Media Critics and Focus Groups Weigh In On Star Trek Super Bowl Commercial |
jump to navigation

Media Critics and Focus Groups Weigh In On Star Trek Super Bowl Commercial February 2, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Marketing/Promotion,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The Super Bowl is the biggest TV event of the year. Even though ratings dropped a bit from last year’s record, the game averaged around 93 million viewers, with more during the early parts of the game (when the Star Trek ad aired). Befitting the event, today there are a lot of media stories covering the Super Bowl commercials with critics and focus groups weighing in. See what they say about Trek’s first even SB spot below.


Critics weigh in
So far the response amongst media critics in both the mainstream and entertainment press) is mostly positive for the new Star Trek spot.

(ranked Trek #1 movie spot that ‘kicked ass’)
It’s still amazing to me just how much of the general public doesn’t know a new Star Trek movie is about to be released. There were a few people at the Super Bowl party I was attending who didn’t know until they saw the trailer for the first time during yesterday’s game. The approval was pretty much universal – the ad kicks serious ass.
Los Angeles Examiner

(ranks Trek as one of two "Movie We Most Want to See")
With only a few seconds to judge by, here’s the four-words-or-less early review of the “Star Trek” prequel: Spock, wow! Kirk, maybe.
Detroit Free Press

(ranks Trek as "Most fascinating peek at a flick")
"Kirk and Spock look pretty hot."
Seattle Post

"Star Trek" looks reeeeeally good. The trailer’s a little frantic, but I understand trying to sell as many money shots as possible to show that this is not a TV movie. Even the biggest of the prior theatrical films was always hampered by a near-TV budget, and as a result, "Star Trek" was never a must-see for anyone who wasn’t already a hardcore fan. By selling this as a new jumping-in point for audiences, and by emphasizing the sheer scale of the adventure, I think they’re getting across the message that this is "Star Trek" for everyone, not just for the devoted, and that should serve them well this summer.

(ranking Trek 3rd best movie commercial)
The new Star Trek movie trailer is creating a little bit of an uproar among some Star Trek purists that don’t like the new look. J.J. Abrams version of Star Trek is definitely not your daddy’s Star Trek. In fact, the Star Trek movie trailer looks more like a Star Wars movie than a Star Trek movie. That being said, I know I’m going to be in line at the theater the first day this movie comes out. While it might not be the Star Trek I’m used to, it looks like it could be a very entertaining version of Young Star Trek. Favorite line from the Star Trek trailer was “You can settle for an ordinary life. I dare you to do better.”

Paramount’s "Star Trek" and DreamWorks’ "Transformers" sequel provided the most impressive adrenaline rush…

The movie trailers were pretty good overall. Star Trek may have been the best, and I say this NOT being a trekkie. I just think J.J. Abrams has the golden touch, and the new trailer showed Karl Urban as Bones McCoy. Karl Urban=BAMF.
Daily Kansan

There were also a lot of ads for upcoming movies, most of which looked bad, although the new "Star Trek" and the Pixar film "Up" look promising. A "Monsters vs. Aliens" commercial in 3D was fun, assuming you brought a pair of old-school 3-D glasses to your Super Bowl party.
San Francisco Chronicle

(Rates Trek (out of 10) Entertainment: 8 Selling: 8 Overall: 8)
It is just a teaser, but it gives you enough of the flavor of the old show meets new technology in J.J. Abrams movie imagination of the beginnings of the original Star Trek Crew. Makes me want to see it.
Associated Content

"Star Trek" maintained it’s place on my ‘most anticipated’ list. Even with my high expectations for the movie, I still really liked the preview. Zachary Quinto (Sylar on "Heroes") looked fantastic as Spock.
Film Fodder

…was shocked to see that there was plenty of new and updated footage. The TV spot for Star Trek (shown during the Super Bowl) gives some new dialogue from JT Kirk, shows the introduction of Bones and Kirk, displays Sulu’s (John Cho) fighting skills, blurs through a bit more of that bar fight Kirk gets into, and then shows off some updated special effects. Oh yeah, and this time it looks like San Francisco comes under attack.

UPDATE: more positive comments

Absolutely cannot wait for Star Trek to be pretty, exciting, and sexy again.

Although shorter in length than the previous two minute trailer, the new Super Bowl 30-second trailer was still enough to whet our collective appetites for the new J.J. Abrams vision of Star Trek coming later this year.

A couple of critics were disappointed that most of the new footage in the ad was from the Fall press preview. (Of course those of us who saw the Fall previews weren’t really the target market for the Super Bowl spot.), and one Canadian just isn’t excited about this new take on Trek

(ranked Trek ‘Loser’)
The commercial cost you a reported $3 million. You have the eyes of an entire world of potential ticket-buyers upon you. And you give them … stuff they’ve already seen? Virtually every shot in the "Star Trek" ad had already been glimpsed in trailers, or described in detail by journalists who attended J.J. Abrams’ footage previews a few months back. It leaves movie fans with two possibilities to consider: Either Abrams is too paranoid about spoilers to give us anything else, or all the good stuff is already out.

There’s nothing particularly exciting or new about the 30 second promo trailer for the new Star Trek film that was broadcast in the midst of the Superbowl. And by that, we mean there’s nothing that we hadn’t really been seen before.

Interestingly, Paramount is continuing to sell this more as an action movie rather than the latest big screen Star Trek outing, and there are one or two short snippets we hadn’t seen before. But it didn’t get our pulse racing to anywhere near the degree that the full trailer did.
Den of Geek

A brief glance at the synopsis suggests that there is some fodder to work with here, but the Super Bowl trailer is disconcerting. It is clear that Abrams is not straying far from his action roots and is trying to push the franchise into a new, and likely final, frontier, i.e. the thrill-seeking masses. While the crux of Star Trek was generally philosophical in nature, this Trek looks populated with frat boys.
National Post (Canada)

Trek ranks in the middle on USA Today Ad Meter
Every year the USA Today holds  focus groups during the game who rate all of the commercials in real time. Commercials get rating on a 1-10 scale. The top commercial this year was from Doritos (rating 8.46 and the worst was from Vizio, rating 3.77). All of the movie ads landed in USA Today’s ‘the rest’ category, with Star Trek landing in the middle with 6.14. Here are all the movies (full chart at USA Today).

Movie rating
Year One  6.79
Land of the Lost    6.78
Up  6.74
Race to Witch Mountain    6.38
Star Trek  6.14
Angels and Demons  6.14
Transformers Revenge of Fallen    5.93
Fast & Furious  5.66


Star Trek at Hulu + voting going on now
Online video site Hulu has all the Super Bowl commercials online right now, including Star Trek. You can also vote for the best with the results coming out on Tuesday. Go to and vote for your favorite. 

Star Trek commercial at Apple in HD & for iPod has updated their Star Trek trailers page to include the ‘Big Game TV Spot’ where you can watch in in various sizes, including HD and iPod/iPhone sized.

The trailer is also available at the official site for the Star Trek movie, and embedded below. 

Shatner and Quinto in Super Bowl ads
The Star Trek ad was not the only Star Trek moment for Super Bowl ads. NBC ran a promos for Heroes, a couple of which including Zachary Quinto (Star Trek news Spock), in his role as Sylar.


Priceline as ran its recently released ad featuring William Shatner as ‘The Negotiator’



Trailer analysis
For more details see our  shot-by-shot analysis of the Star Trek Super Bowl commercial.

Thanks to Devon and Stamper for sending in links



1. we are nomad - February 2, 2009

I don’t care about critics. i just want to see it already!!! first?

2. franbro - February 2, 2009

“Even the biggest of the prior theatrical films was always hampered by a near-TV budget,..”

Guess this guy didn’t know how much TMP cost. And that was 1979 dollars

3. Locutus_of_borg - February 2, 2009

I hope the movie is loved by non star trek fans and fans alike so we get more films!

another TV show or another 9 movies will make me happy!

4. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - February 2, 2009

let me tell you. I was hella drunk, mindblown, and i had my 3D glasses on. that star trek commercial was like a macintosh computer directly supplanted the midsection, a real chris pine kind of stool softener happening there.



5. Jacob - February 2, 2009

Star Trek’s flagship needs to be more accessible to the zombie masses so we can get some content able to “spin off” in more theosophical directions as DS9 did.

6. caseylee4ts - February 2, 2009

I don’t care what anyone says. This got my blood pumping and I’m actually considering calling in sick to work on opening day. [cough, cough]… I feel a little something coming on now!

7. Mark Lynch - February 2, 2009

Quite positive on the whole.

This can only be a good thing methinks.

8. Devon - February 2, 2009

It amazes me that some actually think they were supposed to give us a philosophy lesson in a Super Bowl ad. I can’t think of how many Trek commercials could fall into this same boat!

BTW Anthony, it’s Devon.

9. Chris Pike - February 2, 2009

THE big thing to really get this Trek absolutely bang on and different from the rest of the popcorn high energy thoughtless flicks – is get the action and high impact visuals in there – but still bring in a good measure of traditional Trek-at-its-best philosophical morals and thought provoking science at the same time. That’s hard work for the film makers, but will keep more of us satisfied and mean, for me, repeat cinema viewings and a vastly different experience.

10. Devon - February 2, 2009

#8 – That was supposed to be a :-P at the end of that! Didn’t mean for that to sound so serious haha. It didn’t bother me, I promise. :P

11. Brett Campbell - February 2, 2009

Thanks for giving a balanced perspective of several viewpoints and opinions.

12. frederick - February 2, 2009

Any time a Land of the Lost trailer ranks higher than Star Trek shows the franchise needs some serious work in being revived in the culture. Hope JJ pulls it off and the sequel is greenlighted and put on rush the opening weekend.

13. Dennis Bailey - February 2, 2009

At least two of the negative reviews cited above miss the point of a Super Bowl buy: yeah, most of the footage has been seen before *by people who have seen it.*

Some tens of millions of people saw the new “Star Trek” for the very first time last night.

14. garen - February 2, 2009

who in the heck are the jerky idiots that USA today used for their movie ratings system? Year One: looked especially stupid.

Angels and Demons, Star Trek and Transformers were the best previews of the night.

I noticed GI Joe isnt listed. Here’s hoping it scored a zero. It looked terrible.

15. Weerd1 - February 2, 2009

Whether I like it or not, the movie will be a success in my book if a neice, nephew, or grandkid looks up at me after watching it and says “Grandpa, is there MORE Star Trek?”

16. Dennis Bailey - February 2, 2009

“GI Joe” looks as if they’re rebooting “Megaforce.” I hope Barry Bostwick has a cameo.

17. Rod of Rassilon - February 2, 2009

is it May yet?

18. Orb of the Emissary - February 2, 2009

I was watching the Super Bowl knowing the commercial for the new Star Trek would come on any minute. The MOMENT it came on, I was like “Star Trek! Star Trek!”. Every one who was there got silent and actually watched the commercial with me. Being the only Star Trek fan there, I was proud to be a Trekker when, after the commercial aired, people started saying it was good and it looks like it will be a good movie and all.

19. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 2, 2009

Ok. Trek is Realy catching on Fire and this is gonna be great. Just about everyone I know is looking forward to it. I was at A Sports Bar for the Game and I heard a lot of People Gasp in Amazement at the New Trek. A Lot did not even know about and I of Corse told them More about it and there are at least 30 people that said they havt to go and see it Si I think the Add was Right On Target and it was a fantastic Add. great Job to the Supreme ct and the Marketing dept for a great Supper Bowl Add.

20. ~~TARA~~ - February 2, 2009

I had to watch the trailer a couple times online just to catch it all. I’m so excited and can’t wait for the film!

21. garen - February 2, 2009

#19 is there some sort of secret code hidden in the seemingly random capitalized letters in your post?

its freaking me out, man!


22. Jorg Sacul - February 2, 2009

MTV Blows. I don’t mean in a good way. Bunch of fraktards who don’t realize their network was built from music videos (which, back then were good), and since then have only gone downhill. All they know is how to put cr@p on TV. And not even good cr@p.

No wait…that’s an insult to cr@p.

Don’t get me started on G.I. Joe… if they don’t base it on the 12″ action figures with a scar on the cheek and the big dog tags, they’re just making a movie about little dolls. How about a movie about Land Adventurer? Even with fuzzy flocked hair and Kung-Fu Grip, he could kick the ass of a legion of the ’80s ersatz Joes.

23. krikzil (aka Lixy) - February 2, 2009

A lot of folks still don’t know about the new movie. I know, cause I got a bunch of emails last night and today so far from friends and family who saw the trailer and know I’m a trek fan. So, probably was money well spent just for the buzz.

“Kirk and Spock look pretty hot.”

Pretty amusing but maybe it will help get more women in the seats!

24. sean - February 2, 2009

Year One is Judd Apatow, so it will be popular and big. Unless you missed The 40 Year Old Virgin, Pineapple Express, Superbad or any of his other comedies – all major moneymakers.

Land of the Lost seems like a trickier proposition, but presumably they’ll market that to kids like Journey to the Center of the Earth. The original show wasn’t exactly amazing. Plus, Will Ferrell is suffering from Jim Carrey syndrome – he’s overplaying his schtick and people are getting tired of it.

Race to Witch Mountain? Hmmm. The Rock isn’t exactly a guaranteed draw, is he? It looks like he might be playing to his strengths here, so maybe it will be better than I think.

Up looks fantastic. Can’t wait!

25. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 2, 2009

#21. Remember. Im from the Terran Empire. Thats my job to freak you out. Or would you rather me put you in the Agoniser Booth for oh lets say. 6 hours. Ok. My typing sucks.Lol

26. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 2, 2009

So far the Movies I am looking forward to besides Trek of corse is Transformers and Termanator and Land of the Lost and Harry Potter and of corse Wolverine.there are others that look good but these are my top movies. Ill see Trek at least 8 Times as thats my Record for seeing any movie at the theater. Trek 2 has it right now.

27. G-Boss - February 2, 2009

I can’t wait until it comes to the theaters.
Shat’s Priceline spot was pretty funny too.

28. SChaos1701 - February 2, 2009

Shat’s commercial was just awesome…lol

29. BrandonR - February 2, 2009

The critics who say that this is just the same thing as the previous two trailers clearly haven’t taken the time to actually WATCH the previous two trailers. Half of this TV spot is brand new footage.

30. Crusade2267 - February 2, 2009

This ad prompted a very serious conversation between my wife and I at 1 AM yesterday. Upshot is we’re going to see this film, and like parts of it, based on what we’ve seen, and other parts we’re going to wish were more like TOS.

OK, so practically the entire contents of the conversation were one of us saying “Leonard McCoy” in our best Karl Urban impression. It was 1 AM!

31. Devon - February 2, 2009

I hope Paramount keep the momentum going. I am now seeing Transformers 2 ads on ESPN AND Myspace.

32. krikzil (aka Lixy) - February 2, 2009

My theatre has movie posters for stuff going through to July but NO Trek. Not good.

33. T.U.M. - February 2, 2009

You sober yet, hitch? ;-)

34. Mirror Jordan - February 2, 2009

I was very pleased with the new ad. It provided just a little bit more than we’ve seen, but it was just enough :)

35. Kev - February 2, 2009

You know the critics who don’t like it have missed the point of the ad completley…..

ITS THE SUPERBOWL, NOT A MURDER MYSTERY! anyone who tunes in wants to see action, music and chearleaders dancing about not character devlopment or suspense, that will come latter. Probably a month before the films released.

36. sean - February 2, 2009


My theatre has a Kirk poster, a Spock poster AND a regular Star Trek poster.

37. Andy Patterson - February 2, 2009

I know this puts me in the catogory of ‘hater’ (which I’m not) and ‘un-open minded’ (which is an overused if not inaccurate label) but I tend to agree more on the side of the critical reviews.

38. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 2, 2009

#37. Are you A Herbert. Just Checking.

39. Andy Patterson - February 2, 2009


I’m not Herbert. I’ll let you know when it starts to chime. Soonest, like he said. I’m tryin’ to cooperate, like they ask. But so far I a’int reaching Great White Captain. Do you think he’d shake on a session? When that happens then I’ll spread the word.

40. Jim - February 2, 2009

#2 you really can not go by TMPs budget as to how much it really cost. It was a lot, yes, but no where NEAR the money thats quoted.

The problem is they wrapped all the failed Phase II costs into the cost of TMP, and little was used from Phase II to TMP. Pretty much the only thing was sickbay and the bridge, not even the model they had almost completed building for the Enterprise made its way to Phase II. The Refit Enterprise was a completely new model from the Phase II one.

41. Hat Rick - February 2, 2009

I’m encouraged that so many mainstream critics seemed to like the trailer.

The downside to all this is that now there are also those who say that all the good parts of the movie are in the trailer (e.g., in the MTV blurb). Ironically for the MTV critic, it’s their eponymous network that has often been blamed for the shortening of American attention spans. Doth MTV protest too much? Methinks it does.

There will always be critics who are critical. I suppose that’s how they got their name.

42. KingOfAllBlacks - February 2, 2009


i cant take it anymore! Just show me the frakking movie already!


43. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 2, 2009

#39. You reach me man you reach me. Yeah Brother. I can Understand being criticle and thats ok. I have been a little criticle as well. But I think this will be a fantastic movie based on everything im seeing. For all of those who don’t dig me then you are all Herberts. yeah brother.

44. Jorg Sacul - February 2, 2009

It’s a given that Land of the Lost will not get the pseudo-serious treatment of the original kiddie show, and I’m both in terror and am intrigued by this. I can be played as one hell of a comedy if done right (stress those three magic words!!)

As for the Trek trailer: It caught me off guard- but still, I shall be watching for upcoming teasers with a positive attitude.

It’s Star Trek. Like pizza. I want it.

45. Andy Patterson - February 2, 2009


Don’t get me wrong. I want it to do well. I’m glad many took notice and are excited. I’m more a critical thinker and don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s like the Spider-Man movies. I was very pleased they did well. It wasn’t the version I wanted to see but I was pleased at it’s success. Again, I’m from Missouri on this one. Show me.

46. frederick - February 2, 2009

If all the good stuff is on the trailer they have only about one minute’s worth of great effects. I ain’t buying it.

47. Raphael Salgado - February 2, 2009

I’m just glad they’re helping take Trek out of the geeks’ hands and getting it into the mainstream. I’m tired of all the separation of classes and distinctions of types of people, and JJ & Crew are thankfully blurring the lines for the betterment of the franchise.

48. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 2, 2009

#45. I agree with you. it won’t be what i want to see. But it will be something that I hope blows me away. As long as the movie is A box office smash and rakes in the Money so we can have more trek then ill be happy.

49. Requiem1971 - February 2, 2009

I don’t get the down play of GI Joe movie. I was thoroughly delighted to see the commercial. Of all the movies coming forth, I only see 3 movies worth my time: Star Trek, Transformers 2 and GI Joe.

As for comments on GI JOE:
#14; Sorry… but giving this movie a zero? Tells me you have bad taste and we’ll never agree.
#16; GI Joe as Megaforce? What have you been watching? Obviously your wires are being crossed or you’ve been watching the wrong movies.
#22; GI Joe based on 12″ action figures? What’s up with that? You may have a point but if you’re talking about a movie like Thunderbirds…. Yuk!

As for Transformers 2: Looked neat, but went way to fast.

Maybe I missed it but was Terminator Salvation in there?

For Star Trek: I don’t want to keep getting new views of Trek before it’s released. Though spoilers don’t bother me, I still would like to wait and see. Trek will come and when it does, I’ll be there.

50. KingOfAllBlacks - February 2, 2009

as a once on a while MTV viewer, all they air during the day and primetine are “reality” shows where cameras follow attractive people throughout their day.

examples of these fine shows are:

Laguna Beach: The Real O.C.
The Hills
The City
Daddy’s Girls (which is also the only show with black people)
Real World vs. Road Rules challenges
My Super Sweet 16

you get the idea. MTV are just bitter sallys because their ratings are always dipping.

51. KingOfAllBlacks - February 2, 2009

# 47

I agree 100% with what you said!

52. Horatio - February 2, 2009

LOL at the MTV review. The reviewer actually didn’t comprehend that only a very few media people have seen the 20 minutes shown in Abram’s media blitz. But hey, its MTV. #22 is right, MTV is run by fraktards that completely ruined a decent network and devastated its music oriented programming to instead show a nauseating calvacade of reality shows featuring a bunch of self absorbed dip$hits.

Anyone who takes MTV seriously needs to seek professional help.

53. Spock's Brain - February 2, 2009

29. BrandonR – February 2, 2009
“Half of this TV spot is brand new footage.”


54. COMMANDER KEEN - February 2, 2009

Who’s the MTV Moron that posted that BS? However, once I read the post and the source it made sence. I saw the commercial with people who have not seen anything from the new movie and they loved it. They really are thinking how great it was to see the old crew back. Well, not the actors but you know what I mean. They are all not big ‘trekkies”. That to me was a very good sign.

So I say to the nay saying critics: Your ignorance is obvious. I fart upon your general direction :P

55. Trekee - February 2, 2009


Dunno, I’m suddenly wanting to see the film whole without all the spoilers giving it all away.

I did like the big E in that shot tho, but yeah – an ad for the MTV generations.

56. The Quickening - February 2, 2009

I agree with the critics that complained about repetitious scenes, and lack of new footage, especially in the area of space battles. Where were the epic multi-ship space battles? Are there any? There better be. One-on-one ship battles won’t cut it anymore, and that’s all we’ve seen. You’ve got to convince new people and potential fans that this isn’t a made-for-TV TREK film in every area. This ad was the place to do it. Wasted opportunity.

57. Weerd1 - February 2, 2009

56- I think It’s repetitious to us because we have been digging for details for months now. For the general Superbowl watching public, everything in that commercial was new- it didn’t try to confuse any issues, just let you know “here’s young Kirk, McCoy, and Spock.” Any misgivings on the film I have aside, this is exactly the type of spot to run during the Superbowl.

58. REDBELLPEPPERS - February 2, 2009

Transformers was better.

59. Bronto Dan - February 2, 2009

Things to keep in mind is that the action format of the trailers.

If you look back at the great retrospect Trekmovie did, you can see that the action angle has always been present. A great exemple his ST3 with a lot of action in the teaser/trailer and not that much in the movie.

The National post critic his way off when saying: A brief glance at the synopsis suggests that there is some fodder to work with here, but the Super Bowl trailer is disconcerting. It is clear that Abrams is not straying far from his action roots and is trying to push the franchise into a new, and likely final, frontier, i.e. the thrill-seeking masses.

really he should make his homework before judging with 30 seconds of footage…

60. Daoud - February 2, 2009

53,54 They’re just living up to their true name “empty-v”. I think the “radio star” has gotten the last laugh. At least, according to the current Arbitrons and Nielsens.

Since I wasn’t at the worldwide for-media-eyes-only previews, this new footage, especially Greenwood’s *marvelous* Pike… was wonderful. Along with Urban’s introduction. Damn, he’s going to steal the show, and I don’t mind.

61. Iowagirl - February 2, 2009

– While the crux of Star Trek was generally philosophical in nature, this Trek looks populated with frat boys. –

Great one. :)

62. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - February 2, 2009

Oh I am very sober now, unfortunately. And I love Will Ferrell and I love Land of The Lost, but that show is sacred cow to me. Didnt like the 90s remake, hey atleast they got the sleestak true to canon. But I dont know. I want to like it, but can i overcome my own prejudices? we’ll have to wait and see. only time will tell.

ever date a chick and then after you break up with her, you get it on with her little sister? there’s something so familiar about it, yet its like the odometer has been reset. but the sounds, the sights, the smells – all very deja vu. thats about the only thing i can relate this too. and probably more star trek than land of the lost.

and Now, for Some random Caps like Me main Geezah, Captain Mike of the Terran Empire!!! of Corse may All your Supper Bowl dreams Come true My Friend.



63. Randall - February 2, 2009

Does anyone know if there’s any word on when and where the Star Trek trailer(s) will show up on TV next? Usually, after the Super Bowl, ads start showing up in other venues.

So anyone have any idea where and when we can expect to see the trailers on TV after this?

64. Dr. Image - February 2, 2009

The National Post offers much accuracy in its observations.
I like that they have the balls to be honest instead of just gushing.

65. Devon - February 2, 2009

#61 & 64 – Nope!

66. T.U.M. - February 2, 2009

AFAIC, this movie could have been a one-man show of Urban as McCoy. Hey, AbramCo, if you’re planning a trilogy you could do worse than to have each of the two sequels focus on a different triumvirate member.

Greenwood’s character does indeed look marvelous. But it seems so fundamentally different from the character Jeffrey Hunter played that I’m going to decide here and now that there were TWO awesome captains in the Fleet at the time who just happened to both be named Chris Pike.

67. Orb of the Emissary - February 2, 2009

– While the crux of Star Trek was generally philosophical in nature, this Trek looks populated with frat boys. –

There’s nothing wrong with that! ;-)

68. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

Greenwood & Urban will be the standouts in the movie I strongly believe!

69. Will_H - February 2, 2009

“jumping in point” is a good term to use, but I just hope that this film wont leave a bunch of us jumping out at the same time.

70. starfleetmom - February 2, 2009

the critics who complained about the ad are jerks. i have talked to many people in the past few weeks that didn’t know anything about the movie. most people I know didn’t even know about the 3D glasses that were available for the halftime ads. I even got a facebook message the other day from a self-described Trekkie that read: “Hey did you know the Spock in the new movie is Sylar on Heroes?”
I refer a lot of people to THIS website, but I’m afraid that we are in the extreme minority. Most people are Trek ignoramouses. :-(

71. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 2, 2009

#62. Thank you very Much. I do not think you are a herbert. For if you were I would put you in the Agoniser Booth for at least 12 hours.

72. Section 31 - Row 1701 - Seat A - February 2, 2009

Dr. Image
Oh I see, anyone who agrees with your hateful view is being accurate and any one who disagrees is being dishonest. The fact that only 8% rate the commercial as a D or F plays no factor into your narrow reality, all those other people are lying.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people can have other opinions?

73. Melissa - February 2, 2009

I work with high school kids and I had a young lady ask me about the movie the other day. She said that she has never really seen the show, but the previews for the movie look good and she is going to see it. – Add one more fan to the count. This may truly attract a new generation. It would be nice. I know most of us are just too old to fress up as Orion slave girls at the conventions. – Ain’t that right starfleetmom?

74. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

# 70

I get the same reaction too.

people’s get curious when they hear that Zach Quinto (Sylar) is in the new Star Trek movie and they’re gonna to see the movie because they’re big fans of his.

75. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

# 73

I hope that the new movie creates a ton of new TREK fans so that it can live on for years to come.

let’s face it, there aren’t that many TOS, TNG, etc. fans left anymore.

76. Enterprise - February 2, 2009

I think it’s cool all the new trailers are up on itunes. GI JOE, Transformers, etc.

77. OR Coast Trekkie - February 2, 2009

I agree with the comments that address the MTV reviewer. Basically, that review said it had contained stuff that HE had seen before, as a member of the media who had gotten the invite to see trailer footage.

Well, most Trekkies are NOT in the media, and this was stuff I had not seen before and would venture to say that the majority of us here had not seen before either. And keep in mind that that millions of folks who AREN’T Trekkies are seeing this trailer, which would mean that there is a significant amount of people who saw 100% new stuff.

78. Nomad - February 2, 2009

MTV’s comment is bit odd- do we REALLY want to see all the good bits before the film comes out?

79. Nomad - February 2, 2009


80. Hat Rick - February 2, 2009

Update: Here’s another review, and this one is from a football-oriented site:

“3. Star Trek: The Future Begins

I’m a film fanatic, so you know one was going to get a spot on this list. I used to love the old Star Trek movies growing up, but lost interest once Picard hit the stars. But this grabbed me by the n**s for 30 ticks and didn’t let go. The best movie trailer of the night hands down. From the guy who brought us Alias and Cloverfield, so it could go either way.”

(Bowdlerization added by yours truly.)


It’s all good.

81. starfleetmom - February 2, 2009

#73 why not? I’d just be a fat menopausal Orion slave girl! ;-)

82. Jacobite - February 2, 2009

Who cares what Boing Boing thinks? If you’re not one of their Obama-kissing, Mac-loving liberal steampunk clique, your opinions are censored.

That being said, the 30 second spot pretty much hit all the nails necessary to catch the short attention spans of most football fans. The only thing that could have been added was giving us the scene we all want to see — Engineer Olsen being the first Redshirt to die! Can’t wait for that, sports fans!

83. Chadwick - February 2, 2009

Meh, the TV spot was not to be as dramatic as the actual TRAILER, critics should know a TV spot is not a trailer, and most people (non fans) have not seen the trailer so for 93 million viewers and costing 3 million I think they showed the right stuff. As a fan some stuff I have seen and some were new clips, and this just makes me even more excited (if that is even possible lol.) I am already WAY too excited. I would say, unless they show any more new photos or clips, the only time my excitement would now build is when the remaining 3 countdown comics come out and when I am inline opening day at the IMAX and sitting back and center.

84. Daoud - February 2, 2009

82 Wha!?!?! You mean ‘Welshy’ Olsen dies? That’s going to make Futurama no longer canon. Damn!

85. Izbot - February 2, 2009

To the Canadian reviewer:

Aw bitch, bitch, bitch.

86. Bill - February 2, 2009

Seventy million is a TV budget?

87. Newman - February 2, 2009

Anthony why do you have to point out that one of the only people that was not impressed was Canadian?

Is it necessary?

88. Anthony Pascale - February 2, 2009

I agree that it is a kind of silly critique that elements of the ad were from the 20 minute preview, since just a few hundred people in the USA saw that. I also don’t see an issue with parts coming from the theatrical trailer. That trailer was shown with Quantum of Solace and had a 60 second spot that ran on FOX a few nights. Maybe 25 million or 30 million have seen it, including people online. That is still around 70 million more potential people to expose it to at the Super Bowl.

And there was totally new stuff not in the 20 min. preview or the theatrical trailer
1. Kirk walking on ice planet
2. Enterprise in Combat
3. San Francisco w/ shuttles
4. SF under attack
5. Kirk screaming ‘do it’
6. McCoy introducing self to Kirk
7. Kirk climbing out of escape pod (although still of this was released in October)
8 Explosion in sickbay (a few additional frames not seen in trailer)

So about 1/3 was original trailer, 1/3 was from preview and 1/3 was unseen. Which is about what I expected. I think a lot of people assumed it would be 100% from the theatrical trailer, just cut down to 30 seconds.

89. Weerd1 - February 2, 2009

82- Hey I’m an Obama supporting Mac-Loving Steampunk fan! Maybe I should read Boing-Boing (for the record I have never kissed the President, though I did kiss someone else at a Joe Biden rally…

90. Anthony Pascale - February 2, 2009

ok lets not turn this into a political thing. Boing Boing is simply a very popular site, and leave it at that.

RE: Pointing out Canadian.
It was not to disparage Canadians, not really sure why i wrote except to point out that the ‘national post’ was not from the ‘nation’ that I am wring from. I have been sensing some Canadian sensitivity around here lately. Some of my favorite Trekkies are Canadian! (like Judy and Gar, and of course…The Shat)…and lets not forget this article:

Do I have to sing ‘Oh Canada’ for you?

btw…I drank some Molsens last night watching the game…does that help?

91. Fansince9 - February 2, 2009

I agree they could have done more with the new commercial. They did have some old footage in there. I’m expecting that the movie will be “good”, however MTV made some good points from the point of view from those who may have already seen the other trailer.

The commercial was good, these are just worthy things for the powers that be to think about–perhaps when it comes time for the Daytona 500.

92. Hat Rick - February 2, 2009

Also, Anthony at 88, not only that, but the Enterprise in combat sequence was something we haven’t ever seen a big ship do on the big screen other than in a Star Wars movie. The ship was pulse-firing in a way that we’ve seen only the Defiant do, and only on the small screen. That adds an element of dynamism never before visible on a silver screen Trek.

I think that if Trek outdoes Star War at its own game — showing brilliance in its action sequences and elan in pacing and plot development — if it does that, and remains fundamentally Trek at heart, then there should be no question that this new movie will become the blockbuster it hopes to be.

We know that Abrams is good at quick-cuts; say what you will about Cloverfield, it at least got a feature-length movie out of what ostensibly was the equivalent of Handycam footage. Action sequences of that type are still new, still interesting, and still a draw.

I, for one, don’t see a problem with a faster-paced Trek movie. You draw them in with the flash. Once they’re in, you get them with the story, if the story is good. What could be wrong with that?

Finally, for those who may fear that 30 seconds shows all that is good in this movie — exactly what do you think they were showing the other 19 minutes, 30 seconds to the critics and reviewers they hoped to impress?

93. Will Decker - February 2, 2009

I stopped taking MTV seriously after they stopped showing “The Young Ones” (Now let’s see if anyone gets that reference :P) But I thought the trailer rocked.

94. Fansince9 - February 2, 2009

I did see a few things I hadn’t seen before. It was kinda cool getting to see the shots they provided of the academy. I would have liked to have seen more I didn’t already know about, but hey the commercial was a good one. This movie will be a lot different from Trek movies in times past, but it looks like it’ll be really good. I’d like to see it blow the general “Trek Geek” sterotype out of the water.

95. Newman - February 2, 2009

90 – Yeah its alright. I did very much appreciate that Canada Day article. Thank you.

haha but Molson’s??? Canadians don’t even drink that stuff.

96. Dr. Image - February 2, 2009

#72- re:#64

“Dr. Image
Oh I see, anyone who agrees with your hateful view is being accurate and any one who disagrees is being dishonest. The fact that only 8% rate the commercial as a D or F plays no factor into your narrow reality, all those other people are lying.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people can have other opinions?”

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but in the last two threads, I have made comments in which I have whole-heartedly given my support to this movie.

Did it ever occur TO YOU that maybe people can have other opinions???

97. T.U.M. - February 2, 2009


98. Littlenatey - February 2, 2009


It was what everyone seemed to be drinking in Toronto when I was there!

99. sean - February 2, 2009


What Trek movie had a 70 million dollar budget?

100. Tom - February 2, 2009

Wow Star Trek is trying to be big and loud and full of special effects for the ADD Michael Bay generation, pitty!

101. richpit - February 2, 2009

People, people. All this chatter and really only one thing needs to be said: This movie is gonna rock your socks.


102. Richard Daystrom - February 2, 2009

62 Hitch

I take it you are talking from experience? LOL!!

Overall, thought the trailer was OK, but was hoping for something a little different.

103. sean - February 2, 2009


Crazy, right? Because Star Trek never contained explosions or loud noises or special effects of any kind! ;)

104. OneBuckFilms - February 2, 2009

100 – Not precisely.

It’s trying to get the causal moviegoers who are not hardcore fans like most of us here.

A little whiz-bang visual eye candy, along with a fast pace, may breathe some life into the franchise.

105. The Quickening - February 2, 2009


Yes, but why not engage both the public, who have not seen footage AND those who have already seen bits of the trailer by filling it with all new scenes? Your spending 3 million anyway. You kill two birds with one stone.

106. Katarian Eggs - February 2, 2009

GI Joe trailer was the best of the bunch, followed closely by Transformers 2. Both were infinitly cooler than Trek.

I must agree with the above comment that this is “populated by frat boys” & appears far removed from the intellectual nature of Trek’s history.

Unlike this, it looks like the directors behind “Joe” & “Trans2″ were very aware of what could be changed & what could not.
Too bad Orci & Kurtzman were involved in “Trans2″ script, I hope we don’t see 20 superfluous human characters involved this time around!

107. Will_H - February 2, 2009

Still, its sad, not just for star trek, but movies in general, that its come down to that, pack as much big stuff as you can, instead of real quality. I think its more of a sad general trend that star trek simply seems to have been swept into. Previous movies were pretty low on a lot of big bangs and such, II had a few, but that was back in the day, FC and Nem had a lot more, especially Nem, but I think it still wasnt over done. But from the looks of the trailers, this movie’s going to have wayyyy more, but time will tell, its a done movie, all we can do is guess if A) its going to sell well, and B) if its actually going to be good Star Trek

108. tman - February 2, 2009

100- Tom.

I don’t understand why you act like big loud and effects laden is a uniquely Michael Bay thing.

Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, the Bourne trilogy, DCraig’s Bond films, Lord of the Rings,… lots of fast paced films and ARE big, loud and full of effects these days.

Add in American machismo, tatoos, a wonderbra, and a cast+ cinematography that no matter where in the world looks like a hot summer on the streets of LA… then I think you’ll have something Michael Bay’ish.

I’m thinking Star Trek on TV would have been bigger, louder, and full of effects if they had the money or technology for it.

I do think there’s got to be a point where that whole fast paced action thing gets old and people change to a different format of film, but it’s not this summer…

109. Kareem Owete - February 2, 2009

My ‘younger’ brother [53] said Spock looks like Spock, McCoy looks good, Kirk was odd.

He’s also not a Trekker of any degree, but plans to see this one.

110. Jim - February 2, 2009

#100 – preach it brother, right on! God bless Canada’s National Post for being the only media outlet gutsy enough to tell the truth. Star Trek 90210 for the short attention span crowd – we wouldn’t to make them think too much, it might hurt their itty bitty wittow bwains.

111. Eli1477 - February 2, 2009

I mean wow, Episode III can’t miss!

112. Ryan H - February 2, 2009

#110 – Severe case of confirmation bias.

113. THX-1138 - February 2, 2009

I was hoping that there would be all new stuff to see in this new trailer so it was kind of a let-down for me. I am glad that it hyped up a lot of people to see Star Trek, though. I really want to see this movie so that I can wrap my head around what the hell it’s supposed to be about.

I think they screwed up the way the Mugato looks.

114. BK613 - February 2, 2009


115. Dom - February 2, 2009

55. Trekee: ‘ I did like the big E in that shot tho, but yeah – an ad for the MTV generations.’

The MTV generation grew up going to Star Trek movies! I’m 34, so from the start of the MTV Generation. My first Trek movie was TWOK, which had a similar vibe to what I’m seeing here!

116. CMX54 - February 2, 2009

Re: Super Bowl movie trailers, UP sure looks like fun. Love the old Spencer Tracy* dude. :)

* Google Images: “Spencer Tracy” and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”, then go watch that hilarious UP trailer again. You’ll see what I mean. ;)

117. Mark - February 2, 2009

#110, Jim

“110. Jim – February 2, 2009
#100 – preach it brother, right on! God bless Canada’s National Post for being the only media outlet gutsy enough to tell the truth. Star Trek 90210 for the short attention span crowd – we wouldn’t to make them think too much, it might hurt their itty bitty wittow bwains”

Uh, did you mean, “we wouldn’t WANT to make them think too much…”? Check your own “itty bitty wittow bwain” before you complain about the brains of others, brother.

118. Steve - February 2, 2009

I’m really looking forward to this new Star Trek movie. if it takes off, maybe we can look forward to another TV show?

119. Johnny - February 2, 2009

It seems to me that most people here are totally happy to just let Star Trek become another star wars. Well I’m not!! I will keep watching my new HD dvd Star Trek, read the wonderful books and keep it the way it is. It’s very disappointing!

120. TechTrekker - February 2, 2009

I had teenage students tell me when they saw the trailer, they were fully pumped. I am convinced that this movie will appeal to the masses. And, like most of you have stated, I hope we get more movies and another TV series out of it!


121. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

# 120

I agree with you 100%!!!!!

122. THE GOVERNATOR - February 2, 2009

This is a dream come true.

123. trekkie16 - February 2, 2009

Three months and counting. I think the movie will do well at the box office. A whole new generation will be curious and the “old timers” will be the first in line. I just hope that it does satisfiy both groups. If it does, my hats off to JJ. Trying to make everyone happy (new audience, hard core fans and Paramount suits) is the equivalant of trying to fix the economy…nearly impossible.

124. Third Remata'Klan - February 2, 2009

I like that HitFix quote.

125. Valar1 - February 2, 2009

I’m looking forward to the movie, and I thought the ad rocked, but after reading a few comments here I’ve changed my mind about one thing.

At first I was all in on this concept where Kirk is a bad boy that settles down and becomes responsible. I get that dynamic- it’s the same arc Picard went through, Picard who was a Party animal then settled down because of his heart injury by the Nausicans, or Sisko who settled down after his child was born.

I think I’m gonna miss the old character arc where Kirk was a nerd and then sorta let loose when he got out into space. I remember Ron Moore talking about that once and I thought to myself- I know a lot of guys like that, heck, that’s what my life was like, I was an uber nerd and then soon as I hit college it was like a switch tripped and I was a party animal. I settled back down but I remember thinking I related far more to Kirk because of that.

I’m looking forward to the new movie precisely because it’s gonna reinvigorate Trek, I can feel it in my bones, this thing is gonna take off like a freaking rocket, but I am wistful about the old character. The Kirk is dead, long live the Kirk.

126. Enterprise - February 2, 2009

Uh, have we ever really seen big ships do battle in space in a SW movie? Only the first sequence in ROTS, and ESB have spaceship battles. Oh, the end of Return of the Jedi, but mainly that’s tiny fighters attacking big things,.

127. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

# 126

on Stargate: Atlantis the big ships attacked other big ships all the time.

and in that shows series finale, a super-big ship fought with the Atlantis city-ship over Earth’s orbit.

128. VOODOO - February 2, 2009

The commercial was fine.

It was the run of the mill quick cut commercial for an upcoming action blockbuster, but it played to a large audience who had no idea that there was a new Star Trek film coming out this year. Misson accomplished.

129. Jimmy - February 2, 2009

“A brief glance at the synopsis suggests that there is some fodder to work with here, but the Super Bowl trailer is disconcerting. It is clear that Abrams is not straying far from his action roots and is trying to push the franchise into a new, and likely final, frontier, i.e. the thrill-seeking masses. While the crux of Star Trek was generally philosophical in nature, this Trek looks populated with frat boys.”

Bless the Canadian National Post… they took the words right out of my mouth that i’ve been thinking for the past year.


130. Green-Blooded-Bastard - February 2, 2009

“…trying to push the franchise into a new, and likely final, frontier, i.e. the thrill-seeking masses. While the crux of Star Trek was generally philosophical in nature, this Trek looks populated with frat boys.”

Still going to see it, still going to keep an open mind.

131. Fansince9 - February 2, 2009

#120: Here, here!!!! I would love to see a series. That’d be wonderful.

132. Ryan H - February 2, 2009

#129 – Yet another case of confirmation bias.

133. Johnny - February 2, 2009

It is not bias …it is another opinion! I too believe what the Canadian National Post wrote is very accurate. I my opinion this movie could be a ‘Mission Impossible Star Trek’ – It could well be an abomination.

134. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

I really don’t know what a new TREK tv show could be about.

135. Fansince9 - February 2, 2009

Star Trek

136. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

# 135

but what would the main themes be about?

time travel?
the Borg?

137. Dan - February 2, 2009

Rediculously fast, big, shallow and expensive! Where did my Star Trek go?

138. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 2, 2009

The reason I don’t agree with the Canadian National Post’s assessment is that they’re not taking into account that this is a trailer — a 30-sec. one at that, the worst kind.

I just saw Mission Impossible III — I saw it for the express reason that I wanted to see what our team did with that franchise, as a point of comparison for what they’re doing with the Star Trek franchise.

The MI franchise is about action, but it’s also about deception, which involves the manipulation of human perception and reasoning as much as or more than the manipulation of outside, physical objects. So, there’s an “cerebral” side to it, to a degree. Let me say, as well, that I think MI-2 is *deplorable* and really failed to engage the viewers’ mental faculties in any way.

While MI-3 is not as “cerebral” as MI-1, and it does rely on certain action-movie tropes (to be fair, so did the TV show), it *does* remain true to the heart of MI, with intrigue and strategy supporting all the explosions and shooting.

What I take away from this, in regard to Star Trek, is that YES, there will be action — and I think almost every Star Trek fan has wanted the upcoming movie to show the Enterprise crew fire phasers in anger, even before we all knew what it was about or saw any material from it — BUT we can expect the plot to honor the heart of Star Trek.

And what is the heart of Star Trek? Practically every comment board on this site has seen debate over this very question, but in my opinion, the heart of Star Trek is what we the fans collectively agree it is. Unlike some posters here who I consider elitists, I don’t see Star Trek as encompassing only its loftiest ideals, or even just conceding to popular culture, but in fact reveling in popular culture, even as it aspires to edify. The heart of Star Trek is just as much facing down baddies with extreme prejudice as it is about exploring, coping with spatio-temporal phenomena, and diplomacy. My instincts, informed with some albeit limited and heavily filtered information, tell me that Star Trek XI will feature our heroes dealing with the bigger and deeper issues in addition to raising shields and arming torpedoes.

139. DGill - February 2, 2009

I’m glad that Paramount thought highly enough of this film to release it this May instead of last Christmas, but isn’t there a part of us all that’s kind of sore because of that? By the time the movie comes out in theaters, we could have had it on DVD already! Sheesh. Oh, well. I’m still psyched to see it. :D

140. JusticeBoy - February 2, 2009

I have a flask just like Kirk’s. I’ll have it with me in line on opening day!

141. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

# 138

You forgot to mention that other masterpiece from JJ, CLOVERFIELD!

and I’m not bring sarcastic, I enjoyed the f**k outta that film!

handycam aside it was pure drama film (with a giant monster in between) as there was only about 7 min. total of action in that movie.

142. sean - February 2, 2009


Hmm, every source I’ve ever read put it closer to 50.

143. S. John Ross - February 2, 2009

#141: Cloverfield was a Matt Reeves film; Abrams was just the (principal) producer. Not to downplay the importance of a producer’s role (playing ringmaster to the creative team, getting the distribution in place, and so on and so on), but it was, for better or worse, a Matt Reeves movie (written by the groovtastic Drew Goddard).

Until Star Trek hits the cinema, the only JJ Abrams movie is Mission Impossible III. And, as it happens, Mission Impossible III shares not only the director with Star Trek, but also the writing team.

144. Brett Campbell - February 2, 2009

93 – mid-1980s British surrealist sitcom starring a pre-“Drop Dead Fred” Rik Mayall with cameos by Alexi Sayle. How’d I do?

145. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009


still, it was from Team JJ.

146. King Of All Blacks - February 2, 2009

the trailer needed more shots of the Slusho! soft drink.

147. GaryS - February 2, 2009

I loved MI III.
But How was MI 1 cerebral?
Ethan Hunt was framed by a friend.
Its been done at least a dozen times in movies.
Otherwise ,I agree with everything else you said.

148. Me - February 2, 2009

news flash! MTV has always sucked. From day one. Music should be heard and not seen.

149. moauvian moaul - February 2, 2009

148 right on

150. Devon - February 2, 2009

#114 & # 141 –

Box Office Mojo puts the production budget at $58 Million.

Maybe 114 is thinking of the Box Office Gross for the U.S., which was $70 Million.

151. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 2, 2009

141 King Of All Blacks — Actually, next on my list is Transformers. That’s going to be hard for me because even when I was a 10-year-old kid and the show was airing, I never liked the premise. At the time, I liked Anime that featured mechas, like Macross, but I always thought the whole “robots in disguise” thing was weak.

147 GaryS — I put ‘cerebral’ in quotes in #138 because I was hedging. As I recall, MI-1 has, to a degree, more twists and turns and more intricate plans than MI-3. However, I am not denying that MI-3 has these qualities too, just perhaps a little more reliance on brute force over deception. (All that work to sneak in the Lamborghini, only to blow it up? Kinda draws unwanted attention…)

152. Engon - February 3, 2009

A little reminder…

“Son, being popular is the most important thing in the whole world.” –Homer Simpson

153. Devon - February 3, 2009

#150 – from me.. that should be post #142, NOT 141, apologies!

154. Yspano - February 3, 2009

@ 151
Of all the Mission: Impossible movies, I liked the first one most. “Cerebral” would be one way to put it. My friend’s mother described it as “talky”. On the other hand, another friend remarked that it was the most faithful (stylistically? thematically?) of the film adaptations to the TV show.

Ang Lee’s take was fancy but ridiculous, and JJ’s was, well, mediocre.

155. RetroWarbird - February 3, 2009

# 12 … Frederick …

I hope the sequel gets green-lit as a TV show! Heck with another theater romp. A nice TV show with a budget like Battlestar Galactica works with, and most of these actors are TV or smaller film actors.

Biggest thing I’ve seen Pine in had Lindsey Lohan in it. With Cho it was a stoner comedy. And so on …

I’d rather this be the world’s most expensive pilot ever.

(Of course I’ll settle for a movie sequel).

156. cinemadeus - February 3, 2009

So USA Today ranks Race to Witch Mountain higher than Trek? wtf…
Except for Pixar’s UP I’m not interested in any of the other movies. Well maybe Angels & Demons – but I have to watch The Da Vinci Code first on DVD… and Transformers is only fun when you watch it on a small screen – when I watched the first one in the theater it was simply dumb and loud but that applies to 70 percent of Michael Bay’s output…

# 154:
Ang Lee never did a M:I…
that was John Woo ;-)

157. Cygnus-X1 - February 3, 2009

They shoulda done “Trekgruber.”

Trek is often quite like MacGruber.

Except they don’t blow up due to incompetence.

Which I guess makes them more like MacGyver.


Modifying his starship using space-age engineering…


It’s pretty much like magic, though they call it quantum physics…


He’s not in the new movie!!!


158. Cygnus-X1 - February 3, 2009

actually, that last line shoulda been….


159. King Of All Blacks - February 3, 2009

# 155

aside from Zach Quinto, the rest are unknown, or “nobodies” if I can be harsh, to mainstream audiences.

Zoe Saldana has appeared in films before but they were flops.

they could be signed to a tv deal for very small salaries, cause let’s face it, no one else was looking for them or heard of them before ST came along.

a new tv with them is possible.

160. cinemadeus - February 3, 2009

Though the reimagining may work perfectly on the big screen I still think a new TV series should deal with post Dominion-war issues in the 2380s instead of redoing everything…

161. King Of All Blacks - February 3, 2009

Ron Moore should oversee the next TREK tv show.

I love his work from ST: 1st Contact and Battlestar Galactica.

162. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 3, 2009

154 Yspano — John Woo, you mean — Ang Lee would probably make a very good MI movie, though… ;-)

163. Unbel1ever - February 3, 2009


“they could be signed to a tv deal for very small salaries, cause let’s face it, no one else was looking for them or heard of them before ST came along.”

Erm, Karl Urban was in a small production called “Lord of the Rings” and is very well known for that. As well as some other small budget film called “The Bourne Supremacy”.

164. King Of All Blacks - February 3, 2009


that is true, but he is not a big star. He’ll take whatever work comes his way.

165. Unbel1ever - February 3, 2009


While I also think, Ron would be a good candidate for a new Trek show-runner, I think his work on DS9 surpasses BSG. BSG suffers from suffering in my opinion. You always know they’ll fail and suffer, since that’s all they’ve been doing throughout the run of the show. I also thought that the revelation, that practically all important characters are cylons quite forced.
Somehow I got detached from the characters…

166. krikzil (aka Lixy) - February 3, 2009

“Unlike some posters here who I consider elitists, I don’t see Star Trek as encompassing only its loftiest ideals, or even just conceding to popular culture, but in fact reveling in popular culture, even as it aspires to edify. ”

What IS IT with the labeling and name-calling in this thread? It’s different strokes for different folks. Star Trek is a rich source of material and people are going to find different things that draws them in. They are not elitists if it’s the “loftest ideas” that attracts them; they aren’t basement dwelling nerds if they are into the ships, technology and props, nor are they “canonistas” etc if they like Trek’s history.

For those of you into the action and adventure, this movie will no doubt rock your world, but not everyone sees Trek that way. Me, I’m into the relationships and that all I’m looking for so the rest is just an extra.

167. King Of All Blacks - February 3, 2009


I appreciate BSG for going there with the dark/gritty/semi-realistic view of how the characters would react in their situation.

Pedophilia, Gang Rape, Torture, Forced Abortions, Pro-Life fanatics, Gays, Lesbians, etc. are a few of the topics the show has touched on which I found to be anti-trek.

I thought the show had no more dark places to go, then two episodes ago they had the series’ nicest character commit suicide by blowing her brains out.

i remember reading that when a character is down & out, Ron Moore & his writing team ask themselves “what else can we do to break this chatacter down?”

not exactly the most positive or uplifting show, and that’s why I like it.

-End Rant :)

168. Robert H. - February 3, 2009

So long story short, critics are raving about Star Trek.

169. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 3, 2009

167 King Of All Blacks — ditto on all that. I love BSG-Reimagined.

170. Charles H. Root, III - February 3, 2009

The best thing about the trailer is having it at home on TivoHD and playing it back frame by frame on a Pioneer Elite 60″ plasma.

From a production values standpoint, it looked pretty good… except for the short clip where the cadets are running out of the Starfleet Academy building to watch the attack. It looked fake, like the lighting & perspective were off or something.

And the “woo hoo” thing was such a blatant Star Wars ripoff it made me cringe. Can’t wait to see McCoy, though. He was always my favorite.

It does look, um… kinda fun? It’s no Lawrence of Arabia in space, but then again, neither was Dune.

I still think the Coen Bros would make a fantastic Trek film. Their body of work is much more impressive than anything Team JJ has done.

The GI Joe trailer looked like someone decided to do a remake of Team America: World Police with real people instead of marionettes, but didn’t get the fact that it was a parody.

171. Shatner_Fan_Prime - February 3, 2009

#159 … No way this cast will go into a series together. Paramount wouldn’t be spending $150 mil on this if anyone was thinking tv series. If we’re lucky, we’ll get these guys for 3 films.

172. Danpaine - February 3, 2009

#171 – absolutely. Couldn’t agree more. They’re all going to (try) to move on to different projects, I’m sure. Three films, max.

173. SH Cone - February 3, 2009

137 Dan – Dude, what? Shallow? You’ve determined “shallow” from the roughly 3 minutes of footage that we have between a TV commercial and a trailer? For a movie that’s roughly 2 hours?

You have incredible analytic skills! Wow! I bet you only had to listen to mere minutes of lectures in college to ace year end exams!

What arrogance that continually gets displayed by Trek fans. Geez. You have no idea if the philosophical core is in tact or not. You act as if Star Trek was a tortoise-paced bastion of dialogue and slow camera movements with no action. Like nobody ever did that goofy “two-fists to the STOMACH, two-fists-to-the BACK OF THE NECK!” faux karate maneuver for like, 40 years.

Incredible ignorance. Stunning lack of objectivity. Just… bizarre.

174. Paul - February 3, 2009

A big budget doesn’t make a good film any more than a small budget makes a bad film. It can help sharpen special effects in a a sci fi film but blowing stuff up doesn not equal a good film. I saw an old episode of South Park the other day where terrorists took over our imaginations – had some really good satirical stuff in there about the state of the movie industry!

Ah, who am I kidding – I loved Underworld: Rise of the Lycans!

175. Commodore Lurker - February 3, 2009

Decloaking . . .

Ranked behind Land of the Lost, which is going to totally suck, how insulting.


176. JWM - February 3, 2009

#175 – Yeah, how the Hell did Land of the Lost get a positive review? The ad itself sucked and looked like yet-another-Will-Ferrell-respectfully-mocks-the-1970s movie. Nothing in it was compelling at all. At all.

The Star Trek ad got one person, who was watching it with me, and who has avowed an actual *hatred* of previous Trek efforts, to say, “Huh. I’ll go see that.”


177. James Heaney - Wowbagger - February 3, 2009

#173: I hope that we do see some faux-karate. Otherwise it won’t be canon.


178. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 3, 2009

170 Charles H. Root, III — If the Coen brothers did a sci-fi movie, it would be awesome, but I don’t think they would, and even if so, it wouldn’t be Star Trek — they’d want uncharted ground, or maybe a remake of an older film.

Hmm… Coen brothers remake Soylent Green… I’d see that any day!

179. sean - February 3, 2009

#159, 164

Perhaps they were unknown to you, but among the general audience a number of them are actually quite recognizable. Simon Pegg has a pretty big following here in the states, and an even bigger one in Europe. Urban has been in The Lord of the Rings as well as Bourne, not exactly low profile films. He was very nearly James Bond for goodness sake! John Cho is faaar from unknown, especially among the 18-25 set. Zoe probably is the least recognizable, but not all her films have been flops (Pirates, The Terminal).

180. CmdrR - February 3, 2009


$3M… that’s 300,000 tickets… or, me being able to tell my boss what I really think. I hope it works out for Paramount, because I really had a speech worked up.

181. Andy Patterson - February 3, 2009


Yes….if he, and everyone else, categorically refuses to pay even a little homage to Shatner’s style, delivery (whatever derogatory term it’s become) then by all means let’s get some Kirk Fu in there.

182. I am Kurok! - February 3, 2009

I know this is straying on the topic, but PIKE ROCKS! Unfortunately he has a short shelf-life in canon (he’ll be in a computerized wheelchair in a few ST years..) but I’d like to see him in at least one sequel.

183. CmdrR - February 3, 2009

Curses… robbed of the coveted 178th position. NEXT TIME!!!

184. THX-1138 - February 3, 2009


Actually in the new universe he doesn’t get injured. So maybe we’ll see a TV series about him after all.

185. AJ - February 3, 2009



If Pike doesn’t get injured, why does Kirk take command from Spock after their argument? On the site, “Pike’s tragic fate” in the film was referred to by those ‘in the know’ more than once.

I agree, the JJ version of Pike looks great. He and Sarek are driving forces behind their sons’ ascendance to greater things (at least the trailer makes it seem so).

186. Weerd1 - February 3, 2009

106 Katarian Eggs-
I must respectfully disagree on the GI Joe commercial. As someone who has been a Joe fan as long as a Trek fan (12″ fuzzy head grooviness!) and still collects (over 800 3 3/4″ Joes) the black uniformed, robot suit wearing underwear models were NOT my GI Joe team. I have my issues with Trek, but am still very much looking forward to the new film, which I think will succeed. The Joe commercial reminded me far more of GI Joe the Animated movie in its tone than any of the brilliant comic work of the last 26 years. The Trek commercial alone is far more “Trek” IMHO than the Joe commerical was Joe. Looking ahead to the Warren Ellis scribed “GI Joe: Resolute” cartoon though…
See? I can be a disgruntled fan in several genres! ;)

187. McCoy - February 3, 2009

173 “Incredible ignorance. Stunning lack of objectivity. Just… bizarre.” (In reference to post 137)

Seems to me he was just giving his impression of the trailer. You may have a different one. But if you still think he was referring to the whole movie, I would argue it’s equally ignorant to assume the movie is “great” or “awesome” like so many have said. Right, have to wait for the movie.

The biggest change to what we know about Trek is the pacing (what 137 was referring too). There have been good Trek stories and not so good Trek stories but this one changes it all into that Star Wars realm of multiple thrill-ride moments. This fundamental change is likely to be the key to bringing the “non-Trek” fans to the theater (to get the thrill) however, it changes what we know and it’s OK to be concerned or put-off by it.

188. Ponnfarr9669 - February 3, 2009

Kirk never looked like a “boy” aboard the Enterprise…..He was at Least in his thirties during TOS,Why did they have to cast a Freddy Prinze Jr look alike to play Kirk…..Bad call…..other than that the casting is spot on…..O h yeah one more thing……I think it would be awesome to see Wes Studi as Sarek.

189. Mr Lirpa - February 3, 2009

# 188,

Chris pine is 29, William shatner was 34 when they first shot TOS

not a lot in it. Incidentally Quinto is even closer to Nimoy’s age (at the time of TOS). so both actors are probably too old to play the parts…

190. THX-1138 - February 3, 2009



I was joking, big fella’. And poking fun at the AU all in the same fell swoop.

191. Weerd1 - February 3, 2009

It will be interesting to see if they kill Pike here, or if Nero puts him in a wheelchair…

Does damage to the Enterprise in the film cause some radiation leakage…?

192. tman - February 3, 2009

I don’t know, why people here don’t think Star Trek was about action. In TOS there may have been a philosophic point that drives the conflict or resolves it but action, action, action in between. Why do people here seem to remember something high-brow? It never was.

The biggest concern I have is whether this will be MI3 Good or Legend of Zorro bad.

193. AJ - February 3, 2009


tman: If you have “The Cage” with Roddenberry’s intro, you can put it into better perspective. He talks about how he wanted to make an “intelligent” TV show with provocative themes, and that he had to sell it as a “Space Western” to the network because Westerns were hot at the time. So you had action and adventure as part and parcel of a much larger story.

194. Star Trackie - February 3, 2009

#192 “I don’t know, why people here don’t think Star Trek was about action. In TOS there may have been a philosophic point that drives the conflict or resolves it but action, action, action in between. Why do people here seem to remember something high-brow? It never was.”

Because they’re remembering the last 20 years of Berman Trek, which was low key and somewhat pretentious. TOS was always fun, imaginative action/adventure laced with a good dose of humor, romance and a LITTLE social commentary…not a lot. Subtlety was the key in the “social commentary” department. Apparently WAY too many “Trek” fans havn’t watched enough of it.

195. CLSUSMC - February 3, 2009

I’m not sure what everyone else is seeing, but I have seen Trek twice in the last two weeks as the banner on ESPN, and my theater has 3 Trek posters up.

196. S. John Ross - February 3, 2009

#173 sez “You’ve determined “shallow” from the roughly 3 minutes of footage that we have between a TV commercial and a trailer? For a movie that’s roughly 2 hours?”

So true. But in fairness, I’ve seen dozens of folks here conclude that the film is transcendentally awesome (and defend it as if they feel some kind of allegiance to it) from the same amount of footage, and I think they deserve to be called out for it, too.

Anyone who has an opinion of this movie, at this point (positive OR negative), is either one of the filmmaking team, one of the people who have been given a sneak-peek by the filmmakers, someone with clairvoyant magic and/or psychic powers, or in some way stupid and/or insane. There’s no fifth category.

And to the clairvoyants: hook a guy up with some horse race results, willya?

197. S. John Ross - February 3, 2009


I agree with your entire post except the part where you say “Subtlety was the key in the “social commentary” department.”

Insert your own memories of Frank Gorshin in half black/whiteface here … or of the space hippies on their way to Eden, or many other memorable “subtleties” :)

But yes, social commentary was just one facet of a sexy, action-packed show. That said, just making (or trying to make) something sexy and action-packed doesn’t put it in TOS’s league. Time will tell.

198. Crusade2267 - February 3, 2009


Or how about the whole “Do you remember the Vietnam war” speech on Tyree’s Planet?

199. Spock's Brain - February 3, 2009

Thanks A.P. for listing the “new” footage.

200. Spock's Brain - February 3, 2009

TOS was anything but subtle on its ideology.

201. Robbed - February 3, 2009

Only for the video game generation. Lowd, rediclulous amounts of action, girls dipicted as barbie dolls. Wow Star Trek has sold out!

202. SHCone - February 3, 2009

For the record, I’ve been calling for neutrality and giving the film a chance. I’m not all for it, though I am excited to see what it does.

203. BK613 - February 3, 2009

to be honest I googled it and quoted the data from here (top of the list):

204. SHCone - February 3, 2009

TOS was quite edgy and not very subtle at all. There’s a different between “consistent” and “subtle”.

It was often very blatant when it came to pointing out what it was trying to say, but it was *consistent* in doing it. It doesn’t jar you because, well, it did it openly, and did so 99% of the time. Someone usually makes some kind of moral speech at some point, zeroing you right in on the issue at hand.

And as for sexuality – the last few times I saw TOS I’m pretty sure that famous Orion Slave Girl was one of the stills over the ending credits. It’s one of Trek’s biggest jokes that Kirk had a way with the ladies. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that TOS was without sexual overtones – female starfleet officers were wearing those short skirts on duty. It was as edgy as it could get away with at the time.

205. MARCO - February 3, 2009

mmmm…looks ok….hope it’s not style over substance….

206. tman - February 3, 2009

193, 194.

I have seen that commentary by Roddenberry, but I think we are not disagreeing. Star Trek was an intelligently written action/adventure– not a battle-star galactica 1980 or a Buck Rogers. But it wasn’t high-brow entertainment. If I look at the better books by Lem, Heinlein, Huxley, Wells, Dick, and Bradbury the stories they create and the reflection on them cannot readily transpose to 40 minutes of TV every week. They did what they could with the medium, which means it was a fun action/adventure/comedy, just really well written. When with TMP, they tried to make something high-brow, it turned out that that wasn’t Star Trek and they retreated (to TWOK).

I think if this movie turned out to be a romp in a Star Trek flavored world (even if respectful of cannon) without good writing or any message or meaning there’s a valid point to say they screwed up.–But I don’t think the pace of the film or it being an action film should be offputting. Too many people here are just dismissing it as an action flick, likening it to Star Wars and putting their noses up. I think that attitude is wrong.

207. Star Trackie - February 3, 2009

Insert your own memories of Frank Gorshin in half black/whiteface here … or of the space hippies on their way to Eden, or many other memorable “subtleties” :)

Granted there were some really broad strokes in a few of the episodes, but in the entire scheme of things, there was much more subtlety than there was, blatant, in your face commentary. It was there, it just wasn’t as prominent in the 79 episodes as many believe. Kind of like the Red shirts getting killed or Kirk sleeping with alien babes every episode. It happened, but not near as often as people make it appear.

208. OR Coast Trekkie - February 3, 2009

The only thing that could have made this spot any better would’ve been a clip of Nimoy giving the “Live long and prosper” line.

209. MONGO - February 3, 2009

Mongo say over on this thread, too.

Trailer look good. Maybe many new peoples see movie. That good for Trek show. JJ spend money on right thing. People have to remember that thing change. Even Shakespeare play different performed now than when first done.

Mongo know that no matter what he say someone here probably argue with him.

210. JW Wright - February 3, 2009

Hey, where’d my post go?

All I -posted was:

Trio of Star Trek fragrances to boldly go where no man has gone before

Oy vey… may the Schwartz be with you!

Is there a problem with that?

211. Charles H. Root, III - February 3, 2009

@ 178. 4 8 15 16 23 42 –


Looks like the Coen Bros are bringing the Hugo & Nebula award winning novel “The Yiddish Policemen’s Union” to the big screen in 2010!

IMDB info here:

Novel info here:

Can’t wait!

212. Cobra Commander - February 3, 2009

The problem with the “action vs high-brow” debate is that both sides are essentially correct. I loved ST as a child because of the action. My 7yo son is getting into TOS because of the action. When I got older, I appreciated the “message” more.

My son doesn’t appreciate TNG due to lack of action. I loved (still love) TNG because it was new Trek! In 1987 we had TOS and 4 movies- that was it. TNG expanded the Trek Universe, but it was not as sexy or action-packed as TOS.

Maybe one day my son will look at TNG through different eyes, but right now we can enjoy TOS together because of the action AND the “message.” I suspect the new movie will have plenty of ST ideals in it too.

213. McCoy - February 3, 2009

I think we’re dealing how action is used in a film. Star Trek did not have a lot of X-Wing or Viper type “roller-coaster” effects. This includes TOS and all the other films. Trek is more Navy, Star Wars is more Airforce. Star Wars has more point of view shots so the theater audience feels like they were “on a ride”.

The action scenes in TOS and the films has seemed to play off the story. The action scenes and effects in Star Wars (especially the prequels) seem to be written into the story and enhanced specifically for ‘thrill” rather than moving the story forward logically or realistically (R2D2 jets). This is probably where the general feeling of “selling out” will come from.

214. McCoy - February 3, 2009

We have some distance from it now, but back in the day this action thing we are talking about is one of the differences that was mentioned between the two camps (SW and ST). I just liked them both.

Jedi took the idea of a gazillion ships in one scene to a new level, just for the thrill. The prequels did the same.

215. tman - February 3, 2009


Good arguement, but I think from what’s been posted, JJ doesn’t like the unrealistic and is pushing for realism. If something’s wizzing all over the place without regards to the forces it looks unrealistic, no matter what rationalization one uses. I think some of the newer Star Trek TV series have that kind of off-putting low budget animation. I think also Orci or one of the others referenced Master and Commander which to me implies that they “get it.” I don’t really know what to expect from their comments, but I can see lots of things you can do: Action within the ship while actions going on outside, shuttle crafts in peril, possibly from other small ships or possibly from big ones; or just how you visualize the combat between 2 big ships. In terms of angles, proximity, damage inflicted, and what’s going on inside the ship I think you can make something far more visually compelling while still having two large ships. These are also warp capable vessels, so how they engage can also be very dynamic and maybe there they can make them more visually compelling. There are also cheats like TWOK, where you lose the shields or lose the warp drives and it gets more real.

I would say wait until after the film to worry if it was a sellout. It seems they know what people are willing to accept, so I find it hard to believe they will completely reject the concept of warp capable vessels, with shields, torpedos and phasers duking it out like capital ships…

216. Hat Rick - February 3, 2009

213, that’s my strong impression, as well.

Interestingly, the warp speed maneuverability of Trek ships and their ability to fire while at warp is often said to make them invulnerable to Star Wars-style weaponry and tactics. This is despite the fact that Trek ships do tend to move like naval vessels.

To the person who said that large SW ships do not shoot while on the fly the way that the new Enterprise appears to, I will concede that. I was probably thinking of the large ships in B5.

217. Weerd1 - February 3, 2009

216- the large ships in Episode III and Clone Wars seem to do a lot of shooting while moving…

The idea of ships in the Star Trek universe being more manueverable than just naval ships is evident in sequels like DS9, and for that matter old school novels from the 80’s like “The Wounded Sky.” Check out Diane Duane’s description of the Enterprise fighting Klingons early on in that book with end-over-end moves to dispel momentum and slow the ship down. Probably fits with what Starfleet Battles was really intending as well. Zippy space battle don’t bother me as an old school Canonite, provided it isn’t the driving momentum of the story.

218. Fansince9 - February 3, 2009

136: I meant everything that comprises Star Trek to make it “Star Trek”. I would certainly modernize it, however I don’t see any reason for the characters in the story line to be promiscuous with a lot of “bang-bang shoot ’em up” gun fights tacked on. I’d say the exploration part is what would be best, along with a little drama mixed in. Time travel and the borg though? Hey, that’d be a good way to shake things up, maybe even adding Q to the mix would be a plus.

136. King Of All Blacks – February 2, 2009
# 135

but what would the main themes be about?

time travel?
the Borg?

219. THX-1138 - February 3, 2009

I thought the biggest disappointment of all the Super Bowl commercials was the godaddy spots. I went to their website and there were no naked women.

False advertising!

220. McCoy - February 3, 2009

If it’s the thrill-ride type sequences in the film that attract the new summer crowd, I fail to see how designs closer to classic would have dampened the experience for them.

Factor in the youth and underwear, I still fail to see how even the strange nacells will make the ride even better for the newbies.

When I realize the newbies don’t know or care what the “old stuff” looked like, and therefore won’t think any changes were made at all, I begin to think JJ’s group changed them as a statement to the existing fans. Which makes be a bit angry still.

221. Vulcan Soul - February 3, 2009

“While the crux of Star Trek was generally philosophical in nature, this Trek looks populated with frat boys. ”

Gotcha! ;)

222. tman - February 3, 2009

220- I begin to think JJ’s group changed them as a statement to the existing fans.

I think there is no way they could have kept TOS Enterprise intact and expected a modern audience to relate to it. Today’s audience is more technologically aware and a warship that has obvious structural weak points to target would not be credible.

I’m not a fan of the redesign (or rotating barrel, or cannons on the Kelvin) but I don’t think it’s a fair to say they were changing for changes’ sake.

223. BK613 - February 3, 2009

“a warship ”

“Our missions are peaceful, our weapons defensive”

“This is not a ship of war, it’s a ship of peace.”

Sorry couldn’t resist… :-)

224. Hat Rick - February 3, 2009

217, I suppose I was thinking of the turbolaser turrets on star destroyers, and perhaps you were. It seems that these turrets do not compare to the power of Federation ship phasers, nor, even so, are ships in the SW as maneuverable.

225. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 3, 2009

211 Charles H. Root, III — That looks right up my alley. I like alternate histories, and read & enjoyed P.K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle, so yeah, I can’t wait either….

226. Mark - February 3, 2009

What?!? They’re making a new Star Trek film? Is Shatner in it?

227. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 3, 2009

No, they’re making a new Star Wars movie, and Shatner plays Palpatine/The Emperor.

228. S. John Ross - February 3, 2009

#222 sez “Today’s audience is more technologically aware and a warship that has obvious structural weak points to target would not be credible.”

Thank you for the spray of iced tea on my keyboard :)

229. T.U.M. - February 4, 2009

#227 – Here’s my $9.50 RIGHT NOW!

230. tribble farmer - February 4, 2009

I never listen to critics. They never have anything good to say and condemn everything except small-time indie art films. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.