeared to rip off Star Wars, say they introduced a dark, menacing figure in a cape and helmet, who had an army of robots and giant mechanical walking machines and a big furry ape guy, etc etc or something along those lines – in other words, if it appeared to be an obvious knock-off to cash in – then Trek fans would have every right to be extremely upset.

But that does not appear to be the case. At all. It appears to be, by and large, a very authentic take on Star Trek — one that appeals to people in 2009, not 1969 — and it is obvious to me that they are putting their souls into it by respecting the world of and characters from the original television series.

1137. McCoy - November 18, 2008

In terms of art direction where it counts, the bridge, the corridors and the Enterprise do not feel like the future and do not feel like TOS.

The trailer seems to provide evidence that Orci, Kurtzman and JJ work with a bunch of stereotypes in their projects. I see 2001, Alien, Starship Troopers and Top Gun (Motorcycle at sunset with Take My Breath Away playing). Now, granted TOS was out before any of those but the Trek of late did not suffer from that feeling.

Wow. I am so missing the feeling of the TNG world. The pace really helped define what I though of as ‘Star Trek’ .

1138. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1122 Neil
STAY OUT OF MY SOCK DRAWER!!!

1139. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

1126. boborci – November 18, 2008
951. LordCheeseCakeBreath – November 18, 2008

“It wouldn’t be as much fun for me, though, if we weren’t confident that we will change many skeptical minds.”

Do’t you mean Transformed? Well Bob (and Alex), you have SURELY changed this one’s opinion of the new vision.
IT ALL LOOKS FRIGIN’ FANTASTIC NOW!!!!

What took so long to get the trailer out? PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1140. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

CORRECTION;1133

1141. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1135—-“All I know is I’m sitting here trying to figure out why the Helmsman/Navigator need a UPC code scanner (those handles on the top front of the console with the red lenses are actually product code scanners).”

Really? Is that really what you are doing?

How much time did you spend trying to figure out why DeForest Kelley kept waving salt shakers over people in TOS?

Just kidding. :)

1142. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1134—-Balki, dont be reedeeculous!

1143. Michael Foote - November 18, 2008

Hey just wondering where some of you get that this movie is 7 months away? Do the math. It is 5 months, 2 weeks and 6 days from today (11/18).

1144. JL - November 18, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Would you be able to comment on my ealier post, #914? Thank you

1145. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1137, How does it not “feel” like the future when the future hasn’t been written yet? How does TOS have a better grasp on the future than we do in 2008?

Your not the only one to say these comments and it’s a little sickening if you ask me. Just watch TOS, honestly watch it and tell me with a straight face that it looks like the natural progression of mankind. Come on man, I’m a TOS fan, but it looks so primitive. Keep an open mind.

Trek is alive and well.

1146. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1125 closettrekor
Thanks for the corrections. And thanks for seeing the point rather than the inacuracy of the analogy.
I think people get this Kirk being a boyscout thing from the one line by his estranged son in Wrath. But his mother immediately corrects him and says “Jim Kirk is many things, but he’s no boy scout”. And his history of cavalier, and risky actions throughout his entire career suggests that he is a bit of a daredevil or risk taker.
So take the same Jim kirk and make him early twenties and you would have this very character that we’re seeing in the promos.

1147. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

Perhaps they are personal hologram projectors.

Providing an augmented and focused display for individual crewmembers at thier posts. That way when Kirk and Spock (or whoever) are in front of the main display, the crew can still see thier own readouts..

1148. JL - November 18, 2008

1141

“How much time did you spend trying to figure out why DeForest Kelley kept waving salt shakers over people in TOS?”

omg, how true. how ironic.

1149. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

Yeah that’s enough to drive any Salt Vampire crazy.

1150. Al Hartman - November 18, 2008

1125. Bob Orci:

Thanks for being brave and posting comments. Ut’s much appreciated by this particular fan.

I love Fringe BTW!

So, given that… I’m hoping for a good story. But, I absolutely hate the production design. I’m a big fan of TOS as it was, and found “In a Mirror Darkly” to be what I’ve been wanting to see for 40 years and have been hoping for on a movie scale since TMP.

I’m VERY disappointed that this movie isn’t that. A lot of things were changed that didn’t need changing.

But maybe the soundtrack will be good…

1151. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

Was skeptical – now excited (11%)

I just added my vote!

I am now excited (but still hopeful that things will turn out WAY awesome.)

1152. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1108 – “I really can’t see Kirk being anything but a rebellious, raconteur, a schemer, a conspirator, a prankster and a borderline evil genius. Diane Carey’s BEST DESTINY covers this pretty well. But has anyone ever in their lives met a modest, ‘by the book’ kind of kid who ended up being a strategic, charismatic genius?”

I don’t think Kirk was ever portrayed as modest. I think he was all those things you listed. :) But he was also intense and focused. Even one of the leaked scenes from the new movie catches a bit of that. (“You could be an officer in four years.” “I’ll do it in three.”) I could completely easily see Kirk throwing himself into his studies, and busting his tail to be the best he could be, so much so that when he thinks that the system is hemming him in, he’d take that as a direct challenge to his creativity. But I also see Kirk as understanding full-well why the training is necessary and being “by the book” *enough* to excel at it, and then find ways to transcend it.

But that’s just MHO.

#1113 – ““I’m going to repeat the question I asked up-thread. What is mutually exclusive about “moving the franchise forward” and maintaining a consistent backstory? I’m not merely being rhetorical here; I really don’t understand how people are making that correlation.”

I don’t believe there is any correlation, and aside from the asthetics, those ideas are most certainly ‘not’ mutually exclusive.”

Thank you. Some people keep talking as if they are, and talking so dogmatically, that I’m struggling to understand the mind-set. (I don’t have to agree or disagree with it. I just want to comprehend it. :) )

“A story could have been told without the threat of a timeline incursion by time-travelling Romulans, and fit very neatly (or even loosely) into established backstory material.”

Sure. Even with the threat of the time-travelling Romulans, many of the elements we’ve seen in the movie story could have very smoothly fit into the open spaces in the backstory, and quite possibly have been more compelling (though that’s obviously a judgment based on a very limited sampling of the material).

“But the writers have a story they believe to be intriguing and entertaining, and who knows how permanent the changes to the timeline may be in the end.”

Obviously my hope is that what we’re seeing is yet another transient alternate universe, akin to “Yesterday’s Enterprise” or “Year of Hell”, but I also wonder how reasonable such a thing would be, especially if the movie’s goal is to introduce a new audience to Trek.

“And if it is not, future stories will have the benefit of potential “jeopardy” for the characters, as opposed to being handicapped by knowing that, no matter what happens in between, there fates are already established.”

That never bothered me, I admit, since in an ongoing mythos, I would be ore interested in seeing how the main characters dealt with a situation, and what they learned from it, rather than worrying about who lived or not.

“I know you feel differently, but I would rather see these stories told about characters I love in an alternate timeline (as long as they remain those characters), than see characters like the ones in the TNG-era which I cared nothing about.”

I can understand that, but in an alternate timeline, I don’t even know for sure if those are the characters I love. In an alternate world, there’s no necessity to keep them as such. Even in the few snippets of the new film that we’ve seen, the characters are already different in some ways, simply by virtue of having different experiences. So I’m looking at them already as different people to whom I don’t have the pre-existing emotional commitment. For all the difference it makes to me, they might as well have been all new characters, anyway.

1153. Dyson Sphere - November 18, 2008

Perhaps young kirk didn’t know the clutch from the brake and that’s why the vet went over – would fit with his driving the gangsta car…

1154. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

EFFeX, TOS looked like a primitive film set recreation of the natural progression of mankind. see the distinction?

1155. Harrydog - November 18, 2008

I’ve just watched the trailer. I for one can hardly wait. I think it looks great. The Enterprise looks better in ‘action’ than it did in the pictures posted last week. Hurry up May

1156. Jamie - November 18, 2008

I would ask why my post was deleted, but no doubt any reference to deletions will be deleted, including this post.

It’s not as though I said anything offensive or off-topic (any more off-topic than usual for these comments) — I only voiced my criticism of the official movie site. Isn’t the point of these comments to allow people to voice our opinions on these things?

1157. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1154, I hear what you are saying completely, but I’m not so sure that it’s just the budget or scale of the show. I think we have a better grasp of the future 40 years later, just as people will have a better grasp of the future 40 years from now.

1158. boborci - November 18, 2008

981. Alex Rosenzweig – November 18, 2008

“I guess my real question to Bob (and whoever else from the production might be reading this) is: For the Trek fan who really doesn’t like reboots, and who cares about the Trekverse that we’ve already got, does this movie offer anything of substance?”

In my opinion, yes. I cannot agree that this is merely a reboot.

1159. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

So I’m looking at them already as different people to whom I don’t have the pre-existing emotional commitment.

That’s one of the reasons that I do not have the passionate feelings concerning how they are treating the well known ST universe and primary characters. This leaves plenty of work for new character development or unanticipated character nuances.

I am all for it!

1160. Dort - November 18, 2008

#1141:

You don’t recall the scene where Bones says “Why do I have salt shakers for instruments? Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not an Iron Chef”. I think it was in episode 82 “The Magic Ingredient”

1161. Jay - November 18, 2008

1137…. i actually have the opposite view. and most that i’ve seen on here, or talked to, also feel as i do…. and that is that the look of the bridge, cooridors, etc. looks fantastic.

How can you say it doesn’t look like the future? I don’t get how someone can act like they have the definitive view of what the future will look like.

Strange.

Same for the Star Trek comment. To me it looks very much like what our future could look like and very much believeable as Star Trek.

1162. Bythebook? By...the...book. - November 18, 2008

#1134,

What in the name of Christopher Pike are you talking about?

1163. JL - November 18, 2008

1149

funny stuff.

I know many people bag on that episode but I like it a lot actually. Some great dialog between the characters, especially insights at the beginning…

1164. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

they’re not trying to get a grasp on the future with this movie, they’re trying to parody and exaggerate the past. they haven’t removed the dated parts of star trek, they’ve expanded on them, and removed the valid parts of it which had real things to say.

1165. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1164, What did they remove? I didn’t know the movie leaked yet.

1166. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1154 doubting thomas
No it wasn’t just the sets and wardrobe. Just look at the characters in TOS. The dialogue, the interaction almost everything that went into TOS was contemporary including the story lines. It was a good fit for 1967 but not for 2009.

1167. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

jay, this movie is going to be as accurate a portrayal of the future as all those old world’s fair expo “futurama” things in the 50s were, or the bleeding jetsons.

1168. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1160 Dort
Great referrence, but be honest, you have your encyclopedia out!!!

1169. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

xoharo, there was very little contemporary about star trek. the only things i can think of that were truly contemporary were the acting from most of the cast except nimoy, and all the colours the studio told them to add.

1170. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 18, 2008

Once again for those who missed my brilliance in post 302 yesterday. Behold!!!!! My genius , I am convinced this will be the plot of the film. I’ll eat my crown if it isn’t!!!

Read and be dazzled and discuss!!!!

notice the older TOS style constitution class secondary hulls when the E warps into the big space battle

Notice the Klingons apparently returned to their wonderful TOS human fiendish Ottoman-Commie- Mogol looks and the ridges are only a part of the decorative headpiece armor they wear. At the very least the ridges will be more subtle ala General Chiang. In one of the earlier spy photos it appears Sulu is fighting a baddie with very subtle riges so maybe some Klingons are allied with Nero as well. – NICE

Notice Nero is a prisoner of the Klingons

Notice big grand canyon like bluffs in the background as young Ani-Kirk dupms Pappy’s vette into the chasim. I suspect this is the grand Canyon and young Jim tore ass out of Iowa to drive to Starfleet Command for some reason. The Robocop catches up with him somewhere in Utah, Colorado??

Notice the Kelvin not only gets pummled but Rams it’s advesarry as well and will be destroyed

Here’s my take after patiently sipping up all the inuendo and bits and pieces we have been fed.

1. Nero is a prisoner of the Klingons in the Next Genie future (possibly because he was involved in some plot to reignite tensions with the Klingons and was captured) where he is plotting away to erase Spock’s sizable influence on his homeworld that is becoming less of his beloved Militaristic Dictatorship and more akin to a Democracy or at least less overtly aggressive with Vulcan and the Federation. Nero wants to go back in time and destroy Vulcan as well as the greatest Trek Captain of all time,, James T. Kirk. Somehow Nero busts out with the help of his supporters (Some may be Klingon – as it appears Sulu is fighting a Klingon with very subtle ridges)

2. Nero travels back in time with his cadre of militarists as well as the newest even more ugly Romulan super deadly prototype battleship (or he has stolen a much larger Shadow – Vorlon hybrid Vessel from B5)

3. Nero’s first attempt to destroy Vulcan and possibly Kirk’s Daddy serving as first officer aboard the Kelvin is thwarted (mostly) in that the Kelvin prevents the destruction but Kirk’s daddy dies ramming the Kelvin into the Romulan Shadow vessel (Kirk’s pregers with JT mom screaming as she hears the news- this creates the first time anomoly in which Kirk’s father dies and there are some subtle and not so subtle changes in the timeline. Kirk is raised by a douche bag of an uncle rather than his more heroic father and thus becomes more rebelious and enter the Acad later than he was intended to. (No Kodos never went with parents to live on Tarsus, no republic, no Farragut other previous ship assignments) Grew up with even more of a badboy streak because of the lack of his Father’s influence. Had to be talked into joining the acad later in his life, ect.

4. Enterprise is more of an experiment created specifically to deal with the threat the Kelvin dealt with years ago she has been in development for years. Pike is given command at the time of the renewed crisis. He may die in this somewhere (No beep Beep no Vina) and an emotional Spock is forced into command. We know Spock Nimoy will know this and tells Kirk to make him go nutty so Kirk can assume command to save the day.

5. Spock is alerted to Nero’s intentions in the future and travels back to stop him or more likely cameo warn them and tell them what they need to do to stop him

6. The almost ready to go Enterprise (She’s always almost ready to go ya know) is alerted to Nero’s second time jump attempt this time to destroy vulcan with a core death star drill. The Old school fleet (notice the Constitution class secondary hulls in the battlefield) is wiped out and only the new prototype Enterprise (maybe built with some info from future spock) can handle the Nero Shadow vessel.

7. Enterprise arrives as the death star drill burrows into Vulcan, Spock beams down to save his parents. Kirk beams down to diable the drill with sulu and redshirts (soon to die) Kirk and Sulu destroy the drill, beams up with Spock and Sarek and Amanda and then the Kirk Vs. Khan like spacebattle takes place in which Kirk outfoxes Nero and blows him to hell

8. Pike is dead or wants to retire, Kirk is the youngest to ever recieve a captaincy. Basically he goes from the Academy to the Captaincy because of his heroism and saving the galaxy which is what he does

9. TIme line has many subtle altered aspects but is essentially similar. And the adventure continues

1171. Iowagirl - November 18, 2008

#1095
Understood. Although there were some great exceptions (Helen Noel etc.) proving that TOS was pretty “progressive” in this regard, too.

#1120
I see, my friend. Makes sense to me. :)

1172. hitch1969©, sexily madeover in tha UK. - November 18, 2008

Dear The Orcster™,

two questions:

does you drive a mac, sir? AND – does Sir JJ® call you The Orcster™, and you call him Sir JJ®?

that would be kewl.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

1173. Bythebook? By...the...book. - November 18, 2008

#1170,

It has been stated that the baddie sword-fighting with Sulu is a Romulan. The “ridges” you think you are seeing is most likely a tattoo (ala Nero) on his forehead.

1174. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1133- “Why someone would want to anchor the ability to tell a Trek story to a 40 year-old storytelling standard is beyond me.”

I’m again confused here. Who is saying that the standard of storytelling must remain as it was 40 years ago?

I may be misinterpreting, but I think most folks are perfectly fine with modern storytelling standards being applied to Star Trek. But that’s still a different thing than maintaining a basic fictional continuity.

#1146 – “And his history of cavalier, and risky actions throughout his entire career suggests that he is a bit of a daredevil or risk taker.”

See, i think that’s more of a stereotype of Kirk than the character we actually saw, especially in TOS. Yes, to be sure, Kirk took risks. But he was *never* cavalier about it.

#1126 – “although I do feel for anyone who thinks Trek is getting ruined. It wouldn’t be as much fun for me, though, if we weren’t confident that we will change many skeptical minds.”

Perhaps this is a question you could answer, Bob… Was any consideration given, during the course of the development of this film, to doing a fully in-continuity origin story, without changing the history? If not, why not? If so, why did you decide not to go that way?

1175. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1169 doubting thomas
Well the interaction between male and female characters was contemporary. You half expected Kirk to give the nurse a swat on the behind for doing a good job. Also, the worldview of Kirk and crew was one of righteousness. As if they were always the good guys and the villains weren’t very conflicted. You were good or bad. Contemporary story telling gives more depth to characters. For example the person who is evil but feels justified from their point of view. Or the good guy who will commit a lesser evil to stop a greater. Writers in the sixties had a black and white view of the world. Good V. Evil. Modern writing blurs the lines so that characters are more realistic.

1176. Jack Mackenzie - November 18, 2008

I don’t know what it is, but it isn’t star trek

1177. JL - November 18, 2008

“Perhaps this is a question you could answer, Bob… Was any consideration given, during the course of the development of this film, to doing a fully in-continuity origin story, without changing the history? If not, why not? If so, why did you decide not to go that way?”

I’m not speaking for him or anyone else, but my guess is — as some others have pointed out — that they wanted to make sure future installments would carry a possibility of danger resulting in death and whatnot. If it was the same timeline, then all the uncertainty would be sort of restricted to what took place during TOS and the films.

1178. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

surely you’re not suggesting that TOS lack that kind of “modern” writing? especially since it was so prominent throughout the series, and especially in relationto the klingons? and surely you’re not suggesting that modern movies have this trait? TOS is even ahead of our time in this regard.

the interaction between male and female characters was contemporary in it’s view of women, but not in it’s treatment of women. see the difference?

1179. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1158 – Thanks, Bob, I appreciate the reply.

1180. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

dare i sggest that you, xoharo, are judging the series exactly the way abrams is, by people’s memories of it, by the caricatured view people have of it, rather than by what it was?

sometimes i feel as if i’m the only person who can look at star trek, inatead of looking back at star trek, remembering it.

1181. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1174
“I’m again confused here. Who is saying that the standard of storytelling must remain as it was 40 years ago?

I may be misinterpreting, but I think most folks are perfectly fine with modern storytelling standards being applied to Star Trek. But that’s still a different thing than maintaining a basic fictional continuity.”

My comment was basically a continuation of one I had made earlier; the whining and bitching about the color of the paint on the walls of the corridor, and things like that, are just ridiculous. I think if I read one more post about how Chris Pine’s eyes are a different color than Bill Shatner’s, I may gouge my own eyes out.

If Gene Roddenberry had the budget to build the i-Bridge, you bet your ass he would have. But by 1960’s television standards, the original bridge rocked. And the original TOS design for the Enterprise was cutting-edge for 1960’s science fiction…but by today’s storytelling standards, it’s as exciting as a Volvo. So I, for one, don’t care if some of the formerly clumsy right angles on the ship have been updated a little.

1182. Holger - November 18, 2008

1158 boborci: I know you can’t give away story details. I know the movie is directed at a wide audience. But is there something in it for the die-hard fan, something which isn’t just superficial like the appearance of uniforms or the classic red alert klaxon? I would call myself a die-hard fan (have been for 20 years, not counting my childhood in the 70s when I was fascinated by the reruns but was too young to really understand what was going on in the shows) and my big problem so far is that I don’t feel something has been offered yet which delights my die-hard Trekker mindset.

1183. JL - November 18, 2008

1181

You sir, speak for me.

1184. Jeffries Tuber - November 18, 2008

1132. Jeannie Spock – November 18, 2008
Hey, I’m a bit worried. I thought this movie was Spock’s story?. Seems to me that they are concentrating on Kirk going by the clips on the trailer and the long opening sequence.

I have a speculative answer: because Pine is Kirk, Kirk’s the leader and the Spock makeup completely desexes Zach Quinto. From what I’ve read, NBC received more female fan letters for Nimoy’s Spock that Shatner’s Kirk. But that had a lot to do with the relative naivete of time. Asian mysticism and men with eyeshadow has a lot more novelty in ’66.

1185. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1178 doubting thomas
Yes I do see the difference. You do have a point, and I don’t want to be-labor the issue because I love classic TOS and I feel like I’m tearing it down. It comes down to a matter of practicality. If you want to see more trek you have to accept that it will be different. Good or bad remains to be seen but you can’t go back. TOS has been done and there’s no market for it. And this movie, be it blockbuster or bomb doesn’t have to take anything away from all of the great Trek that we grew up with and love. It’s a new spin on Kirk and crew, and you might enjoy it when all is said and done. None of us will get everything we want, but we will get more Trek where there was none. And like my dear old mama use to say “Oatmeal beats No meal!”

1186. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1181 – Ahh, I think I understand better now. :)

I tend to draw a line between storytelling itself and the trappings of what’s possible in visual media. I completely agree that some level of visual update is perfectly reasonable (though I think reasonable people can disagree on how much updating is too much, of course), and getting into a tizzy about an actor’s eye color is kinda over the top.

That said, I think the basic structure of Trek (characters, situations, backstory, etc.) would apply just as well to modern techniques of actually telling a story as it did to those available in the 1960s.

1187. JL - November 18, 2008

1185

REGARDING THE NEW FILM

ONE OF THE MOST RATIONAL, ARTICULATED POSTS I HAVE EVER READ ON THIS SITE. MY HAT IS OFF TO YOU

1188. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1186
Glad we agree.

However, one of the ways that “what’s possible” impacts the actual telling of the story was revealed in one of the Trek books (either Whitfield’s or Gerrold’s, don’t recall which), where they talked about a possible storyline that involved giant feathered creatures. In the 1960’s, and given Trek’s budget, the story would have to have them beam one or two of the creatures aboard the ship, because they wouldn’t be able to afford the costumes for hundreds of them if Kirk and Company were to beam down to their planet.

Now, you can add those characters digitally – millions of them, if you want. So it changes the game in terms of the story you can tell.

Modern standards can have a child Kirk drive a Corvette off a cliff; 1960’s standards had to have him unfamiliar with how to operate a clutch and making a wacky grinding sound. (Okay, this example is a stretch, but you get my point.)

1189. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1187 JL
You are far too kind, and what’s more, many of you’re posts trump mine easily.

1190. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

1145. EFFeX

I SOOOO disagree with your post.

I like to think that TOS had a very subjective view on the future. Its art direction was, BY DESIGN, planned out on a limited budget but with an intent to display everything we could conceive of in a world 200 years in the future!!!

I could go on for paragraphs on how – Star Trek (The Original Series) accomplished that. But here’s one thought.

An early complanit was that in Trek the halways were way too large.

Perhaps, in the future; ) it is learned early one that on deep space voyages that humans need to have cerrtain environmental conditions met. Larger corridors provide not only an open space for tranporting large equipment, but also provide enough space for the crew to move about freely or gravitational support (the TOS hallways always seemed to be well designed in my book and New Voyages never seemed to match the quality of these important set designs. And TMPs were too small. I would think that larger open area would be the ideal soultion for the well being of the crew. The new movie looks to have just the right ballance. And thier are finally pnaty of things to grab onto when the gravity goes offline. Ihope that happens too. Thais imortant effect was poorly done in STVI. Sorry Nic.

It’s supposed to be a major Starship in space. Would’nt thier be a bit more scale interior space for everyone? TOS handled the set design and story telling very well, IMO.

If your still reading…

I really wondered after the one Ep., where McCoy referenced the superflu from a century before. Caused by the sterility of modern environments. I kinda looked at the ship’s interior differently after that episode. I could appreciate how the crew was so well cared for in the ship’s environement.

You need open spaces in the ship to live and breath in space.

The great thing about TOS is that in its outing, the design was well done. But I could still always see how the design could be simply upgraded.
We’ll see if the new movie can sustain a new set design critque. The “filmed on location interior engineering shots” really, really worry me.

that big open hallways and

1191. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

Forget that last line.
ugh.

1192. Marian Ciobanu - November 18, 2008

- So what’s new around by here…?..

1193. boborci - November 18, 2008

914

Sounds are important, fo’ sho’

1194. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1185 – “None of us will get everything we want, but we will get more Trek where there was none.”

I’d be as happy as the next guy for a new Trek movie, but I do feel constrained to point out that there isn’t none. There is in fact a lot of new Trek out there, coming almost every single month.

Maybe that’s why I’m not so focused on the movie; all my Trek eggs aren’t sitting in a single filmic basket. ;)

1195. Will Doe - November 18, 2008

Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar
Post. 1170 and 302.
If Abrams is as clever as this,then no one can ever say otherwise.
Read it and THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1196. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1190
You illustrate my point beautifully.
If you read the “behind the scenes” books from the 70’s, you’ll find that the ONLY reason that the hallways were so large on the original Enterprise was that they had to be big enough to accomodate the camera crew.

1197. Xindi1985 - November 18, 2008

Look at the station at 1:16 (the scene where the Enterprise go to warp!) , you can see an old constitution-class-starship!!!!
In the left corner!!!!

1198. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1186 – In that sense, sure, we agree again. I’m totally happy that better tech would allow grander stories and greater scope. I think if we’d had that then, the whole trope of almost every species being variations of humanoid might not have been necessary. Even TAS started breaking out of that as soon as it could. :)

But i still think that even TOS–as it was–was structurally flexible enough that if the resources had been available to be more elaborate, it could and would have, without betraying its basic setup.

1199. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1194 Alex Rosenzweig
I don’t read as much as I probably should. I’ve read maybe ten Trek novels in my life the last being Imzadi. For me the films and series are the Trek universe. The books are filler or extras to get you through the long spells between filmed Trek. That’s just my opinion. I’m glad that you have the books, this gives you a lot more Trek than I’m getting, perhaps that’s why I’m content that I’m getting a shiny new movie to add to my universe.

1200. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1198
It would seem that we agree more than disagree. Save me a bunch of scrolling, and give me the specifics of your three BIGGEST bones to pick with the new film (based on what little evidence we have so far).

1201. thorsten - November 18, 2008

Question for Bob:

Is the tall guy in the trailer around 1:11 the same species or person than in the bar between Kirk and Uhura?

1202. boborci - November 18, 2008

1174 Alex R

— We did consider it, but one of the first things I felt strongly about was the fact the if we were going to dare delve into the sacred ground that is TOS, it had to have the explicit and implicit blessing of Mr. Spock himself (Nimoy). That was the bottleneck for me through which all ideas had to pass.

1182. Holger – November 18, 2008

— I believe if we have done our jobs, then the story will provide the marrow you seek.

1203. Trekmatt - November 18, 2008

hey bob,

just wanted to say thanks for what looks to be a great movie, trailer was amazing! :)

Also not sure if anyone in the UK saw it, but about an hour ago Sky movies showed the new Trek trailer with a little introduction and backstory to it by Abrams. Sounds like he knows what he’s talking about :)

1204. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1202 boborci

Bob, does your response to 1174 imply that perhaps Nimoy gets a credit for something other than his acting in this film?
That would go a certain way toward reassuring the nervous Nellies about their canonical worries.

1205. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1146—-“Thanks for the corrections. And thanks for seeing the point rather than the inacuracy of the analogy.”

No problem. I knew what point you were trying to get across, and I agree with that point 100%. As a former military officer and a history major, naturally I am an amateur military historian of sorts (not my day job, though). I am glad you didn’t take exception to my nitpicking.

I still knew exactly what you were trying to say.

#1152—“In an alternate world, there’s no necessity to keep them as such.”

True enough, but I do not feel that any writers who are as familiar with the characters as Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman would choose to tell a story featuring those characters if they never intended to develop basically the same personalities and characteristics for them. I don’t think that the ‘Big Three’, in particular, would be so appealing without the writers evolving the all important relationship dynamic between them to what we know it to be in TOS/the original films.

“Even in the few snippets of the new film that we’ve seen, the characters are already different in some ways, simply by virtue of having different experiences.”

But I think that, even without the element of a potentially different timeline, what we would see of those characters would likely be very different from what we might more easily recognize as their behavior in TOS. I have a feeling that if any of this is permanent, it will only be how they get from A to B…if that makes any sense.

It still could be that Nimoy’s Spock is using these alternately developed younger versions as part of a larger plan to set the whole timeline straight, although I am increasingly doubtful of that…Otherwise, why would Spock Prime be so concerned with young Kirk not telling Quinto’s Spock about their conversation?

It is hard not to speculate, and I have a feeling that is why Bob has so much fun reading these posts here!

#1171—“Understood. Although there were some great exceptions (Helen Noel etc.) proving that TOS was pretty “progressive” in this regard, too.”

Absolutely. I wouldn’t describe the show as anything but progressive, bearing in mind of course that “progressive” is a term relative to the time period.

1206. hitch1969©, sexily madeover in tha UK. - November 18, 2008

I see that you are avoiding the tough questions today, and taking the “lobs” as it were, OrcSter™.

Disappointed and hurt.

the women;(

=h=

1207. thorsten - November 18, 2008

[1172] This movie can not be written on anything else as a MacBook Pro!

1208. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1200 – “It would seem that we agree more than disagree.”

Yup! :)

“Save me a bunch of scrolling, and give me the specifics of your three BIGGEST bones to pick with the new film (based on what little evidence we have so far).”

Really, I have exactly ONE bone to pick with the new film. Just one. It’s just that it’s a big one. I’m fine with recasting, I’m fine with the level of redesign (even if I might not have done it the same way). But, for me, maintaining the basic storytelling continuity (as distinct from visual continuity) is absolutely critical. On the level of the stories and the fictional history, if what comes out of this film is the same world as TOS and all the other series and films (and I do believe that they all basically fit in one world), I’ll be totally cool with it. What has me weirded out at the moment is the sense that it won’t.

#1202 – “— We did consider it, but one of the first things I felt strongly about was the fact the if we were going to dare delve into the sacred ground that is TOS, it had to have the explicit and implicit blessing of Mr. Spock himself (Nimoy). That was the bottleneck for me through which all ideas had to pass.”

And Mr. Nimoy didn’t want you to do that??? Wow… I remember when he himself said in an early interview that, for folks who were afraid that the whole continuity would be changed around or messed up, that that wasn’t going to happen. So…. Either you still have something up your sleeves that you’re not telling (and if you do, no, I don’t expect you to tell here! ;) ), or he has a rather different perception of it than some others do. Intriguing…

1209. hitch1969©, sexily madeover in tha UK. - November 18, 2008

Thorsten Howell the 3rd™, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Certainly, you have a large macintosh computer in your pantalones.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

1210. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1208

Your last paragraph is what led me to ask Bob if Nimoy gets a credit for something other than acting (consultant, whatever) for being the bottleneck.

1211. thorsten - November 18, 2008

Thanks, Hitch, let me return that compliment…

and check this out:

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/02/orci250_edit.jpg

1212. Sci Fi Geek - November 18, 2008

a question for Mr Orci

Hi. great trailer, looks like the film will be amazing!!

my question is, is this trailer going to be last trailer we see before the film releases, and will the comics coming out in January explain the ties with TOS series better to the new film?

1213. boborci - November 18, 2008

1212 Sci Fi Geek – November 18, 2008

I’m sure we’ll do another trailer.

Comics will tie in to established continuity.

1214. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1199 – “I don’t read as much as I probably should. I’ve read maybe ten Trek novels in my life the last being Imzadi.”

I’ve always been a reader, and I love getting lost in the pages of a good book. As a result, I’ve read just about every Trek book there is. (The new Corps of Engineers trade paperback is sitting on my to-read pile, and I’m in the middle of Destiny, Book II.)

“For me the films and series are the Trek universe. The books are filler or extras to get you through the long spells between filmed Trek.”

I can understand the viewpoint, believe me, but trust me when I say that there are some just mind-blowingly awesome Trek stories out there in the pages of those books. One thing I share with the writers of the film is my affection for the novel Prime Directive, which is just too awesome for words. And the new ST: Vanguard series has become my favorite Trek of all. If you have the time, I totally recommend you doing some sampling of the books again. :)

1215. boborci - November 18, 2008

1204. Neil – November 18, 2008

“Bob, does your response to 1174 imply that perhaps Nimoy gets a credit for something other than his acting in this film?
That would go a certain way toward reassuring the nervous Nellies about their canonical worries.”

He should! But no, it means that we felt if we could come up with a story that included Nimoy, and he said yes, then by definition, we had his blessing.

He read the script and said yes.

1216. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1215
Thanks for the answer. Appreciate it.
I wonder if Petrovicz had to spend time on a message board somewhere explaining why Johnny Smith walked with more of a limp in Season 3 of DZ than in Season 2…

1217. Ian B - November 18, 2008

#1208

“if what comes out of this film is the same world as TOS and all the other series and films (and I do believe that they all basically fit in one world), I’ll be totally cool with it. What has me weirded out at the moment is the sense that it won’t.”

If it doesn’t destroy the old continuity, there is no point in making this movie and I think people really need to grasp that. There’s no room left to maneuver in the old continuity, not for these characters. We know their life stories; we know how Kirk dies, what happens to Spock, we’ve seen their entire careers. There aren’t any stories left to tell. Well, you could shoehorn stories in, sure, but those stories would hvae to be constrained by the inability to change anything. Nobody’s life could ever be at risk, because we know they did not die.

It’s the problem that renders prequels largely pointless. If you know the future, there can be no suspense about the past. There simply isn’t any point just putting in a few trivial adventures “in the cracks” to please fact-collectors. The only way they could restart the franchise with these characters is to obliterate the certainty, to free them from the amber in which they are frozen.

That renders all the “facts” we all know about Trek redundant. I can live with that. I want some exciting new adventures, not some Just So stories about How The Klingons Got Their Ridges, which is all prequels can do, which was why Enterprise was a guaranteed dud from the outset.

It reminds me of watching Johnathan Ross commenting on the premiere of The Phantom Menace; he joked “And if you don’t want to know how it ends… well, you shouldn’t have watched the other three movies”. It’s why people hate spoilers. It’s hard to enjoy a story when you already know what happens.

1218. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1205 – “It is hard not to speculate, and I have a feeling that is why Bob has so much fun reading these posts here!”

I bet you’re right. :)

1219. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1214 Alex Rosenzweig
Thanks for the recommendations, I will definately check out “Prime Directive” my best friend highly regards that book as well.

1220. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1217 – ‘If it doesn’t destroy the old continuity, there is no point in making this movie and I think people really need to grasp that.”

I have to admit, I completely don’t understand that. I think the very fact that there has been no origin story put on film, and that there are lots of gaps in the characters’ history, provides a great deal of maneuvering room.

“We know their life stories; we know how Kirk dies, what happens to Spock, we’ve seen their entire careers. There aren’t any stories left to tell. Well, you could shoehorn stories in, sure, but those stories would hvae to be constrained by the inability to change anything. Nobody’s life could ever be at risk, because we know they did not die.”

If one believes that, it wouild seem to me that the logical response would be to create new characters, whose fates are not known, rather than to go back to those who are.

“It’s the problem that renders prequels largely pointless. If you know the future, there can be no suspense about the past.”

I dunno about that. Just the other day, a friend and I watched a movie about a historical event–a real one–the outcome of which is of course very well-known, and despite that fact, we were quite caught up in the suspense of what would happen. Why? Because the story was told extremely well, and as audience members, we got drawn into what the characters were thinking and feeling, via the strength of their performances.

Ergo, I don’t buy the argument that prequels can’t have any suspense. It’s all in the storytelling.

1221. Sci Fi Geek - November 18, 2008

thanks Bob (may i call u Bob) Orci for replying so fast!! I really appreciate u being so connected with the fans. Just 2 more questions.

1. My wife was wondering whether u guys will be having a premiere in the U.K next year. It would be really cool to see u, JJ and gang there.

2. Is there some sort of target boxoffice the studio is aiming for in order for there to be a sequel. If so, then is it drastically more than the previous trek films?

1222. Quarry Shmuarry - November 18, 2008

Maybe the gigantic quarry is the result of mining for the raw materials to build those big honkin’ buildings in the middle of nowhere. And for building starships nearby.

1223. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1217—-You make some excellent points, which I have often referred to as the benefit of “dramatic jeopardy” inherent in future stories, should this one end with events unfolding differently than in the previously established timeline.

It (the lack of jeopardy) is one of the things that made George Lucas’ Star Wars prequel trilogy doomed to mediocrity, IMO.

It is basically the removal of the “who, what, and where”, leaving us only with the “how”. You know that, no matter what happens to the characters in the meantime, their ultimate fates are sealed (except for Spock, who is presumably the only one of them who is still alive post-Nemesis). They cannot be put in “jeopardy” for anyone who is even remotely familiar with Trek stories in the previously established timeline.

That might be okay for a mediocre budget fanboy film, but probably not good enough to justify a $150 million budget for a project meant to arouse the interest of established fans and non-fans alike.

It is for that reason that I have increasingly become open to the notion that this can be a permanently altered timeline…and I will be okay with that.

I want to see more Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in their youth. It may be that the only way that can be appealing to many is if their futures are uncertain.

I appreciate that they are using established canon to explain the differences (alternate timelines), and that it is neither a true “reboot”, nor a true “prequel” (since all previous canon is required to advance the story to the point where the Romulans and Spock Prime travel back in time).

I think it is shaping up to be a very unconventional “sequel”, instead, and one that you do not need to know everything about Star Trek to appreciate and enjoy.

1224. Neil - November 18, 2008

Just a question, thrown out to the masses, which hopefully doesn’t start a flame war…

Just after 9/11, “The West Wing” aired an episode called “Isaac and Ishmael” that dealt with the terrorist attacks. They made it clear that the episode wasn’t part of the existing timeline, and just used familiar characters to tell a story. And by all accounts, it’s one of the best “Wing” episodes ever.

My guess is that the folks around these parts wouldn’t entertain such a scenario?

1225. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1224 – Actually… If I knew, going in, that that’s what was happening, and the next thing would absolutely go back to the regular timeline, I could be fine with that.

1226. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1220—-That’s the other side of the argument, of course.

I am not affected at all in my enjoyment of ‘The Godfather, Part II’ and its prequel subplot, despite the fact that I know that Vito will eventually die in his tomato garden.

I guess the difference is that isn’t the whole movie, but a secondary plot which parallels another story, the ending of which is still in question at that point.

However, I think that when you are talking about stories depicting actual historical events, or “true stories”–if you will, they are inherently easier to wrap your interest around anyway, as opposed to stories involving people who have never actually existed. Therefore, knowing the ending may not be such a problem.

My wife, for instance, is the kind of person whose ears perk up (along with her interest) when she knows it is a “true story”, and not one which is completely fictional. She has a very different interest in the story right off the bat.

Just a thought.

1227. boborci - November 18, 2008

1221. Sci Fi Geek – November 18, 2008

“thanks Bob (may i call u Bob) Orci for replying so fast!! I really appreciate u being so connected with the fans. Just 2 more questions.

1. My wife was wondering whether u guys will be having a premiere in the U.K next year. It would be really cool to see u, JJ and gang there.

2. Is there some sort of target boxoffice the studio is aiming for in order for there to be a sequel. If so, then is it drastically more than the previous trek films?”

yeah, call me bob.

1. don’t know about premieres yet.

2. I’m sure there is a number they hope f for, but I don’t know what it is, but I’m sure it is drastically more, yes.

1228. Ian B - November 18, 2008

1223, thanks, and I agree with your comments :)

Alex Rosenzweig- look at it this way. Consider the previous movies’ events. Enterprise refitted- two major command staff permanently lost. Khan escapes, Spock killed. Spock resurrected but permanently changed by the experience. Kirk’s son killed. Enterprise destroyed, later replaced with a new ship. Peace made with the Klingon Empire. Crew retired. Kirk killed. Enterprise D destroyed. Data killed.

Movies need major events to happen, they can’t just be about trivial planet of the week stuff like a series. No events of the scale of the events listed above could happen in an “in continuity” TOS crew series of movies, because we already know they didn’t happen.

So it’s either a new continuity, or no more TOS adventures. I’ll take the second option. I’ve still got all the old episodes and films to watch when I want to. Nothing is taken away, but we get something more. That’s good, isn’t it?

1229. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1225
“Actually… If I knew, going in, that that’s what was happening, and the next thing would absolutely go back to the regular timeline, I could be fine with that.”

Alex, that’s part of what we have as “Alex canon”, because you’ve said you read every Trek book – and from what I recall as decreed by the Canonistas, none of them are considered canon. (Which is a shame, I would have loved to have seen an ‘ultimate enemy’ scenario in TOS like in ‘Price (/ Fate) Of The Phoenix’)

I wonder about others. But while we’re on the subject, how would I (as the producer of this supposed production that you would be fine with) TELL you that it doesn’t disrupt the timeline without spoiling the ending?

1230. Lharles - November 18, 2008

1227. “yeah, call me bob.”

Okay, ‘bob’, I haven’t been this excited about a coming attraction in recent memory.

I showed the trailer to my four kids yesterday, (10, 8, 6, and 6), and they’re excited to see it too. Not that I tried to sway them one way or the other… ;)

So, you know, good job on the trailer. :)

1231. Devon - November 18, 2008

Bob, just curious, will the Shat be invited to the red carpet? Or is that going into the Takei/Wedding Invitation territory of if he will get it or not? ;) Also wondering if Majel Roddenberry will be invited to a screening as well. With Gene gone, I thought this might be a chance to get as big of a blessing for the movie as you could get.

Just curious what your thoughts are.

Thanks!

1232. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

xoharo

you say this will be a new spin on star trek

my point is that, by the looks of things so far and statewments that have been made by abrams and others, it will be like the “new spin” that the 1960s tv show put on the batman franchise, when compared to the original comic book. maybe in 40 years star trek will have it’s “dark knight”, but this is not it.

1233. Nathan - November 18, 2008

Mr. Orci:

After watching the trailer, and considering the topic for a while, I’d like to outline a few of my concerns with the film as I understand it so far. Obviously, this is put together with a very limited knowledge of the film, so take it all with a grain of salt–but if you’d care to respond to these concerns, I’d be very grateful.

(1) My major, major, major concern is just that this movie will end up just another Hollywood blockbuster action film; slickly-produced, great special effects, good action sequences…just another JJ Abrams action flick. Most of my other concerns with the movie are very closely tied to this, as well. Just looking at the trailer, we’ve already got the Obligatory Sex Scene (TM), the Big Action scenes, snappy dialogue, and so on. Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with most of these things; but there has to be something *more* there.

(2) The characters themselves. The characters are probably the single most important element of Trek as a whole…and I’m sure you know that, too. I’m sure you’ll be taking a lot of care with this, so I’m not too worried about this–with the large exception of the character of Kirk (or rather, what we’ve seen of him so far). Seeing the trailer, and several other bits of information, I’m seeing the potential for Kirk to end up nothing more than another jerky, womanizing action hero. Yes, the Kirk we’ve known is womanizing, and often cocky–but the most important and essential part of his character is that he’s also a hero. That is, he’s a fundamentally *good* character; and that has to come out somewhere in the new movie. If he’s just a jerk, blowing off steam, massaging up his ego, womanizing every chance he gets; then, frankly, I as a member of the audience have no reason whatsoever to care about him.
As an addendum to this, I do have to say that I have much less of a problem with Kirk acting this way as part of a character arc. That is, I can take him starting out a jerk for part of the movie, so long as there’s actually a point to this, and he is heading towards actual heroism. But, in this scenario, even if he does eventually end up as a hero, it doesn’t help me having to deal with a jerky Kirk for 3/4 of the movie.

I could go on, but most of my other concerns are far, far, more minor…

Please take all of the above as potential issues, not necessarily real ones–all or none of what I’ve said above could actually turn out to be true. But it would definitely make me feel a whole lot better if you’d care to address any of these.

1234. Sci Fi Geek - November 18, 2008

1227. boborci – November 18, 2008

Thanks Bob. I still cant believe u got to work with Leonard Nimoy man. That must have been some meeting u had with for him to say yes! What’s he like? I’ve heard he’s very down to earth and humble kind of guy. From his interviews he comes across as very articulate and intelligent.

1235. Anthony Pascale - November 18, 2008

Hope you don’t mind Bob, but to follow-up on that.

Certainly before inflation, this new Star Trek will have to ‘drastically’ beat the current top film, Star Trek IV at $109 (Domestic). However, for inflation adjusted domestic gross it made $210 mil and Star Trek The Motion Picture brought in the equivalent of around $240 million. That would put it in the top 5 in 2008. Of course movies made more domestically back then since they ran longer and there was a minimal home market. And for some perspective, Star Wars made over 300 million in 1977, which is well over $900 mil in todays dollars (domestically alone)

It is my view that Paramount wants Batman Begins level returns for the new Star Trek…and that film did $205M domestic and 166 foreign in 2005. The interesting thing about the Batman Begins model, is that the sequel did much much better, coming in at $995 world wide this year. This shows that a new ‘reinvigoration’ of a franchise can really work big and that you dont need to get too greedy on the first one.

I think there is only so much they can get out of the domestic market for this film, and that is why the foreign market is so important this time. They will need it to pull its weight to get to those Batman Begins level of numbers. So the new movie (inflation adjusted) needs to get to 80s levels domestically and break new (Trek) records internationally. One ‘trump card’ for Trek is that it has always performed well on the home market and I bet the DVD and Blu-ray (and likely special dilly deluxe editions) will be big money makers.

1236. Antonio - November 18, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5tPQ7oMGBw
The italian version

1237. P Technobabble - November 18, 2008

“…maybe in 40 years star trek will have it’s “dark knight”, but this is not it…”

I really don’t know how anyone could make a statement like this, with such conviction, and be expected to be taken seriously. This is ONE person’s opinion, yet it is typically presented as absolute knowledge. Everyone wants to share their crystal balls, eh? I’m excited like a little kid over this movie, but I’m not going to make some provocative statement like, “This movie will make more $$$ than all the other Trek movies put together…” (although ya never know!). People who run out of argument resort to making blanket statements they have no way to support. As I said before, the Movie Is In The Can, time to start bitching about the sequels… >:)

1238. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 18, 2008

1196. Neil

My point was that early attempts at set designs were on target. Simple is better IMO. especially for the long haul. The new design seem to preserve the simple basic designs. Aside from all the extra tweaky lights on the bridge. After awaile that will seem to appear more basic in appearance.

1239. Chris Pike - November 18, 2008

1235. Anthony Pascale – November 18, 2008
…and Star Trek The Motion Picture brought in the equivalent of around $240 million.

That’s such an important point – the TMP opening weekend in the US was all over the news even here in the UK ’79 for its record breaking takings that December. That adjusted figure is fascinating. With the build-up, anticipation, expectation etc to the new feature being very similar in my eyes to TMP, it does indeed seem very likely to have a massive box office opening potential.

1240. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1238

I understood your point, but what I’m saying is that the size of the hallways had nothing to do with actual starship design; and the subsequently smaller hallways on future ships was because the camera crews didn’t require as much room as they did on TOS.

It’s just another example of how what we saw on the screen was impacted by the toys made available (or in some cases, not available) to the producers.

FWIW, I liked the original ship hallways better, too. But what some people (not you specifically) defend to the death as canon are simply things that were dictated by the technology and budgets available to a low-rated 1960’s science fiction show.

1241. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1228 – “Movies need major events to happen, they can’t just be about trivial planet of the week stuff like a series. No events of the scale of the events listed above could happen in an “in continuity” TOS crew series of movies, because we already know they didn’t happen.”

Perhaps, perhaps not. For example, I’ve always felt that Prime Directive would have made an amazing motion picture, even though it didn’t have events like the ones you listed above. It still took the characters on a major journey, and didn’t disrupt the flow of events as portrayed on film at all.

To borrow from the Guardian of Forever, “many such journeys are possible”, and I thus think that it’s really not as big an impediment as all that.

“So it’s either a new continuity, or no more TOS adventures. I’ll take the second option. I’ve still got all the old episodes and films to watch when I want to. Nothing is taken away, but we get something more. That’s good, isn’t it?”

If I bought your premise, your logic is sound. No complaints there. But I’m just not buying the premise. Sorry. :)

(I also loved “Enterprise”, BTW, not least of which because it was the only modern Trek series whose premise was one I wanted from the get-go. :) )

#1229 – “#1225- “Actually… If I knew, going in, that that’s what was happening, and the next thing would absolutely go back to the regular timeline, I could be fine with that.”

Alex, that’s part of what we have as “Alex canon”, because you’ve said you read every Trek book – and from what I recall as decreed by the Canonistas, none of them are considered canon.”

I think the conventional wisdom has been, for the purposes of Trek discussions, that “canon” refers to what’s in a live-action filmed production from Paramount. If we consider that Trek has been treated by the studio as a film-based entity, that definition seems reasonable.

If there’s such a thing as an “Alex canon”, it’d include as much of the licensed print Trek as possible, too, because, in my opinion, print Trek has been kickin’ the butt of filmed Trek in terms of raw quality for decades now. But that’s a hugely subjective thing, and I don’t expect anyone to just automatically accept the same assumptions as I do.

“I wonder about others. But while we’re on the subject, how would I (as the producer of this supposed production that you would be fine with) TELL you that it doesn’t disrupt the timeline without spoiling the ending?”

I’d suggest marketing it the same way Pocket marketed the Myriad Universes anthologies (and, increasingly, how I’m starting to think of the new movie, assuming Bob O. and the others don’t have some sneaky trick up their sleeves. ;) ). In short, it’s a “what if?” story. What if such-and-such happened (or didn’t happen)? How might things play out? When I bought those anthologies, I had no idea how things would play out. I wasn’t bothered by them, because I knew they weren’t going to be replacing all the regular continuity Trek going forward. They were just an exploration of possibilities.

Now if I knew that a filmed production of that sort was doing the same thing, serving as an exploration of possibilities but not supplanting future productions done in the regular continuity, I’d be totally cool with going along for the ride.

BTW, assuming that–alternate or otherwise–ST09 ends with the crew heading out on the 5-year mission, and assuming that if it is alternate, it’s not radically different than the Prime Trekverse, it could conceivably be possible to do a sequel film that might not contradict TOS, and could thus be considered equally applicable to both continua. Now wouldn’t that be interesting…? :)

1242. Al Hartman - November 18, 2008

1197.

The ship in the left hand corner at 1:16 is the U.S.S. Kelvin or similar vessel based on the design of the Primary Hull.

You might wish to look again.

1243. sad fan - November 18, 2008

the trailer gave me the impression that this version of trek will have a lot of over the top sex—which is disappointing, because in my mind that’s not what trek is about. While there can be no denying that in TOS Kirk was portrayed as a ladies man, a lot was implied but never explicitly shown. In this trailer we see Kirk stripping ready to jump on top of a girl that looked either like a nameless yeoman or possibly Uhura. Trek TOS has always been depicted as being family friendly–i guess this movie is the beginning of change. = (

1244. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

p technobabble

it’s clear from the complete lack of respect this production team has shown the series that they pretty much started off with the idea that star trek was stupid and old, and based their entire production on that. they’re trying to add more outdated visuals and silliness to the show instead of removing it. they have no respect for the show, so they shouldn’t be working on it. they should give it to someone who can take it seriously.

so far, the casting seems to be the best thing they’ve done, with the exception of cho, who bares no resemblance to the character he’s playing.

1245. boJac - November 18, 2008

Have the comments ever reached 1701?

1246. Ian B - November 18, 2008

1240 “I’ve always felt that Prime Directive would have made an amazing
motion picture”

Well there you go. I just looked this novel (I presume that’s what you’re referring to) up on Memory Alpha, and it illustrates the whole problem with in-continuity fannish writing. It has some massive events- planet destroyed, entire crew dishonourably discharged, Kirk’s reputation ruined, the Enterprise crippled- then has to end with a game of whack-a-mole on the big red reset button so that “everything is as it was before”; which is exactly the problem people complained about with dross like Voyager. And after these massive events nobody ever mentions them ever again. You can’t cripple huge budget movies like that. It just has (most of) the audience waiting for the reset-thwack, because they know it’s going to happen, destroying the tension. The only interest is in what way the reset gets thwacked.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t think you can relaunch Trek by promising that kind of thing to the audience. It’d just seem lame and pointless. These new writers and cast need room to breathe and take stories in new and unexpected directions, not limitation to “a few more stories, which will be of no significance whatsoever”.

1247. Ian B - November 18, 2008

1243- they weren’t allowed to show any more than they did on 1960s TV, though they pushed the boundaries as far as they could (my favourite is possibly Nurse Chapel skewering Roger Korby about the nature of his relationship with the android Andrea, I’m amazed they got it past the network censors) and let’s not forget Kirk putting his boots back on after porking Deela in Wink Of An Eye.

And she appears to be an Orion.

1248. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1247
And if the TOS skirts had been any shorter, they would have been headbands.
Family friendly? “In a pig’s eye.”

1249. BK613 - November 18, 2008

1243
“As a man I allowed you a few hours as a man” after Kirk’s romp with the slave girl in Bread and Circuses.

1250. watermelon - November 18, 2008

Hey, did anyone notice that at 1:40 when Spock has a go at Kirk the picture is in mirror image. The uniform insignia is on the wrong side, hehe.

1251. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

perfect point, neil

in the pilot episodes, female crewmembers wore basically the same uniforms as the men. for the series, the network told them to be more contemporary and sex up the female uniforms.

this new movie has maintained that flaw instead of removing it.

1252. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1232 doubting thomas
Sorry for the long delay. Well, you don’t know that this is a bad movie. From what I’ve seen it looks like an action packed thriller. That’s not to say that there isn’t good dialogue and a really good story involved. Remember, trailers focus on action to draw attention. For all we know there are plenty of elements that are in line with classic Star Trek. I think that anyone making a new Trek film is handed a tall order. You have to strike a balance between satisfying the die hard Trek fans, and drawing in people who just want to see a good movie, or even harder, people who associate Trek with bad movies like “The Final Frontier” or “Generations”. And yes they were not good movies. I am a die hard Trek fan and I can admit that. Even films like “Nemesis” did not do much for the average movie-goer.
So the real issue is what exactly do you want? Paramount has gone out of their way to make this happen. Let’s face facts, the Star Trek franchise has not done well when you consider the recent movies and television series’. Things were bad and only getting worse. So instead of scrapping it all together, (which they could have done because they have other things on their plate) they go out and get Abrams and dump a bunch of money into a major motion picture. That is the opposite of what a studio usually does. What more can a Trek fan reasonably want? There’s no point in going out and getting Abrams and spending the money if you are going to make another hum-drum, break-even, blip on the radar movie.

1253. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1251 doubting thomas

I don’t recall a Trek series yet that didn’t push the boundaries of good taste with its depiction of women as sex objects.

It would appear that well-endowed women dressed in skimpy clothing is as much a part of Trek canon as anything else.

Just because YOU find it objectionable doesn’t make it any less so.

1254. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1253 Neil
Good point. Kirk has from the beginning been depicted as more or less a womanizer, and Seven of Nine and Sub Commander T’pol were clearly meant to be sexual objects. That’s not to say that Ryan and Blalock weren’t good actresses. Both of them were great in my opinion.

1255. M33 (formerly 'Spock's Toupee) - November 18, 2008

401 –

THANK YOU, for the links!

1256. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1254
Those are the two most blatant examples, certainly. But look at the clothing on the women in the other series as well, even TNG. Deanna Troi’s footwear is what’s known to most women as “f*** me boots”.

1257. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1256 Neil
True, I agree with you 100%.

1258. Neil - November 18, 2008

I just love this notion from people who claim to be purists that everything to do with this film somehow violates a sacred trust that Trek has with its fans. Because after all, God knows Kirk was never portrayed as any kind of rebel until JJ got his hands on him. And Trek never had any scantily clad women until Bob Orci’s script. And every starship in the history of the fleet had been perfectly designed up until this trailer came out.

Give me a break, people.

1259. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1257
Know what I’d LOVE to see one day, although it will never happen? I’d love to see Leonard Nimoy come into this comment section, so that the likes of “doubting thomas” can educate Nimoy as to why this film isn’t good enough to be called “Star Trek”.

1260. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1257 Neil
Well, I don’t have a serious beef with doubting thomas, I just can’t understand why someone who loves Trek, would be complaining about the franchise finaly getting “top shelf” treatment from paramount. They’ve invested a ton of money in this film and everyone has worked very hard, and it looks like an exciting, action-packed movie that will appeal to many people. They didn’t skimp on effects, and they brought in the heavy guns in the form of Abrams and people are complaining. I just don’t get it.

1261. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1259, Pretty much. I understand that we all love Trek and that’s why we are here, but I want to know where people are getting the nerve to tell others what Trek is supposed to be. Seriously, I’m a die hard fan and always will be and perhaps one of the few that loved EVERY series. Seriously. However, for me buying into this movie and accepting it, I feel like there are posters that would tell me that I’m not a real Trek fan and don’t know what I’m talking about. I mean what is a REAL fan? I’m starting to think the definition of a “real” fan is one that hates everything that came after TOS and never accepted anything else. That’s why Trek has gotten such a bad wrap in non-fan circles. We just seem like a bunch of whining nerds. It’s crazy.

I know missed what I was originally trying to say in that rant, but your right, it’d be funny for the purists to tell Nimoy that this is not Star Trek and then point out what they did wrong.

1262. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1260 & #1261

Agreed.
Leonard Nimoy signed off on the script.
But I’ll bet JJ is kicking himself for not getting “doubting thomas” on board as well.

1263. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

It’s an important point too, Neil. Nimoy has never been shy to voice his opinion on the direction Trek has taken over the years. For him to sign off the script and have this much involvement in the film he must be very excited and pleased with the direction JJ and his team have taken.

1264. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1261 EFFeX
I too love all the series’. And yes, that includes TOS. And when I watch TOS I do it with a grain of salt. I know that it was a series made in a different time. I accept it for what it is and still enjoy it. “Balance of Terror” is one of my all-time favorite episodes all series’ all time. But you’re right, there are some who are just stuck on TOS and they bash all other Trek ventures. They are the ones who are not true Trek fans. They are commited to one series and one series only. In my opinion, if you love Trek, then you are willing to “Boldly go where no man has gone before”

1265. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1264, You pretty much said everything I have been feeling all along, but never really said out loud, LOL.

However, I trully do love TOS and it’s movies. I just like Trek period, I don’t know it’s always been a big part of my life and I can’t explain how happy I am that this movie is coming out.

1266. spiked canon - November 18, 2008

Hey you Canonites….ya I’m talking to you.

Explain this to me

How come an alternative universe story or time travel story that screws things up is cool if Shatner does it or Stewart, but If it’s a new team (which would OBVIOUSLY be necessary doing this type of story) then it is considered screwing with Canon and “this will ruin star trek ” and “this movie will suck”?

Where do you get off making a difference between the two.

and besides……….

YOU HAVEN’T SEE THE DAMN MOVIE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1267. Neil - November 18, 2008

#1263

I would suggest that Nimoy knows more about ST:TOS, the characters of Kirk and Spock, and filmmaking in general than everyone in this comment section *put together*.

Yet a script that Leonard Nimoy himself is excited about doesn’t seem to be good enough for many in this thread…those who claim to have a vested interest in the franchise, or TOS, or whatever it is they claim to be so personally invested in.

If I were any kind of serious talent in science fiction, I would sooner feed my private parts to an army of hungry tribbles than to take on a Star Trek project. Because not only do you have to create a *great* movie or TV show, but you also have to satisfy the obsessive whims of every ComicCon geek who got upset because they ran out of Romulan Ale Slurpees at the convention center. You could make a brilliant $200 million movie that grosses a billion at the box office, but find out on a message board somewhere that you suck because you forgot to take into account that Joe Redshirt has a freckle on his ass.

1268. Closettrekker - November 18, 2008

#1262—lol.

It’ amazing to me how people think the know “what Star Trek is” better than the one man who was involved in the very first pilot episode way back in 1964, and happily gave this script his blessing before participating in this movie and returning to his iconc role after so many years.

Amazing. It’s utterly ridiculous. Who the heck is “Doubting Thomas”, and what makes him understand Star Trek better than Leonard Nimoy?

1269. Wrath - November 18, 2008

Joe Redhsirt DID have freckles on his ass, and if they’re not properly rendered I will be straight on here to voice my anger.

1270. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1269 Wrath
Um, his name was Joseph, I take serious offense to you referring to him as “Joe”. This kind of treatment is offensive to my Trek sensibilities.

1271. JL - November 18, 2008

1254

“There’s no point in going out and getting Abrams and spending the money if you are going to make another hum-drum, break-even, blip on the radar movie.”

Right — or worse, as a few nutcases have alleged: go through all of this in order to purposely “kill the franchise forever.”

Some people never cease to amaze me.

1272. JL - November 18, 2008

1258

hilarious

1273. Me - November 18, 2008

The obsessive compulsive fans would do well to remember Shatners famous ‘get a life’ sketch on SNL. And just GET OVER IT. Yes, it’s DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT IS GOOD. Trek as we’ve known it for 40 years has ‘run its course’ to quote Leonard Nimoy.

We need a new Trek. And it looks like J.J. and Paramount are up to spending 150 million dollars to give it to us. And what a fabulous cast! Chris Pine will be perfect, and Sylar, oops, I mean Zachary was born to play young Spock.

God Bless you, J.J.!!!

1274. Dort - November 18, 2008

The trailer is great, but seemed like it needed a little more “top gun”….so I added some.

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

1275. Yspano - November 18, 2008

@ 991 Pinky
Hi! I think tech-talk has become a defining characteristic of Star Trek in general, but I wouldn’t say it legitimizes Trek as sci-fi. Technological speculation will always be part of science fiction, but I don’t think it requires the intensive use of labyrinthine terminology. (Le Guin’s “The Dispossessed,” Sagan’s “Contact,” and Tevis’ “Mockingbird” come to mind.)

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m sure Abrams was referring to this kind of “rather talky geekfest,” which at times tends to drown the plot and the characters altogether. Of course, I would be as insulted as I’m sure you would be, if his movie turns out to be as intellectually stimulating as the spoof movies Hollywood has been churning out recently.

1276. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2008

#1246 – Ian, have you actually read the book? I have, and it is so much grander than what you just described. You might want to actually give it a try before cutting it down because *gasp!* it takes place within Star Trek’s continuity.

#1266 – “How come an alternative universe story or time travel story that screws things up is cool if Shatner does it or Stewart, but If it’s a new team (which would OBVIOUSLY be necessary doing this type of story) then it is considered screwing with Canon and “this will ruin star trek ” and “this movie will suck”?”

I wouldn’t be any happier with that sort of thing from either Mr. Shatner or Mr. Stewart, really. Doesn’t matter who the creative folks are, IMHO.

1277. Devon - November 18, 2008

Trailer just shown with Fringe.

1278. Robman0908 - November 18, 2008

First time poster…long time TOS fan.

I’m not sure if anybody else noticed, but if you look at about 1:40 into the trailer (slow mo about 2 or 3 frames in) when Spock is choking out Kirk, in the bottom rigth corner of the screen it looks like Old Spock is standing there.

It could be Scotty, but it looks like an awful like old Spock. The figure is a bit blurry, but the outline of the face, and color of hair makes it look like old Spock.

1279. RD - November 18, 2008

At least there are female crew in long sleeves and pants.

1280. M33 - November 18, 2008

I wonder at what point do they close the comments section?

1281. Dort - November 18, 2008

#1278
It’s Spock’s dad…he just evacuated from Vulcan.

1282. Sam - November 18, 2008

The TV spot aired tonight during Fringe!

1283. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

xoharo

certainly somebody making a star trek movie is handed a tall order, but when it’s handed to someone who finds it silly and outdated, it’s utterly impossible. all they can do is parody it. it should be made by someone who can take it seriously. the wachowski brothers would make an excellent star trek film.

there is no balance. as i’ve said before, if the moie is bad, either the fans will hate it, or the public will hate it. if it’s good, everyone will hate it. that’s the nature of star trek. the real balance is putting the message of the show into it in such a way that morons cannot see it.

“the final frontier” was an excellent movie, even though it was rather badly made.

star trek will never do much for the average moviegoer without making a mockery of itself as this film is attempting to.

don’t measure the sucess of the series by viewing figures and ticket sales. star trek was still going strong when the networks murdered it. enterprise had just reachd it’s fourth season, and like all the other shows did in their fourth seasons, found itself and it’s aim. it was killed. seems to me we should respect the dead and not desecrate the corpse.

what more can a trek fan reasonably want? for the series to be treated with respect, taken seriously, and not sell out.

neil, i don’t recall a trek series that ever treated women as sex objects. the networks said “put a hot woman in tight clothes on the screen”, and the writers turned them into fascinating characters with genuine depth, motivations and conflicts. seven of nine is a prime example of this.

1284. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

“I just can’t understand why someone who loves Trek, would be complaining about the franchise finaly getting “top shelf” treatment from paramount. They’ve invested a ton of money in this film and everyone has worked very hard, and it looks like an exciting, action-packed movie that will appeal to many people. They didn’t skimp on effects, and they brought in the heavy guns in the form of Abrams and-”

and it will suck! that’s what i’m complaining about! sure, they’ve put incredible resources into making it a popular sucess, but it’s all superficial. and even that they’ve messed up. because they don’t take the show seriously. they just want to make money. look at this “legend of the seeker”. they took a book series that featured a mediocre plot which served as a vehicle for complex philosophical ideas, ripped out the ideas, kept the mediocre plot, cranked up the cheese, jazzed up the visuals, pumped up the hype, and now they’ll have a popular sucess. a soulless popular sucess.

you can’t say “sucess” without “suck”

1285. Realist - November 18, 2008

Dear Doubting Thomas,

This movie will be awesome despite your skepticism. However, you lose all your credibility by complaining about this movie and then tellng everyone that Final Frontier was an excellent movie. It’s purist nuts like you that make me laugh. I hope the movie brings in a wealth of new Trek fans and if you’re not still on the bandwagon, we won’t miss you.

1286. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

star trek’s message is desperately needed, now more than ever. we exist in a world that’s been, devided, carved up and raped, ripped to peices and sucked dry by human beings who cannot think on a scale beyond their own lives, who have no comprehension of the consequences of their collective actions, but are completely and utterly sure of themselves. they need something that will show them the potential of a united human race.

i’ve long said that entertainment can save the world. it is the prime teaching tool for the most privileged cultures on the planet. we need the inspiration it can provide. but instead we get shallow superficial trash.

1287. MikeyinOZ - November 18, 2008

Two Easter eggs-wallpapers of Nero and Uhura when you click on the incoming Transmission animations.

1288. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

pardon me, “realist”, if i don’t want an “awesome” movie. i saw “transformers” already, i don’t want to see it again. i want something with a point.

1289. Robman0908 - November 18, 2008

I think Trek XI will be a great movie. I like what I’ve seen in the trailer and I think it has lots of promise.

It could end up being good, it could end up being bad. It’s not like we Trek fans are not used to having crap products thrown our way (Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis, 95% of Voyager and Enterprise, countless bad videogames).

Star Trek is about the characters anyways. The new movie will make or break depending upon what is done with the characters, especially the big three of Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

If it does not follow canon, then it is really no big deal. How many times was canon violated in TNG, or even TOS. First Contact violated canon, yet it was a good star trek movie.

The new trek is different. Kirk himself said “people can be very frightened of change.” Sometimes change an be good……if done correctly. I won’t make a judgement until the day I see 2hrs and not 2min11sec of a preview meant to draw crowds.

I’m just happy that there will be some new Trek after the disaster of Nemesis, and that it will not be afraid to make a change and shake things up a bit.

1290. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

once again, nemesis was a great trek film that kept true to the point of the series. if it diddn’t have enough explosions and sex for you, you’re just watching the wrong series.

1291. Gd846c3 - November 18, 2008

So a 2 minute trailer has 3 seconds of sex and suddenly JJ Abrams has turned Star Trek into a sexual extravaganza? Wow, some people are absolutely determined not to like this.

#1290, WTF?

1292. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

The fact that they are airing this trailer so early and frequently strikes me as a little odd. Do they often do this for movies this far in advance? Maybe I just never paid attention, because I haven’t been hyped up for a movie in such a long time, but it seems strange.

1293. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

doubting thomas, Nemesis was a good film, a pretty decent Trek film. Yes I said it. However, it was NOT the way to send off TNG and I know that’s a debate all in it’s own, so maybe we shouldn’t get into it. However, I don’t think people didn’t like Nemesis because of a lack of explosions and sex.

1294. Robman0908 - November 18, 2008

actually, Nemesis was lame cause of the lame villian, lame plot and lame plot devices and bad directing. It kept to some of the core of TNG, but it did nothing new.

Sex in Trek is not new. Go back and watch TOS. Kirk was an intergalactic space gigilo. He didn’t care if it was human, non-human or machine, if it looked fine, he was on it.

Nemesis had plenty of explosions, and the crash scene was killer. The battle was alright too. I was just never a big fan on TNG. Too much PC and they always made the Big E out to be rather weak.

Kirk, Spock, McCoy and to an extent Scotty, to me will always be Trek. The friendship, the adventures and heartaches are all that made Trek for me…..and how kick ass the Big E always was in the show and movies.

1295. Julio - November 18, 2008

#1293

I very much enjoyed “Nemesis”… it just didn’t feel like a TREK film in many ways. I think the same will hold true for the new movie, and I hope I enjoy it as well.

As far as people complaining about “too much militarism” and “too much sex”… c’mon now. The original series had tons of half-naked women, fighting, and space battles. And thank god it did!

I’m quite sure hormones and the right to defend one’s self will still be quite relevant in WHATEVER century humans happen to make it to.

1296. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1295, That’s what I’m saying, I remember sex showing up frequently in all the Trek shows. Unless, I was watching a different show all those years, I have no idea what is so shocking about this scene showing up in the new movie. To be honest, I think people are worrying WAY too much about the “bra scene” and the “bedroom scene” or whatever it was. Seriously, some people are acting like its an adult film and that’s insanity. I’m sure people will see more shocking scenes in daytime television.

1297. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

my point is, dumb is popular, and star trek is not dumb. therefore, star trek cannot be popular. unless it is made dumb.

1298. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1297, if the movie flops completely will it be “smart” and you’ll actually like it?

1299. Robman0908 - November 18, 2008

1296, that is exactly the point. Sex never made TOS, TNG, DS9 or any other version dumb. It added human elements to the story, and in the case of TOS, is kinda funny at times.

I’m super pumped about this new movie because of the promise of good trek adventures with new versions of our old friends. The fact that Nimoy is a part of this gives it one more vote of confidence in the story department. Any Trek fan knows that Nimoy was very outspoken when he thought Trek was being crapified, and he obviously felt that this movie had something special enough to warrant his participation in.

Come May, we’ll all know if Trek XI is stupid or is a breath of fresh. Either way, we still have DVD’s, books and ten movies, most of which are great.

1300. Anthony Pascale - November 18, 2008

Warning for ‘databrain’
It is not up to you or anyone to determine who is the right kind of fan and who is and is not a fan of Trek. Nor is it your right to speak for Gene Roddenberry.

and I again implore everyone to try and be civil. You can disagree without being disagreeable.

1301. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

1300, I agree about the civil thing.

I apologize to anyone if I come off as rude in any comments, I am just very patient about this movie (as we all are).

1302. EFFeX - November 18, 2008

LOL @ patient, I don’t know how I typed that when I meant passionate, wow it’s getting late, LOL!

1303. Robman0908 - November 18, 2008

lol, it sure is. Funny thing how a unsuccessful 1960’s show can bring about such passion. Spock would probably say it is illogical. LOL

1304. P Technobabble - November 18, 2008

“… you can’t say “sucess” without “suck”…”

Sorry Mr. Doubting, but this is just a nonsensical play on words which does nothing to support your position, in reality. It sounds like your main contention is that JJ Abrams & Co. do not take Star Trek seriously, and are, therefore, delivering an inferior product. Well, I admit I don’t know any of those guys personally, but based on what I’ve read and heard (99.9 % of which comes from this very website), when Paramount and JJ Abrams got together part of the deal was that Abrams WANTED Star Trek, which was pretty much in limbo. Now, I ask you: why would Abrams want Star Trek if he A) hated it, B) didn’t take it seriously, C) didn’t give a crap about it, and D) E) F) G) etc.??? From my point of view, when someone goes after something and makes it part of a deal, that something must be pretty damned important. Do you also think Paramount would hand Star Trek over to a team that would, in any way, damage it further than it had already been? Star Trek will always be one of Paramount’s treasures, and they will always find a way to put it to work. Also, I must ask: have you read the script to this new movie? Have you seen the finished film in its entirety? If not, then your conclusion that the movie will suck is unsubstantiated because you don’t have all the facts. To draw a conclusion without all the facts is just irresponsible, especially if we’re talking about taking Star Trek seriously. I cannot say what kind of movie this is/will be, since I have not had any access to it, apart from whatever access we have all been granted in the form of this website. I like everything I’ve seen and heard so far, but that is as far as the truth goes. Sure, I could speculate just like anyone else (excepting Vulcans, of course, who do not speculate), but speculation is rather moot — I keep saying, the Movie Is In The Can. Speculate from here to Rigel VII, its not gonna change what’s in that can. And I, truthfully and honestly, do not know what is in the can… only the “insiders” do.
As for measuring success… another topic open to all kinds of debate, and no one ever convinces the other. Ultimately, I believe success (in the real world) is measured by A) how many people like it, and B) how many people keep liking it. I am not talking about “personal” or “subjective” success…

1305. Robman0908 - November 18, 2008

1304: Logical (vulcan for word…lol)

1306. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

tech, do you have ani idea how many hard-core purist fans i have talked to who have just as little respect for the show as abrams? the cheese is what they WANT. they NEVER took the show seriously, but they call themselves lifelong devoted fans.

i like star trek in spite of it’s few dated and silly elements

most trek fans like it BECAUSE of those things

that is who abrams is pandering to. he’s trying to please them and appeal tomindless modern moviegoers at the same time. leaving people who enjoyed star trek for it’s meaning and it’s message high and dry

1307. Heretic of the Church of Shatner - November 18, 2008

Alright, found the Easter eggs…hidden wallpapers of Nero and Uhura. Do I win anything?

1308. P Technobabble - November 18, 2008

1286, Doubting T wrote: “star trek’s message is desperately needed, now more than ever. we exist in a world that’s been, divided, carved up and raped, ripped to pieces and sucked dry by human beings who cannot think on a scale beyond their own lives, who have no comprehension of the consequences of their collective actions, but are completely and utterly sure of themselves. they need something that will show them the potential of a united human race. i’ve long said that entertainment can save the world. it is the prime teaching tool for the most privileged cultures on the planet. we need the inspiration it can provide. but instead we get shallow superficial trash.”

Forgive me for copying your post here, but I thought it was a decent and thoughtful post. I certainly give credit where credit is due. I pretty much agree with the gist of your post. I share in your frustration over the condition of the world. One of the most important ideas to affect me (I was 9 or 10 at the time) came from Star Trek… Mr. Spock, in particular. It was the idea that we could learn, as Spock did, how to control ourselves and not live as barbarians. Unfortunately, we don’t see the world making progress toward a more enlightened state… we can’t even have civility in this forum, never mind the world!
I also agree that art (which includes “entertainment”) can touch people, it can teach them something, or it can simply give them a good time. So, where is Star Trek in all of this? I believe that if this film simply gives people a good time, that will be a good thing and it will be a success. If it touches us and maybe teaches us something, that’s gravy. Again, from all that I’ve seen and heard, my gut feeling is that JJ and Co. are, indeed, Star Trek fans, and, therefore, they have been touched, moved, informed and tickled by the same things as every other Star Trek fan.

1309. DATA KILLED SPOT! - November 18, 2008

PREDICTING THE FUTURE: MAY 8TH 2009 EDITION:

Gas price: 70 cents/gallon
Weather: Sunny

THIS HAS BEEN PREDICTING THE FUTURE: MAY 8TH 2009 EDITION!!

1310. Gary - November 18, 2008

1267

“You could make a brilliant $200 million movie that grosses a billion at the box office, but find out on a message board somewhere that you suck because you forgot to take into account that Joe Redshirt has a freckle on his ass.”

Spectacular!!!

1311. doubting thomas - November 18, 2008

“If it touches us and maybe teaches us something, that’s gravy.”

pardon me if i sound like the sixth doctor here, but:

gravy?! GRAVY?! g-gravy?!

GRAVY??!!

“Again, from all that I’ve seen and heard, my gut feeling is that JJ and Co. are, indeed, Star Trek fans, and, therefore, they have been touched, moved, informed and tickled by the same things as every other Star Trek fan.”

that’s quite contrary to what we can discern from abrams’ previous works, his words about this movie, and the silly approach they’ve taken to this movie in all aspects of the production. they do not take it seriously.

1312. XOHARO - November 18, 2008

1283 & 1284 doubting thomas
It’s clear from your posts that you are determined to write this movie off as being dumb, or being a sell-out. As I’ve said before, you don’t know that much about this movie yet. Yeah it looks to have plenty of action and visual effects. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t good story telling, good dialogue, and good acting. Action and drama are not mutually exclusive. You can have both and hopefully this film will.
As far as Abrams not respecting the franchise I don’t know that to be true or false, but I do know that you do not respect Abrams. This man is a hired proffesional. Paramount tapped him to present the Star Trek universe through his artistic lense. You may not care for his style but plenty of others do. That doesn’t make them dumb, or sell-outs. I too like good stories, acting, and dialogue. I also like space battles, and exploding ships. The Galactica series proves that you can have stunning effects while telling good stories.
How can you dismiss this movie out of hand, while defending movies like Final Frontier and Nemisis?

1313. Seven of Four - November 18, 2008

Doubting Thomas has absolutely no evidence upon which to make a judgment and call this superficial trash. To make such an assumption upon one minute of film is a willful act of ignorance.

What a bore.

1314. XOHARO - November 19, 2008

doubting thomas
Another thing, you keep throwing the “Transformers” movie out there. Just to keep things in perspective, IT WAS THE TRANSFORMERS!!. According to you Abrams was suppose to pull a “Saving Private Ryan” out of a movie about cars that turn into robots. He did exactly what he was suppose to do with that movie. I bet there are no Transformers fans complaining.
If you’re going to take Abrams’ work out of context then let’s do it to every director.
I’ll start us off: Schindler’s list was the worst romantic comedy I ever watched. I don’t know what Speilburg was thinking!!!

1315. doubting thomas - November 19, 2008

(colin baker voice again)

galactica? GALACTICA?!

1316. doubting thomas - November 19, 2008

you know, the beast wars series managed to take the transformers idea seriously enough to make it believable and interesting, at least by cartoon standards. it helps when you don’t start out by saying “boy, this is stupid”

1317. XOHARO - November 19, 2008

Don’t say Galactica is bad, If you say that the new Galactica is bad then you are not a sci-fi fan. No way.

1318. XOHARO - November 19, 2008

1317 doubting thomas
it helps when you don’t start out by saying “boy, this is stupid”

That’s exactly what you are doing to this Trek movie.

1319. Qpid - November 19, 2008

As I remembered, there was great protest about a Star Trek film that was radically different, “deviating” from what we know about Star Trek. What was it called…oh yeah “The Wrath of Khan”. The franchise has gone through worse, so if even JJ flushes it in the toilet, we’ll take it in the gut and some else will try again. That is the durability of Star Trek..

1320. NOTBOB - November 19, 2008

Ok, first thing first.

I saw the trailer. The movie looks cool. The movie looks like a cool fun action sci-fi movie. But they need to stop one thing. They need to stop denying this is what it is. It’s a REMAKE/REIMAGINED movie. It does NOT pick up or follow along with the show. That’s fine. But by saing it goes along with the old shows, you’re lying.

1. I’m not a die hard trekie or trekker type. By that I mean I can’t tell you evry little detail. But I did pay attention to what characters said in shows. Things like Kirk only met Pike briefly when Kirk took command. Yet in the trailer we see Pike and behind him is Kirk.

2. Kirk was described at least twice as being a bookish type in two episodes. Gary Mitchell described him as a difficult teacher when Kirk was a lieutenant. Finnigan teased him about it. Kirk cheated on the one test, we hear about it in Wrath of Kahn. But nothing was said about Kirk being a constant bad boy. He was more of a bad man in the movies than he was in the early days.

3. Chekov, Sulu, Uhura, etc. were younger than Kirk. They most likely joined starfleet after Kirk had been in for some time. Chekov didn’t even show up until season two. And by showing them in Starfleet at the same time he just get in…well that makes them look really bad because it took them way too long to make rank in the original shows and films.

4. The old bridge looks cheesy to today’s eye. Maybe even the eye’s of the 1970’s onward. Hey, they did not have a big budget. But the new bridge looks….weak. It looks like a store. It doesn’t look like a bridge. And it looks more like the next generations bridge than the original bridge. And the phaser looks way different too. The phaser doesn’t look bad from what I saw…just different.

This is a remake. Say it. It’s fine. I can live with that. Because otherwise it’s just one big continuity error.

The movie looks cool. It looks like a fun action packed summer time hit. I want to see it. I hope it is great and that sequels are on. But by not making it clear that this is a remake to the die hards….well, that just doesn’t seem right.

Other than the bridge looking bad to me, and the fact that I still think Bruce Campbell of the Evil Dead movies looks more like a 50 year old Pike, the movie looks fairly cool. Just in a different Star Trek world than the original 40 plus years that can before it.

1321. NOTBOB - November 19, 2008

XOHARO –

Um, not to nit pick, but you wrote:
“Another thing, you keep throwing the “Transformers” movie out there. Just to keep things in perspective, IT WAS THE TRANSFORMERS!!. According to you Abrams was suppose to pull a “Saving Private Ryan” out of a movie about cars that turn into robots. He did exactly what he was suppose to do with that movie. I bet there are no Transformers fans complaining.”

Fthe record, I had to point out that:

TRANSFORMERS, was Directed by Michael Bay NOT by J.J. Abrams. In fact, Abrams had nothing to do with that movie. It was produced by Steven Speilberg, exec produced by Speilberg and Bay. And as a kid of the 1980’s I kind of had problems with that movie. I have mixed feeling about it because the comic books and even the cartoon had arguably a better story line than the movie. The movie was great eye candy. Just don’t pay attention to the story …i.e. what the writers wrote.

The writers for Transformers, Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman are the writers of the new Star Trek movie, but they probably have little to do with the look of the film or how the action shots look. That would go to Abrams and producers. And to be fair, those who are saying this film looks one like a summer blockbuster, it may be because that’s what it’s being sold as. If the movie was a going to be sold as a drama be it sci fi or any other kind of drama, it would have had a different trailer. I have seen trailers that did not sell the movie as what it was. Lady in the Water, for example–that was sold as a horror film. It was anything but. M. Knight Shammalan (spelling?) said it wasn’t a horror before it ever had a trailer. But it was sold that way anyway. And when the film came out, people said it was a awful horror movie. Well, I knew it was not a horror movie, I was one of a handful but I thought the trailer was horrible. The movie was a fairy tale, not a horror. If viewed with that in mind, it’s not as bad. Point is, you really can’t judge a film by it’s trailer. But at least it didn’t tell you the entire story including who dies and what happens.

1322. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 19, 2008

This movie will make money because its

“Transformers”

Mission Impossible 3 didnt have much of a story. It was just an action movie. I cant stand Phillip Seymour Hoffman ( except once, I liked him) and his character was completely ONE dimensional. The story was “a traitor in the IMF” hasn’t that been done to death? EVERY show has that plot. 24, Sarah Connor Chronicles, Alias, Three’s Company, Beverly Hillbillies. Just about every episode of The Jeffersons, one character does something that seems wicked but turns out to be good. The character is vilified up until the end, when all is revealed and hey that sounds like Fishburne’s “misunderstood” character from MI:3. The real traitor was the other guy we thought we could trust, and didnt someone have a comedy routine about you cant trust the guy you think you can because it’s cliche?

And the crowd goes, “awwww” when the tough gang leader gives Mr Jefferson a hug after he teaches the gang the life lesson of the week.
If Kirk kills any computers or vanquishes any “false gods” in this Star Trek, are we expected to weep?

Space Amoebas, now that’s original. How many episodes of M*A*S*H dealt with giant amoebas? What is the monster on Lost? Never watched it. Just another soap as far as I’m concerned. If that monster turns out to be a rock monster… Or worse yet, Shatner looking for the buffet.

Stop kissing JJ’s ass. He doesn’t need it. He doesnt care. He’s made his millions.

To quote Robert Rodriguez, “You should be writing the games, not playing them.”

The Old Trek had SOUL. The Old Trek lived by the skin of its teeth every week and GENE had to make it as well as he could, every week. Read I am Not Spock and I am Spock again. Nimoy pestered him constantly to keep Spock “spocky” and not turn him into a street brawler.

How much do you want to bet, there’s a traitor in Star Fleet? And it’s Pike, or Kirk learns his father betrayed someone somewhere for what he thought was a good idea at the time?

It’s JJ’s track record I’m trying to point out here.

To misquote R Lee Ermey, “The more I learn the more I hate it. ”

Better be a damned Space Amoeba…

1323. doubting thomas - November 19, 2008

i only saw one episode of battlestar galactica, and i saw no science fiction in it whatsoever (or acting, or interesting stories, or drama, but that’s not the point right now). it was a soap in space. science fiction, or as it is more accurately called, speculative fiction, is about ideas. even firefly had some ideas to present, and it wasn’t really science fiction either.

1324. thorsten - November 19, 2008

[1323] DT, obviously there is a distinction between hard SF and TV SF… Stuff that is compatible with the masses. If you are interested in action and character driven hard SF i would suggest you pick up the books of Neal Asher…

1325. Rod - New Zealand - November 19, 2008

TV3 here in New Zealand have just played the full trailer on late-night TV! Whoo-hoo!

‘Quantum Of Solace’ doesn’t open here until next Thursday, so that was a nice little preview for all the Kiwi Trekkers … I think I felt the Earth move in all the excitement.

I’m glad for Karl that his portrayal of McCoy is already receiving mention. He’s a ‘legend’ (Cheers, mate! I’ll have a Speight’s for ya!) and has done very well for himself since heading overseas.

The detail in the images in the trailer is quite incredible. I’ve been studying the Enterprise construction image and it looks very impressive, even though the redesign is still a little hard to come to grips with (e.g. the curved nacelle pylons, and the nacelles don’t seem to be far enough apart, but that’s nitpicking, of course). I’d love to see what a phaser looks like!

Cheers …

1326. doubting thomas - November 19, 2008

thorsten, i’ve actually found that serious speculative fiction has completely retreated out of film and into television, though it’s still rare there. modern filmmakers are far too pressured to meet an action/sex/CGI quota, and storytelling is almost completely sacrificed.

the original star trek series was vastly ahead of it’s time, but this new movie will be completely of it’s time. it will be dated the second it’s released.

1327. Holger - November 19, 2008

I have looked at some screen captures of the trailer at Ex Astris Scientia. I like the front view of the Enterprise departing from a space station (Starbase?) and the look at the main viewer (from the command chair perspective) – the nav console is well done. Now that looks and feels like Star Trek – for the first time since the teaser trailer. I hope shots like these are not too fast-cut in the movie.

1328. Neil - November 19, 2008

Let me get this straight…there was no science fiction in Battlestar Galactica, a drama about the day the robots strike back, take over and nearly kill their masters, forcing them to embark on a journey to find a home world somewhere else in the Universe that might not even exist, supposedly inhabited by their ancestors centuries earlier, while the robot race, now advanced and assuming humanoid form, continued to pursue them across the galaxy?

You’re right. No science fiction there at all.

(Hey, Ray Bradbury’s ghost – you paying attention to this garbage?)

1329. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 19, 2008

I’m with you, Neil. BSG-R is *consummate* Science Fiction.

1330. Neil - November 19, 2008

#1329

What alarms me about a lot of this thread is that it’s the people suggesting that BSG isn’t science fiction who are judging a Star Trek movie that hasn’t been released yet.
If you tell me that BSG isn’t science fiction, and that Edward James Olmos can’t act, I start to wonder just how tiny the eye of the needle must be, that JJ has to thread to make you happy.

1331. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 19, 2008

Neil, it’s just empty hyperbole, AFAIK. The “X is not Science Fiction” camp is also the same people who are comparing what little they’ve seen of STXI to Galaxy Quest. Upthread @ #724 I posted a refutation that this has any resemblance to GQ. But really, was there any point in taking the contention seriously in the first place?

There seems to be a small but vocal contingent of posters here who hold Star Trek OS, and maybe TNG, and just about nothing else, in such high esteem — high aloft in some kind of sacred peak — that everything else is trash by comparison. I don’t get it, I am a lot more cosmopolitan in my tastes, and I can objectively recognize Science Fiction in many forms, from Solaris, to Star Wars, to I Robot. When I say it’s all Science Fiction, I am not simultaneously making a value judgment about whether it’s *good* Science Fiction — that’s a separate matter, and it’s a matter of opinion. (And I Robot the movie sucked).

So, bottom line, I don’t think JJ has anything to worry about, really, based on what I’ve seen so far. I could be wrong, and the “Action and ‘real’ SciFi are incompatible” camp could end up being right, but we all have reason to be confident.

1332. P Technobabble - November 19, 2008

Is this the longest thread Trekmovie.com has ever had?
Here’s what I expect when I go to a movie: I expect to enjoy myself. I have seen plenty of comedies, mysteries, thrillers, and so on, where I have completely and simply enjoyed myself. My life was not altered or shattered or anything else. I simply had a good time. And so what is the problem with that? Personally, I don’t see any, nor do I see any reason to analyze why simply enjoying oneself is not good enough.
I have also seen plenty of movies where I have not enjoyed myself. I know I will probably be slammed for this, but “Phantom Menace” comes to mind. For me, this was a movie that – not only did it NOT have any gravy (yeh, gravy) – but I didn’t enjoy it at any level.
I don’t think we are in a position to “expect” anything. A movie is a product, created by one group of people, and the audience has nothing to do with its creation. On that basis, we have no “right” to expect anything at all. Thus, if I go to a movie and enjoy myself, then the movie has hit the mark, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t NEED it to affect me emotionally or mentally, but if it does then it has done more than hit the mark.
The problem with some people is that they EXPECT things to be the way they want. That is childish nonsense. If you want a movie full of your own expectations, then (once again) go make your own damned movie (then see how you like it when people who haven’t seen it yet go off telling others how your movie sucks).
It is obvious that all the debating/arguing in the universe will not change the mind of another, and I, personally, hate arguing for nothing. And it annoys the crap outta me that some people are hell-bent on invalidating the enthusiasm the rest of us have for this film.

1333. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 19, 2008

1332 — heh, I don’t think you’re going to get any flak for putting down “Phantom Menace”, not even from Star Wars fans like me. I don’t know anyone who defends that movie, except for the 6.5 minutes of Darth Maul and the pod race. That movie was an anti-climax for everyone over the age of 10.

1334. XOHARO - November 19, 2008

1330 & 1331
Thank you. I used Galactica as an example of combining good story telling, good dialogue, and good acting with good special effects. Absolutely could not beleive that it was put down. What more could have been done with Galactica to make it a better series? True they changed some of the characters, but once you made the initial adjustment to Starbuck and Boomer being women, the show was awesome.
And this brings up another point. After watching Galactica I was sincerely hoping that Paramount would go out and get Michael Moore back and put him in charge of Trek. That didn’t happen. Paramount got Abrams instead. I could have easily been moaning and whining the whole way but I’m not. I’m keeping an open mind and am very excited about the new film. From what I’ve seen it looks great and I hope that it becomes an instant classic. People like “doubting thomas” are really being childish about this whole thing. As I’ve said before, none of us will get everything we want. But some of us aren’t willing to accept that.

1335. Neil - November 19, 2008

#1334
Look – I get that not everybody is going to get what they want from this movie. I’d be amazed if someone could come up with a single film that’s ever been made that was perfect.

But to dismiss this movie out of hand (a movie that hasn’t even been released yet) based on a two-minute trailer, and then reveal just how narrow the scope is of what would be deemed “satisfactory” is pretty telling.

And again, we go back to my premise from earlier, that if Leonard Nimoy says this is Star Trek, then it’s Star Trek.

1336. XOHARO - November 19, 2008

1335
Yeah, I don’t get it. I could see it coming from a non sci-fi fan or more specificly a Trek hater, but we’re talking about people who supposedly love science fiction and Star Trek. We’re getting a new movie and they approach it with nothing but negativity.
I just don’t get it.

1337. Alex Rosenzweig - November 19, 2008

#1334 – “Thank you. I used Galactica as an example of combining good story telling, good dialogue, and good acting with good special effects. Absolutely could not beleive that it was put down. What more could have been done with Galactica to make it a better series?”

Freely admitting my biases, my issues with Galactica are three-fold, one more fannish and one from a general viewer perspective:

– From the fannish point-of-view, it’s a reboot. Once again, someone comes in and decides that the existing world isn’t good enough, but they want the name of a show for brand recognition, so they throw out what’s already been established and do what they want. Doesn’t fly with me.

– From a semi-fannish point-of-view, and also very subjective, I really dislike that they moved very much away from the “non-Earthly” aspects. Giving the characters very modern-day-Earth sounding names, and really throttling back on the sci-fi elements of the show, took away some of the aspects that especially intrigued me. As Glen Larson commented, they worked hard at trying to create a different environment, and Moore just jettisoned all that. In some ways, this version would have worked better as a post-apocalyptic show where survivors from a destroyed Earth are seeking a new home in deep space.

– From the more general view, and this is solely my own aesthetic, not any sort of objective assessment, I just find this version of Galactica not much fun to watch. It’s probably better written than the original, on a line-by-line basis, but it is so unrelentingly dark, and the characters often so outright annoying, that as often as not, I finish an episode just wishing the Cylons would get it in gear and finish the job already. The show’s penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, over and over again, has also grown old really fast for me, and I’m not impressed by it anymore, just annoyed.

Again, like I said, this is a very subjective response, and most people don’t seem to look at it the way i do, but there ya’ go.

Thankfully, and to be vaguely on topic, it doesn’t look like Abrams is doing anything nearly that radical. I should note, BTW, that I read a new interview with him on Trekweb, and it did intrigue me that what might come out of this movie won’t be nearly so different from Classic Trek as I was thinking in my worst-case scenario, so I’m vaguely more encouraged now. But we shall see. I’ll still reserve judgment ’til the movie comes out and all is revealed. :)

1338. Neil - November 19, 2008

#1337
“I’ll still reserve judgment ’til the movie comes out and all is revealed. :)”

There you go, Alex, being all logical and sensible again.

1339. Ian B - November 19, 2008

Regarding BSG-

again, I don’t really understand what upsets the fans of the original so much. There was no practical way that you could revive the original series, as originally created, because if anything typifies the cheesey 70s in science fiction, it’s that style. So then the question comes up “then why reboot at all? Why not leave it alone?”

Well, I think the answer is, “because the basic premise was good, it was just the excution that was kind of sucky”. So the modern BSG is that premise, but executed in a modern and far superior way.

“Well, then,” goes the argument, “why not just make a new series instead of calling it Battlestar Galactica?” Well I think the answer there is that Ron Moore was inspired to create the new BSG by looking at the old. He said “I’d like to do my take on this basic premise”. If he’d had a different idea for something else, yes, he would’ve created a brand new series. On the other hand, if he’d taken the basic idea and called it something new, fans would have accused him of ripping off BSG.

It’s extemporising on a theme. We don’t mind this for instance in music; many songs will be recorded by different artists with their own take on it. Particularly in jazz, there may be little of the original left. But it’s a process of taking a basic idea and doing your own thing with it. I really don’t see what’s wrong with that. Neither do we object when film and TV creators do their own takes on Batman, or Sherlock Holmes etc. It’s something familiar presented in a different way, which may be good or may not be good. These are fictional universes after all, not real history.

1340. Alex Rosenzweig - November 19, 2008

#1340 – “There was no practical way that you could revive the original series, as originally created, because if anything typifies the cheesey 70s in science fiction, it’s that style.”

See, I think the original seting and characters could have been revived just fine, even with a darker tone. If the original version had lasted longer, we might have seen stories of the stresses of the voyage and other more complex issues, but it didn’t. And for all the ’70s cheesiness, the characters themselves were–to me, anyway–every bit as strong as the more modern versions, and maybe stronger.

Again, an adjustment in tone and style wouldn’t have required the sort of radical change that Moore applied.

But that’s just MHO. Make of it what you will.

1341. Cervantes - November 19, 2008

#1340 Alex Rosenzweig

I *absolutely* agree with your opinions there, and this was the ‘Star Trek:Next Generation’ series that I wanted made in the first place, years ago!

1342. XOHARO - November 19, 2008

Correction, I said Michael Moore and meant Ron Moore.
1337 Alex Rosenzweig
I appreciate your opinion of Galactica. And I wouldn’t imply that everyone should be a fan of the show just because I am. I watched every episode of the original BSG and loved it as a kid. And I love the new BSG. Ian B makes a good point in post #1339 about taking a basic idea and doing your own thing with it. I love what Moore did with the series. And the dark brooding aspect of BSG is one of the characteristics that lent itself to me. In recent years we’ve been exposed to shows like Andromeda, Firefly, and Farscape. While I watched all of those (because I am a Sci-Fi addict) I didn’t like the constant joking. And with Farscape you had puppets. I fealt like Sci-Fi wasn’t being taken seriously as a genre. Science Fiction has properties that lend themselves to younger viewers. Imaginiative aliens, spaceships, laser guns and so on. Having said that, there is always room to give the adults a good drama as well. I am a little young to have appreciated Trek when I was a kid. I liked it because it was set in the future and they traveled to different planets in a spaceship. As I got older I appreciated the series for the stories and dialogue. And BSG is in my opinion of the same model. Yeah they are two different shows, but they strike a balance between giving us both the fantastic and the reality. Galactica has it’s comical moments but they are dark humor. And that is appropriate to their situation. What is not appropriate or beleivable is the Engineer in Andromeda cracking joke after joke while the ship is being pounded and about to blow up.

1343. that_other_guy - November 19, 2008

The ‘best’ of both worlds, or the worst? This is what happens when you let a Star Wars fan direct a Star Trek movie. It becomes some weird hybrid of both. I swear those opening scenes have their soul lifted right out of the beginning of A New Hope. Just replace “I don’t wanna be a moisture farmer! I wanna join the rebellion!” with, “I don’t wanna be a farmer! I wanna be a Starship pilot!” and you got it. And those battle scenes are completely the opposite of usual Star Trek battle scenes, which are usually much more deliberate. This is coming from a Trek fan, mind you. I just hope he doesn’t go to far and remove all of the intelligence that always prevaded Star Trek, and is what made it distinct from Star Wars and other sci-fi/action flicks.

1344. Getting More Hot Water in Your RV — The RV Fulltimer Blog - November 19, 2008

[…] New Star Trek Trailer Online + Official Site Revamped [UPDATE: new … […]

1345. Television on the Road- Entertainment Systems for RV and Caravan Travel — The RV Fulltimer Blog - November 19, 2008

[…] New Star Trek Trailer Online + Official Site Revamped [UPDATE: new … […]

1346. Can't Wait for Labor Day 2009 - November 20, 2008

Can someone point out to me how this movie looks or feels like Star Wars in anyway?! Im a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek and I just don’t see it. Is Kirk running around with a lightsaber somewhere and I missed it?! I just love all the long comments from again the hardcore fans who can not and will not give this movie a chance even before seeing the whole movie. I don’t anyone has talked in length about this but Leonard Nimoy is in the movie. To me if Nimoy willingly came out of retirement to do this movie then that speaks volumes of what he thinks of the script. This is a man that is not will to do something for a simple paycheck. He said it himself during Comic Con 2007 the script is Star Trek. I know people are not going to stop attacking this film till the day it opens next year. But can we have alittle bit of faith that even though this is not TOS in the end it will turn out to be Star Trek.

1347. Star Trek Trailer - AllDeaf.com - November 20, 2008

[…] He will probably appear in 2nd trailer according to Bob Orci, one of co-writers for the movie. New Star Trek Trailer Online + Official Site Revamped [UPDATE: new TV Spot + Foreign Versions] | Tre… and check his comment no. 779 Mr. Orci has occassionally taken part in this site to make some […]

1348. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 20, 2008

1346 — Agree wholeheartedly. I’ve argued this same point multiple times on these boards. Star Wars doesn’t just feature lightsabers, and of course the Force, but a wholly different galaxy with a very long and complicated history, and a vastly different structure of cultures and political systems. The comparisons don’t hold just because Star Trek and Star Wars both have spaceships, action, and heroes.

1349. A7 - November 20, 2008

All many of us would like is a nicely written script, plot that captures interest, delieverd by some decent acting with some great action scenese betwixt ; and all this within a Trek context that is familiar enough to longtime fans, but attractive to new fans. It is these new fans that can keep the franchise going.

Yes, it will no longer resemble TOS. Show me any show or concept that has endured 40 years and hasnt been reworked. Shows featuring futurism and technology are even more prone to have their look changed as real world tech develops.

Canon liberties are inevitable to shuffle things along. If the notion of this is too unbearable, simply dont watch it. Just dont ruin it for others – especially young people coming the Trek as new viewers.

Seeing the trailer in HD is enough for me to pledge $7 to seeing it next May ;) I hope it goes well, and brings us a sequel and new series to boot

A7

1350. Neil - November 20, 2008

#1349
Well said. That’s a point I’ve been trying to make.

TOS is a fantastical story about the future, based on a 1960’s view of the future and the best available ways of telling that story using 1960’s television technology and a small budget.

Will starship corridors really be that wide in the future? Who knows – they needed to make room for big bulky camera equipment. Would Kirk really have had to walk around with a thing that looked like a microphone to understand the Gorn? Even by 2008 standards, it’s unlikely to imagine that such a device would be so incredibly bulky and clumsy.

And TOS communicators, insanely futuristic in their time, don’t do much that a 2008 cell phone won’t do…in fact, I’d go as far as to say they do LESS.

To tell the same stories 40 years later, it would just be – dare I say – logical to assume that a whole pile of things would change.

I’ll say again – does anyone *really* think that Gene would have looked at the iBridge in 1964 and said, “No, that’s too futuristic.”

People need to get over the nit-picky aesthetics. Especially about stupid details like eye color, and the color of the paint in the hallways. Paint color isn’t canon. People who point out that kind of stuff just lower the image of what the general public perceives as a Star Trek fan.

1351. Sailor83 - November 20, 2008

Went to see Bonf last night and Star Trek WASN’t ON! I was pissed off right the way through the whole film. Damn you CINEWORLD cinemas (Hull, Uk)!!!!!

1352. Alex Rosenzweig - November 20, 2008

#1350 – “People need to get over the nit-picky aesthetics. Especially about stupid details like eye color, and the color of the paint in the hallways. Paint color isn’t canon. People who point out that kind of stuff just lower the image of what the general public perceives as a Star Trek fan.”

In some ways, it can be challenging, because some of those details have defined the aesthetic of Trek for a very long time, even while being faithfully updated in such episodes as “In a Mirror Darkly” and the “Phase II” series. That said, I do tend to agree that there’s a point at which one has to say, “Yes, some of the aesthetics need to evolve”, and not casting a talented performer because his or her eyes aren’t the right color is really rather silly.

All that said, I think story continuity isn’t something that is degraded over time. I’m biased, of course, but I already see aspects of the story, as released, that would have been hugely strengthened by an adherence to the existing backstory, rather than throwing it away. Now, it’s easy, I freely admit, to play armchair quarterback, but just imagine how cool it would have been to see Lieutenant Kirk, post-Farragut, messed-up and demoralized, maybe even furloughed from StarFleet, looking to re-find his direction and getting in trouble along the way, only to meet Captain Pike, who kicks him in the ass and tells him to get it together. Not a huge change to the story as we’ve seen it so far (caveat being that other as-yet-unrevealed story elements might change my thought process), but more in-line with what had been established.

And how cool would it have been if rebellious and angry teen James T. Kirk gets that, “You should join StarFleet” talking-to from Robert April, and we save the Pike meeting ’til later.

And so on.

Ahh, well… Guess I’ll save that adaptation for a fanfic or something, just to see if I can make it work once the movie’s out and the whole plotline is revealed.

1353. Neil - November 20, 2008

#1352

See, Alex, you make it difficult to disagree with you, because you’re approaching this in what I think is the right way.

My hunch tells me you’re going to shell out the money to get in, and see the entire movie – in sequence – before you render your final verdict as to whether or not it was YOUR taste.

I wish others would follow your lead. Instead, we’ve heard from people who suggest they’re going to actively try to prevent people from seeing it, because some stuff in the trailer doesn’t fit THEIR vision of Star Trek.

1354. doubting thomas - November 20, 2008

neil, i don’t think star trek’s view of the future was in any way a 1960s view.

“Is Kirk running around with a lightsaber somewhere and I missed it?!”

no, but sulu’s got a bloody pocket katana.

what happened to his foil?

and you’re right, 4 8 15 16 23 42, this movie is nothing like galaxy quest. the starship and uniforms in that movie were much less silly than in this one.

1355. Neil - November 20, 2008

#1354 doubting thomas

Of course it was a 1960’s view of the future.
It was a television show that was conceived and produced in the 1960’s, therefore its view of the future is based in that time.

Are you suggesting that in 1960, the producers somehow divined what people in 1996 would think of the year 2365?

1356. doubting thomas - November 20, 2008

ian b, if this were a reboot, i wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it. then it would just be a shoddily done modern remake like so many others that have been coming out recently. but they’re still claiming that this is a contribution to the existing continuity, at the same time ignoring the continuity. it’s as if the new doctor who had started up, claimed it was a continuation of the old series, and then started completely changing important things about the character and his history, in the vein of the cushing movies in the 60s.

1357. Alex Rosenzweig - November 20, 2008

#1353 – “See, Alex, you make it difficult to disagree with you, because you’re approaching this in what I think is the right way.”

Aww, thanks!

I’m sure there will be a few sharp-eyed folks that will notice that I’m still bending the canonical stuff a little bit, but the Pike/Kirk meeting seems significant enough for this story that I was willing to go with it.

“My hunch tells me you’re going to shell out the money to get in, and see the entire movie – in sequence – before you render your final verdict as to whether or not it was YOUR taste.”

Yup. There are still so many things we just don’t know. For example, that quote from Abrams that, despite the backstory being different, it’s still intended to lead to the characters we know makes me wonder if the “reboot” aspect is much more limited than some folks have feared…including me!

I’ve said openly enough that if it *is* a continuity-buster, if the result is to no longer link to the Trekverse we know, they won’t be getting my money for the 15-20 repeat viewings I’d originally planned for when I thought it would be a real prequel, but they’ll still get at least one, ’cause it’s not fair to judge the film without having even seen it. ;)

“I wish others would follow your lead. Instead, we’ve heard from people who suggest they’re going to actively try to prevent people from seeing it, because some stuff in the trailer doesn’t fit THEIR vision of Star Trek.”

(chuckle) Oh, heck, if I had the power to influence enough people to see or not see the film to make or break it, I’d be seriously negotiating with Paramount and Mr. Abrams right now, and I guarantee you the movie would have been both modern and in-continuity, all the way through. >:) But I don’t, and I’d like to think I’m sane enough to realize that. So we just play the cards we’ve been dealt and see how it all works out. And after all, we don’t even know what all of those cards are yet! :)

#1355 – “Of course it was a 1960’s view of the future.
It was a television show that was conceived and produced in the 1960’s, therefore its view of the future is based in that time.

Are you suggesting that in 1960, the producers somehow divined what people in 1996 would think of the year 2365?”

I’ll go you one further. Back in the early days, the producers were pretty explicit in saying that Star Trek wasn’t even really any sort of attempt to extrapolate into the future. It was still a show about essentially present-day people, reacting within, and to, the futuristic environment. No more, and no less.

1358. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 20, 2008

1354 doubting thomas — you can’t be serious, especially with regard to the ship (the “Protector”, which though competent, is pretty dull), and if you are serious about the uniforms, it’s only because the costume design was relatively good. (And don’t say “for a spoof” because the whole point of the movie was *not* to skimp on the designs — like in Space Balls — just because it is a spoof.)

I’ve just answered your statement at face value even though you probably are just being cynical and indulging in hyperbole.

1359. doubting thomas - November 20, 2008

my point is the production design of “galaxy quest” was taken far more seriously than that of this movie. this movie has things like a 1940s-styled starship with an imac interior, stupid delta patterns in the uniform material for no reason, exaggerated vulcan haircuts, etc. exactly like a parody would. i almost wouldn’t be suprised if by the time the movie came out, the title had changed to “star movie” and it was announced to have been made by the wayans brothers.

1360. doubting thomas - November 20, 2008

“Of course it was a 1960’s view of the future.
It was a television show that was conceived and produced in the 1960’s, therefore its view of the future is based in that time.”

it’s view was ahead of that time. it’s ahead of our time. “lost in space” was a 1960s view of the future. star trek’s view was of a time that will never come, what sagan always referred to as humanity’s adulthood, which we will destroy ourselves beore reaching.

1361. Sci Fi Geek - November 20, 2008

1359 – Heres some free advice for u. If u think they have ruined the movie so much, dont go and see it. Let me see if u can do any better. People like u is what has kept the franchise from ever expanding. When the budgets were lower, people moaned the films looked like glorified episodes. Now the franchise finally gets the treatment it deserves u all moan that its generic and too ‘Star Wars’ like. Changes had to be made. Otherwise the movie will tank badly. Only trekkies turning up is not going to make this film a hit. 70-90 million is all the fans can bring in. Which, was fine during the Berman years, but now things have changed. The studio finally fully understands what they have on their hands. And have rightly so spent the money to make this epic and not just a joke to the general audience anymore.

1362. CCT - November 20, 2008

Official spanish dubbed trailer:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/intl/es/

Also available in Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUtyGyLb_QA

PS: IMHO, this is an awful dubbing.

1363. Can't Wait for Labor Day 2009 - November 20, 2008

#1361, very well said and I agree with you. I posted something very similar to this on another story. What some people just don’t get or choose not to get is that the world of Star Trek they knew is gone. And it is not coming back.

1364. Brian Matthews - November 20, 2008

I can’t spend time reading every post (unfortunately), but I hope someone mentioned to the complainer about the Enterprise being built on ground that if the Enterprise has some sort of anti-grav capability (seen in limited use in TOS) then escape velocity becomes a non-issue. I refer to the earlier comments by the writers about ‘calibrating the artificial gravity generators in the gravity well they will be called upon to duplicate.’

1365. EFFeX - November 20, 2008

1359, Well, judging from all your posts on this page I guess we all understand how much you don’t approve of the movie and don’t want to see it. Why do you continue to down the movie and leave a black cloud above those of us who are really excited about it?

1366. cagmar - November 20, 2008

#1097 ; #1105 … oh, TNG didn’t have asexuality! So Picard was a bit of a prude as far as sexing up women on a weekly basis. But I guarantee you Riker’s lady-count is at least equal to Kirk’s, and probably a lot more. Plus, we had robots having sex in TNG — anybody remember The Naked Now? And honestly, Troi was all about sexuality, sensuality — but in positive ways.

There’s a difference between asexuality and responsible, well-intentioned and loving intercourse. Learn it. We’re already too advanced to continue acting like animals anymore.

1367. The Two Purposes of an RV — The RV Fulltimer Blog - November 20, 2008

[…] New Star Trek Trailer Online + Official Site Revamped [UPDATE: new … […]

1368. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 20, 2008

1359 doubting thomas — “this movie has things like a 1940s-styled starship with an imac interior, stupid delta patterns in the uniform material for no reason, exaggerated vulcan haircuts, etc. exactly like a parody would.”

I’m sorry, but these are highly subjective statements: “1940s-styled”, “imac”, “stupid”, “exaggerated”. I know nobody can really be objective, and I am no exception, but I do *try* to be objective.

First of all, the ship bears no resemblance to anything out of the 1940s — it looks a lot more like the TOS Enterprise than it does anything else, including Buck Roger’s ship or the flying saucers of the 1950s. Just because it has a few flourishes that the original doesn’t, doesn’t undermine that overall resemblance.

The interior of the bridge has more in common with the TMP and 1701-A bridges than in does with an Apple store (which is what I take you to mean when you say “imac”). The fact that this bridge has bright white walls (it’s only resemblance to an Apple store) doesn’t override the fact that it has bridge stations with black paneling and lighted buttons, not to mention the overhead displays that are all in the right place (though, unlike in the original, in a continuous band).

I could go on, but as you can see, I place a lot more value in an analytical breakdown of each component than what I would consider a “knee-jerk” reaction to its appearance at first blush. Now, as I admit above, it is true that I am not wholly analytical and objective, and the aspect in which this is most true, I would say, is that I am more willing to see the resemblance between the STXI bridge and the TOS bridge than others. However, on balance, my predisposition toward seeing Abrams and his designers as making a “good faith” effort does not bias me so much that my observations lose all verisimilitude.

I think if you’re dead-set on seeing TOS bridge more or less exactly as it appeared in 1966, you’re more likely to see everything and anything about the STXI bridge as a major deviation.

1369. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 20, 2008

^ in short, I would contend that it is not so much what the designs of STXI *do* look like that bother you, so much as what they *don’t* look like.

1370. Yspano - November 20, 2008

@ 1368, 1369
I just wanted to know if, at first glance, the interior of the new Enterprise makes you think, “Astronauts in the future work here.”

1371. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 21, 2008

Yspano, yes, the bridge is for future astronauts. In this day and age, astronauts are always on the “edge” — cramped spaces, few creature comforts, the threat of catastrophic failure of their ships and stations constantly looming over their heads. Star Trek depicts a future in which a starship is functional in certain ways, but also well engineered for long stints. The STXI is, in my view, closer to the functional design of TOS bridge than the comparatively plush bridges of the Enterprise-B, C, D & E. Yes, it is nice to look at, but it is not outfitted like a living room.

1372. Yspano - November 21, 2008

@ 1371
Ok! As for myself, in all honesty, I’m having a lot of difficulty taking the interior design seriously. The first thing that comes to mind is “pantry of company manufacturing 70’s futuristic furniture.” The plastic-like finish; the juxtaposition of curvy and angular surfaces; the mandatory LCDs; and the obsessive lighting, frankly, seem lazy, and simply do not evoke (for me, at least) professionalism and, more importantly, wonder.

1373. doubting thomas - November 21, 2008

the bridge in “the cage”, before the stupid colours were added, looked very realistic and practical for a naval vessel command deck. as did the enterprise A’s bridge in 5 and 6. i’m iffy on the motion picture bridge, it looked a little silly, but again, mostly in terms of colouring. the D’s bridge was a little too friendly. the E’s was practical, but a bit flashy. this new one is just absurd looking, they’re trying to be modern instead of futuristic. with the exterior of the ship, they’re trying to be retro instead of futuristic.

don’t mistake me for one of those stupid purists who want nothing changed, i’ve been fighting with them on IMDB about the utter failure of the remasters. there are a billion changes i would make to improve the realism of the ship’s appearance. but i would take it seriously. this production crew has not.

1374. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 21, 2008

Realism can only really be measured in the short term. How can we know what spaceflight will be like (assuming it exists) in 200 or 300 years’ time? When it comes to Star Trek, we have to use modern standards, like: What would we *want* in a bridge if we could have it? The current bridge looks sensible enough to do work in, and why not have it brightly lit? What standards are you judging it by?

If you want realism, watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. That is movie is one of the only ones that is dead serious about artificial gravity and other hard science matters. But that’s not what anyone wants for Star Trek (perhaps unfortunately). I think it’s OK to let the designers have their fun with the bridge — it’s not like they changed it *that* much anyway, when you scrutinize it item for item, layout for layout with TOS bridge.

1375. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 21, 2008

In short, 1372 & 1373, I find it difficult to take your complaints seriously (though, of course, I respect your opinions) because you guys are talking about cosmetic issues as if they had something to do with practical, functional matters.

1376. doubting thomas - November 21, 2008

you’re still completely missing the point.

1377. Captain - Haro - November 21, 2008

eveyone just take a deep breath, and “buckle up” it will be a great movie. It is what you ever get out of it. I grew up with TOS and loved it. I loved TNG, and DS9. I watched Voyager and Enterprise because it was Trek. Sure all have been different forms and you can never recapture the chemistry you had with Shatner, Nimoy, and crew – that was just majic. This is like someone complaining that the Dark Night was not true to the Batman of the 60’s. I can enjoy all incarnations. Ok, Joel Schumacer put that to the test. Canon is like rules- meant to be bent.

1378. doubting thomas - November 21, 2008

i made the point earlier that this movie is aiming to be as true to the original series as the 60s batman show was to the comic’s origins.

and you’re talking as if this is a remake or film adaptation. they’re still saying that it’s not.

1379. XOHARO - November 21, 2008

1377
You make a good point. Shatner and Nimoy particularly had a chemistry that no two Trek characters have shared yet. But if you spell “magic” with a “j” again I’ll be forced to releive you of command.
1378
So maybe they’re lying or mistaken. What then? we are going to get the same movie regardless of how they present it to Trek fans. Maybe they originaly planned to do it one way and found that it wouldn’t work. Who knows.
Maybe they do break canon, maybe they weren’t honest about how loyal it will be to TOS. But even then it might be a good movie. Who cares what they say or have said. The finished production is what will count when we look back.
doubting thomas, ask yourself this question honestly, would you rather have a movie that adheered unwaiveringly to canon that was a bad movie, or one that bends or breaks canon a little but is a great adventure?
I personally would rather have a good movie. Maybe Abrams and crew could have made a great movie that didn’t break canon at all, or maybe they couldn’t tell the story they wanted without distorting Trek history. As the director, Abrams has (in my opinion) artistic license to do so. This isn’t just a Paramount or Trek fan movie. Abrams is a professional and this movie goes on his resume. If it bombs that’s a mark on him. Other than our devotion to Trek, you and I do not have anything invested in this feature. JJ Abrams has his career to consider every time he makes a movie.

1380. Shadowcat - November 21, 2008

I just watched the trailer in HD on the Empire UK site and I have to say I am impressed. I am a long-time Star Trek fan since I the age of 8 and I am 49 years old now. I was really nervous about the new movie and I really didn’t like some of the casting choices that JJ Abrams made. After watching the trailer twice I am so looking forward to this movie. Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy and Simon Pegg as Scotty just nailed their roles. I loved Scotty’s expression and exuberance in the trailer. Karl’s just sounded so cynical and saracastic as Dr. McCoy, As far as Simon’s accent goes, it is spot on. My husband is from Ireland and says Simon’s accent sounds authentic to him. I travel all over the UK for my job and he sounds like Scottish people I have met. BTW Simon is not just there for comic relief. I think he will portray Scotty with warmth and intelligence.

I thought the uniforms looked great.

Uhura looks both sexy and competent at the same time.

Please, there were loads of sex in TOS. It was the swinging 60’s after all. TOS just hinted at it. Face it, Kirk shagged a lot of women human or otherwise.

I have a theroy about Admiral Archer’s pet beagle. The dog that Scotty dematerialised probably was a great, great, great grandson of the original Porthos or pehaps he was even cloned. I have owned a number of cats over the years and one of my present cats is named Mister Muffin in honour of two of my deceased favourites Mister and Muffin. This Admiral Archer could be a son or grandson of Capt. Archer from the Enterprise series. So I don’t think canon was actually violated.

Please be open-minded and give this film a chance. I plan to be in line on may 9th.

1381. Yspano - November 21, 2008

@1375
Actually, I am, indeed, talking about cosmetic issues. Set design must first serve its cinematic purpose. If it’s supposed to say “space ship from two hundred years into the future” then it should do that. If it’s supposed to say “astronauts from the future work here” then it should do that. I’m talking about how aesthetics evoke impressions in the audience, and how this impression must correspond with the purpose of the filmmaker.

It’s funny that you should mention 2001: A Space Odyssey, because I was also thinking about that. Hard science was very much important for that movie, but, at least for me, the set design said “this is the future” because it evoked ideas associated with “advanced technology” or “astronauts in space.” Yes, details are important, but they come in much later. And, realistically speaking, you don’t really expect people to scrutinize every piece of furniture they decided to put on the set, right?

Is it much clearer now?

1382. A7 - November 21, 2008

@1350. Wonderfully said. The new film is part of a concerted effort to bring Trek back. I am happy for that alone. In the days of reality TV and endless shows about serial killers and global security issues, an entertaining premise and overall positive vision of the future that Trek embodies is a good thing to re-introduce to a new generation of viewers. TNG did the same thing in 1987, after the cop show and Rambo replete 1980s. My Christmas wish list is for this film to go great, maybe a sequel. But even better would be a new Trek series. I never saw Lost but it is obvious Abrams knows how to pull of a successful TV show. I hope something can be done to get Trek back on TV. We all know Frakes wants back in, so a Titan based show would be easily done, and make a mint.

A7

1383. SmartRemarks » The new Star Trek trailer: boldly going awry? - November 22, 2008

[…] as is the way of things these days, it was released online this week, for all the world to see. And comment upon. (And satirize. And annotate shot-by-shot. Yes, while I would never deny my own geek status, there […]

1384. trekboi - November 22, 2008

looks good- cannon violations aside- it just might work…

1385. doubting thomas - November 22, 2008

“doubting thomas, ask yourself this question honestly, would you rather have a movie that adheered unwaiveringly to canon that was a bad movie, or one that bends or breaks canon a little but is a great adventure?”

i want a movie that fits into continuity AND is genuinely good. what we’re getting is a crap movie that violates continuity.

1386. doubting thomas - November 22, 2008

and you’re still missing the point. i don’t want a movie that will pander to the mindless masses. i also don’t want a movie that panders to mindless hardcore trek nerds. i want a movie that will appeal to the intellectual audience star trek was meant for. in order to do that, they must take the work seriously, and not start out with the assumption that it’s some silly flash gordon nonsense. what they’ve said and shown so far says quite conclusively that they have NOT taken the show seriously, and the movie will therefore suck.

“Please, there were loads of sex in TOS. It was the swinging 60’s after all.”

it was the swinging 2260’s, in which sex was not gratuitous, it had an emotional value.

1387. Captain Haro - November 22, 2008

1386 doubting thomas – I guess I am missing it. What is your problem? What did JJ, Orci, or anyone else say that is misleading about the direction of their film? You have not seen the movie but yet can make such judgement against it? You seem more intelligent then that. Directors and producers have always been given some liberties with Trek. Wise’s TMP was a huge leap from TOS. The look of the sets, the uniforms, Klingons with ridges, that all became canon. Wrath of Khan (the best yet) with Meyer at the helm had a different look and feel from it’s predasesor. Uniforms went completely in a different direction which I loved. Every film adds and sometimes bends canon to suit the story. Spock died then came back. Kirk was killed but was trapped in a ribbon, It is all fiction. It is all a part of a story to do one thing – entertain. The new movie seems has done what it needed to. Re-energized Trek. Trek faithfull as well as Non-trek people are excited. You know after Voyager ended I was not excited about the idea of going back and doing a show set before TOS. Did I watch? Every episode. Some ideas were good, some were not. When it came out the new movie would focas on a young Kirk and Spock again I was not thrilled. I love Shatner and he is and always will be James T. Kirk to me. How could any other actor ever be Jim Kirk? So I was a bit of a doubting thomas. But from what I have seen so far I was wrong. Sure I think Shatner should have somehow worked into the new movie. JJ’s deal on he died I do not buy. Spock was dead once. Hell Spock seems to be hopping through time. He could have stopped at a time before Kirks death. Anyway what I am saying in all my ramblings is be a bit more open minded. I bet you will see this opening day like the rest of us and you might just enjoy it. What story would you have told insted? How would you have done it different it Paramont had called you?

1388. Gd846c3 - November 22, 2008

doubting thomas,

OK, you don’t like what JJ is doing. Is there some reason why you feel you must post nonstop about this? Why not just accept that its happening. Ranting on and on about why a movie that you haven’t even seen is going to suck is not going to change anyone else’s mind. I understand that everyone has the right to state his/her opinion, but seriously, what’s the point?

1389. Gd846c3 - November 22, 2008

And to restate what I have previously said,

This look AWESOME!!!!!!

1390. doubting thomas - November 22, 2008

you’re just not getting it, haro. even with the same script, a serious approach to the filmmaking would make the movie significantly less shallow.

1391. doubting thomas - November 22, 2008

and if you want to know what i think would be a better story idea, i think the era that needs to be told is the one right after the end of the third world war. take space exploration right out of the equation.

1392. MH - November 28, 2008

#27

Actually, that is what REAL Scottish people tent to sound like! I’ve many Scottish family members and friends so I should know a thing or two on the matter. As much as I love James Doohan’s portrayal of Mr. Scott, he sounded like an Canadian doing a Scottish accent… I only say that because it is a bit too proper.

It is best if you research what people sound like before you run your mouth on the matter.

1393. MH - November 28, 2008

* tend, not tent….sorry

1394. josepepper - November 29, 2008

I hate the bridge

Looks like a God Damned I-Pod assemble plant

Hey, you think they could use a few more bright white spot lights?

I am getting used to the hull though

1395. Gray - December 28, 2008

Hmmm, well lets see what they’ve done with it this time. Hopefully something refreshing for the younger ones to become fans and understand what St is all about. After all, they’ve been hearing it from their Mums and Dad’s for years, not knowing what the hell they were on about. “Star Trek, oh yeah, right Dad!”

1396. Dataoverload - February 4, 2009

Ok, Ok……All of us “Trekkies” (or “Trekkers”) know by now the movie looks a WHOLE lot different than that of the original Enterprise and crew…exept for the young Mr.Spock (and, yes….there was a glimps of the young Capt. Kirk looking alot like him when he became the Captain of the Enterprise).
Of course, like J.J. said that the modern technology back in the days was not as formal as today. They didn’t have i-pods or DVD players, but Star Trek must of had some doing of creating these just like they did for the flip-cell-phones.
The movie, on the plus side, looks like it will live-up to J.J.’s expectations to even get the “non-trekkies” to watch this mind-blown movie!!

1397. Hornwoutt - March 20, 2009

very intresting

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.