Watch New Star Trek (2009) TV Commercial – in HD [UPDATED: w/ Screencaps & Analysis] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch New Star Trek (2009) TV Commercial – in HD [UPDATED: w/ Screencaps & Analysis] March 23, 2009

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

A new TV commercial for the Star Trek movie just started airing this week. The 30 second spot has a mix of things seen in previous trailers and the Super Bowl commercial, plus some new scenes. Paramount has just released the video, and TrekMovie.com is the first to put it online – watch it below or download it in HD. [UPDATE: w/ Sceen shots & Analysis]

 

 

Forget Everything You Know
This commercial is clearly aimed at the action movie crowd, with the the clear message that there is a new Star Trek in town.

 

[QT Downloads: 1080p , 720p , 480p

 

 

[SPOILERS]

 

Screencaps & analysis
The following are caps of what is new in this commercial.

Click images to enlarge


Kirk (Chris Pine) fights beast on Delta Vega



Kirk in cave on Delta Vega (Nimoy’s Spock in background)



Olsen (Greg Ellis), Kirk and Sulu (John Cho) prepare to jump from shuttle to drilling rig over Vulcan


Nero (Eric Bana) in a bad mood (probably at Rura Penthe)


Sulu does back flip over Romulan on Narada’s drilling rig above Vulcan


Kirk takes a leap of faith while on board the Narada


Another planet gets wiped out by shockwave
[highlight invisotext: likely Romulus as sceen in Star Trek Countdown comics #2]

 

More trailer analysis and details
And in case you missed it, check out our previous shot-by-shot analyses:

Much of the above analysis is based on scenes in the trailer that were also shown during the 20-minute press preview held last Fall. For more on that see TrekMovie full analysis.

 

 

 

 

Comments

1. IIIIIII'M Captain KIRK!!! - March 23, 2009

Sweet! More stuff to watch.

2. Eprom - March 23, 2009

Fascinating

3. BlackVoid - March 23, 2009

Sweet stuff…Can’t wait.

4. Vorus - March 23, 2009

Looks like Romulus’ destruction might actually be in the film. Interesting.

5. RD - March 23, 2009

JUST PERFECT! FINALLY!

FORGET EVERYTHING YOU KNOW!!! LOL

… BECAUSE THIS IS A REBOOT!!!!

6. THE SMOKE - March 23, 2009

This is going to be the best movie of the year!!!!!!

7. johnny - March 23, 2009

this reboot is what trek really needs

8. Remington Steele - March 23, 2009

Class!!!

I’ve been sitting here for 2 hours waiting for it to be put up…take that good nights sleep.

Now to ridiculously go over every inch of it.

9. Tox Uthat - March 23, 2009

“Sounds like fun.”

10. senwod - March 23, 2009

Everything!? I hope not.

11. True Blood - March 23, 2009

Nice, but I’d love to see something that’s not been repeated in the last 4 trailers.

Something BRAND new…

Will we see one last new Trailer before the film? Or this is all there is till after the film comes out?

12. TBW - March 23, 2009

So yeah…that planet that eats it at the end of the commercial…any thoughts?

13. Remington Steele - March 23, 2009

Although the segment of music half way through is absolutely ridiculous…….

……it sounds like something from Beverly Hills 90210 or Melrose Place…..

14. Mark - March 23, 2009

This movie is gonna rage!!!

15. ThePhaige - March 23, 2009

Woot!

16. lukas - March 23, 2009

Good stuff!

17. fwise3 - March 23, 2009

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

18. hey star trek! - March 23, 2009

Sweet god.

19. mikey_pikey (Ireland) - March 23, 2009

nero is sexy :))

20. TOS fan of old - March 23, 2009

Folks, especially fellow fans -

This is a MARKETING EXERCISE. The goal is to involve as many non-fans as possible, because it is THEY who are needed for this film to succeed.

This isn’t nostalgia time.

This is pure business. If you want to see Star Trek live on, then the box office turnout MUST demonstrate profitability from this franchise!

Believe me, I’m an actual fan and viewer from the 1960s! I don’t like the “Forget Everything” part. BUT this 40+ year old show needs to be reinvigorated for new fans who will carry it forward!

As Gene Roddenberry himself said that Star Trek should outlive him and continue to focus on the messages which are relevant to the generation / audience watching.

We, the fans, won’t forget. But Paramount’s Marketing folks are brilliant. They’re invited NEW FANS aboard! And trust me, if you hear the snarky remarks from some teenagers and college kids about Star Trek, they think it’s old school. For them, this raises the cool factor to Warp 10!

Want Star Trek to live on with new adventures? Want to see the show carry on it’s legendary status and legacy?

Let the marketing message stand.

21. I am not Herbert - March 23, 2009

KICK-ASS!!!

22. Tox Uthat - March 23, 2009

And the best thing about the ad campaign, Countdown, and idle speculation is that I still don’t have a solid clue of what really is happening in the movie. I have an idea but I’m sure, as long as security is tight, no one will know until either the Aussies say something in early April or Europe check’s in before the U.S. open. Very nice, JJ.

23. TBW - March 23, 2009

Oh, Romulus. Right. For some reason, I just assumed we weren’t going to see that on film. Alternative theory…Klingon homeworld? (Shot in the dark…)

24. trekker77 - March 23, 2009

YEAH!!!

25. Pragmaticus - March 23, 2009

Ok, it looks like both Romulus and Vulcan get blown up in this movie.

26. I am not Herbert - March 23, 2009

Anthony thanks for the D/L links!! Trekmovie is the BEST!!!

27. Pragmaticus - March 23, 2009

And of course it’s a damn reboot, but get over it, you can’t throw a crew of 70-year-olds up on the screen. This keeps Trek alive for future generations.

28. Carlos Teran - March 23, 2009

I love the marketing campaign. My personal opinion in this matter is that if WE want Star Trek live long and pro$per, we have to support the franchise. We’re getting a fine, first class product… let’s enjoy it to the fullest, my friends.

29. OneBuckFilms - March 23, 2009

Thanks for this one !!!!!!

Fun little spot for the film. I think this is aimed at the teens to 20s crowd. Transformers etc.

Still good though.

30. Check the Circuit - March 23, 2009

Is that Spocko in the background of the ice cave? Cool!

(And TOS Fan is right gang. It’s a great spot to bring in the newbies. Power down your phaser banks. It’s cool.)

31. dbhays - March 23, 2009

Did I see Old Spock in that Ice Cave?

32. harley3k - March 23, 2009

Looks like Spock behind Kirk on the frozen planet…

Oh and holy frak!!

33. dbhays - March 23, 2009

30 – you beat me to it

34. Jeff C - March 23, 2009

So, riddle me this–how does going back in time change Vulcan’s sky to blue rather than pink or red?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

35. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 23, 2009

EARHT IS ATTACKED???!!

36. Jeff C - March 23, 2009

Romulus or Remus is the one destroyed in this commercial…which would mean that the planet that implodes in the theatrical preview is…

…most probably Vulcan.

They are destroying Vulcan in this movie, completely screwing over all of Trek…unless there is some kind of cosmic re-set at the end (which would be very Star Trek-y)…although it won’t go back far enough to take the 24th century upgrades to the Enterprise and Starfleet…leaving us with a hybrid universe.

If they don’t save Vulcan somehow, his film can bite my shiny metal butt.

Seriously.

37. mikey_pikey (Ireland) - March 23, 2009

hmm looks like spock behing kirk in one scene? also the shot of the shuttles flying over the golden gate looks a bit sunnier tha before?? or just me?

38. Clark J - March 23, 2009

It looks like they deliberately blurred Spock out. On my first watch it looked like an action figure in the foreground. On a second look it seems to be a blurred out Spock behind him.

The shuttle shot has also been changed since the super bowl commercial. It is much more bright and blue. Originally it looked much more foggy and grey.

39. Daoud - March 23, 2009

#34 Maybe on a dust-free day, it’s blue. Similar thing happens on Mars. Most days (viz. Phoenix and the Rovers) the sky is butterscotch (due to the dust). If there’s absolutely no dust, and the atmosphere is steady, it goes near blue (Rayleight scattering).

#12 Perhaps it’s Remus. ;) Or it might be Delta Vega, which makes any thoughts of a Mitchell in for Chekov (who gets sent home to relearn English) in the sequel a bit harder to figure out now if there’s no Delta Vega to have him dropped off on!

40. Sean - March 23, 2009

Definitely a commercial for the non fans. It was ok.

41. Tuvok - March 23, 2009

35

Yes, but they save it. Romulus is the one shown exploding.

42. Dr. Image - March 23, 2009

#20 Indeed.
From one old-time fan to another- Star Trek: Evolve or Die.
We’d all rather have it live than the alternative.

43. CardassiaPrimera - March 23, 2009

Excellent. Good By Romulus!!!!!!!!!!

44. sean - March 23, 2009

#40

I’m a fan, and it did the job for me. The use of more modern musical cues is a smart choice for Joe Moviegoer.

45. Section33 - March 23, 2009

And I have a new mash up on the go

46. VOODOO - March 23, 2009

The whole “forget what you know” and the total exclusion of Leonard Nimoy in the marketing of this film gives me a bad feeling.

I know it’s a commercial for the masses, but throw the fans who made this series what it is a bone. Please don’t let “Star Trek” turn into “Top Gun”

47. Section33 - March 23, 2009

I am curently working on a film promo so it might not be done till the weekend… But rest assured… There will be another section33 trailer…

48. Xai - March 23, 2009

If you haven’t read #20…do.

49. Section33 - March 23, 2009

#46…

Kirk: Mr. Spock… your Logic’s writing cheques your body can’t cash!
Spock: I will not allow you to lecture me!

Cue Zero G volley ball to ‘Playing With The Boys’

50. USS TRINOMA NCC-0278 - March 23, 2009

Paramount will make Star Trek mainstream!!! No doubt in my mind. They will not spend 150 million dollars in vain. Star Trek will pave the way for Transformers 2 and G I Joe. They are heavily marketing Star Trek for the fact that before the film begins, the audience will see the previews for Transformers 2 and G I Joe. Paramount is launching a triple threat for summer 2009. Brad Grey (Paramount Studios President) is a marketing genius.

51. valdore1982 - March 23, 2009

I luv the new trailer and I am trying to get most of my friends some who are trekkies and aren’t to come see the movie so far i have 3 people to come with me.

52. Chroma - March 23, 2009

I guess I am in the minority but as a Trek fan my whole life I am loving this. I can’t wait to see a new Trek film that restarts this franchise for a whole new generation. Bring it on. :]

53. patrick - March 23, 2009

#20

Best post of the year.

54. SChaos1701 - March 23, 2009

52

You aren’t in the minority.

55. GarySeven - March 23, 2009

I do not want to “Forget what I know.” I treasure what I know. Change, as a wise philospher once said, is the essential process of all existence. But “Forget what I know..”? I don’t think so.
This movie better not suck.

56. The Last Maquis - March 23, 2009

Screw that “Action Crowd” Comment, This was Better than trailer 3 that everyone was Clamoring over, left me saying “Holy Sh#%!!”

57. CarlG - March 23, 2009

@52: Agreed, you aren’t. Cranky people just sound louder on the internet. :)

58. Driver - March 23, 2009

They’re reissuing the TOS movies, albeit remastered, and the TOS shows in May and I’m supposed to forget everything I know for the new film?

Which is also in May.

What shall I do in June?

59. Thomas - March 23, 2009

Anybody else notice that Nero has tattoos on his neck/upper back? It’s a little difficult to sidtinguish from the screencap above, but if you pause the trailer as it fades to “YOU KNOW” to Nero turning and facing the camera, you can see them.

60. Unbel1ever - March 23, 2009

The scenes in the spot are not very well chosen. The superbowl spot was far superior. I don’t think I would be interested in watching the movie based on those scenes, if I wasn’t a Trek fan.

61. falcon - March 23, 2009

@50 – Let’s wait and see what happens when the movie comes out. If it makes $50+ million in the first weekend, it’s a bona fide smash. But there has to be a carry-through effect for Transformers 2 and G. I. Joe. Otherwise the “marketing genius” is only batting .333.

62. Chadwick - March 23, 2009

56. The Last Maquis No way, the last trailer “FIRE EVERYTHING” was the best by far!!!!!

63. Thomas - March 23, 2009

Sorry, that should be “distinguish”.

64. falcon - March 23, 2009

And did anybody else notice in the screencaps that Nero looks like he’s had the points on his ears chewed off? Those Klingon targs are truly hungry beasts.

65. Norbert - March 23, 2009

I hope the Romulans won’t be wiped out in the 24th century. Would be a shame.

66. Rocket Scientist - March 23, 2009

52. DEFINITELY not in a minority.

(Why do I now have this urge to declare *I* am Spartacus!!)

8^D

67. Captain Cameron goes Berserk!! - March 23, 2009

It pisses me off a bit when ever I see something new about this film and then realize that it’s just a Ride, like in the summer at an amusement park. doesn’t mean It won’t be Fun, It won’t be Star Trek really, but It’ll be entertaining.

68. Chadwick - March 23, 2009

All this planet talk, Vulcan is red, Romulus is blue and green like Earth. The imploding planet is Vulcan, the planet destroyed by the shockwave is Romulus because it is blue and green until the shockwave gets close enough, its reflection turns Romulus red (like Vulcan) before the shockwave destroys it. Get it? Got it? Good!

If there were a cosmic reset I would think that only the planets Nero destroys (back in time) would be restored. Romulus was destroyed by a natural phenomenon, where as Nero travels back to destroy Vulcan, Romulus would still be space dust.

Well we know that if Romulus is destroyed by the shockwave then so is Remus, and just when the Remans were gaining their independence. If ancient Vulcan’s never traveled to “Romulus” would Romulan space have been the Reman Empire?

@ 20. TOS fan of old I agree but every day I find less and less trek fans upset with the movie, we are all (more or less) embracing it. What you said may have applied a year ago or two ago, maybe even 6 months ago, but I find almost all trek fans embracing the new movie. All my non-Trek friends (i.e. “star trek is for nerds or star trek is gay”) want to see this movie, I could not belive it, I was ecstatic. I have always had high hopes and was excited for this movie. I was never anal retentive about the direction of Star Trek.

Humans have done extreme things to survive, humans change to survive. Star Trek needs to do what it must to survive. Long live the Trek, NO retirement, NO END!

@ 22. Tox Uthat I very much agree, they have shown us a lot without telling us a lot and there is a big difference between the two. We have all seen a lot and we can logically piece things and predict things, you could say what this movie is in a nutshell, but that would not be totally accurate. I said waaaaay back when I saw the teaser trailer with Nimoy’s voice, I am not going to see or read any spoilers, and I have seen and read them all lol. But I have no idea what is going to happen, we are still in the dark on about..maybe….80-90% of the movie?

@ 28. Carlos Teran “We’re getting a fine, first class product… let’s enjoy it to the fullest, my friends.” I agree, first class, five stars, and not just any silver platter but handed to us on a platinum and gold diamond studded platter.
Paramount: “Here ya go, eat up.”

37. mikey_pikey (Ireland) Yea it does look brighter, probably just some editing filter.

T MINUS 45 DAYS!!!!!!!!!

69. Jordan - March 23, 2009

Good trailer! Don’t really care for the music, and why “forget everything you know”????? Other than that, awesome!

70. Captain Cameron goes Berserk!! - March 23, 2009

#62. Chadwick

Okay, I’ll give you that.

“FIRE EVERYTHING”

sounds like my Boss at my first job back in high school.

71. BrF - March 23, 2009

If you go frame by frame — which you’re doing anyway, of course — I think you can spy the pattern of city lights on the shaded side of whatever planet it is that is destroyed at the end of the commercial. We’ve already had that from Lucas in the episodes which must not be named, but it’s still a nice touch.

72. Bob Tompkins - March 23, 2009

On the Delta Vega caps, Pine’s makeup and expression [heavy on the eyeliner, a key light on the eyes, mouth shape] matches some shots of Shat in TOS. Maybe the kid’s got something working there.

I’ve also noted- no pointy sideburns….

73. spiked canon - March 23, 2009

Clip at 24 seconds…the planet destroyer beam is hitting Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!

74. Stanky McFibberich - March 23, 2009

re: 48. Xai – March 23, 2009
“If you haven’t read #20…do.”

Why? I feel bad enough already.

75. spiked canon - March 23, 2009

get over it Stank….your in the minority

76. spiked canon - March 23, 2009

Anthony…can you pull the clip at 24 secs at the academy…first I’ve seen/heard of this

77. Darkwing - March 23, 2009

yeah, money’s on earch getting blown up along with other planets. whatever kirk does is going to have to be bigger than his typical save earth routine, it’s probably more like save galaxy routine now

78. Robert H. - March 23, 2009

I’m guessing the planet getting wiped out by the shockwave was Romulus, based upon the Countdown comics.

79. JP Saylor - March 23, 2009

Grrrrrr…. don’t get me wrong, I cannot wait until the release of this movie.. I just never thought that Star Trek ever needed a reboot. Sure, some episode weren’t awesome, but that’s not to say the message of Star Trek is ‘dated’ or in need of a reboot.

I remember hearing something about a STTNG ‘bible’ that was for the writers of the show. It was basically a book describing how certain things in the Trek universe worked an so forth; however they did say one thing that I’ll never forget:

“Exciting drama has always been about the people.”

If this movie fails in that regard, I will be royally pissed off.

80. Stanky McFibberich - March 23, 2009

re: 75. spiked canon – March 23, 2009
“get over it Stank….your in the minority”

Could be. The minority which is not suckered in by all the bullcrap hoopla.

81. Anthony Pascale - March 23, 2009

RE: shot at academy
http://trekmovie.com/2009/02/01/star-trek-super-bowl-commercial-officially-online-trekmovie-shot-by-shot-analysis/

it was in the sb spot

82. JimJ - March 23, 2009

Once again, I didn’t think a new trailer would top the last one. Well, in a sense, I was right. This doesn’t beat the last trailer but that’s because this is a TV spot. IT does, however, knock the socks off the Super Bowl one! I am SO READY for this movie!!!! Sorry, Stank…I’m with #48 (and 20), too. I was born the same year as Trek and I honestly think it needs this, and it needs Kirk & Spock again!

83. SaphronGirl - March 23, 2009

In that shot where Kirk looks like he’s having an emotional melt-down in the ice cave, do you think Spock’s just unloaded some heavy information on him? Or maybe even done a mindmeld?

84. Newman - March 23, 2009

awesome awesome awesome!!!!!!!!!

85. gazzacanuck87 - March 23, 2009

so….24 century anyone?…..where the hells countdown number 4 to clear(hopefully) this up….
and this is going to be one hell of a long month

86. Trek Defense League - March 23, 2009

Kirk and Spock in gold and blue, doing their thing on the big screen. Any sacrifice to the canon is worth it for that.

87. Mr. AtoZ - March 23, 2009

He’s what everyone needs to do.
On ur cell phone as ur text signatures u need to put:
~Star Trek in theaters May 8th~
and every time u text someone ur supporting the movie.

88. David West - March 23, 2009

Considering all the other rumors and things out there…

I expect Romulus gets destroyed in the opening credits, as a ‘flashback’ to set up everything.

I expect Vulcan gets it 5 to 10 minutes into the movie. This is what I think Countdown is leading to. It is rumored there is 10 or so minutes of ‘setup’ before the story takes off.

This scenario gives Spock motivation to go back in time in order to stop Vulcan’s destruction. Nero follows after Spock so he won’t reverse what happened.

89. Alex Rosenzweig - March 23, 2009

#42 – “We’d all rather have it live than the alternative.”

Of course, if it’s turned into something entirely disconnected and no longer linked to 4 decades of Trek’s world, what’s the difference between that and the alternative?

That said, really, I think it’s very obvious that this commercial is aimed at the folks who never watched Trek before, either because they weren’t ever exposed to it or have preconceived notions. We know already that there are lots of things for fans in the film, but they do have to entice the folks who’ve looked down their noses at Trek in the past to give this film a shot, and this is their way of doing so.

Given that, for the moment, I’m going to continue to trust that Mr. Abrams et al. are not lying through their teeth in the assertions that this will eventually bring us to the beginning of the world of TOS (visual differences notwithstanding).

90. gornorrrhea - March 23, 2009

@55 – I need my pain :)

91. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - March 23, 2009

some great things coming in Trek. I have been reading the comic of the New movie on the prequeal and theres some great stuff and it is a great tie in to the movie. if you have not read the comic part then you should so you will know more about how things got started.

92. Dennis Bailey - March 23, 2009

Looks great.

93. Viking - March 23, 2009

‘Or maybe even done a mindmeld?’

#83 – yup. I bet Spock had just laid a Cliff Notes whammy on Kirk with just enough futurepast mojo to make him finally get his toochis and head wired together properly.

Hey – has anyone done a good mashup of all the trailers together yet, in as good a chronological order as one can guess?

94. Alex Rosenzweig - March 23, 2009

#86 – “Kirk and Spock in gold and blue, doing their thing on the big screen. Any sacrifice to the canon is worth it for that.”

No, not really. But the idea that such a sacrifice would even be necessary to get a really awesome Kirk-and-Spock story strikes me as kind of bizarre.

95. Dennis Bailey - March 23, 2009

#89: “Of course, if it’s turned into something entirely disconnected and no longer linked to 4 decades of Trek’s world, what’s the difference between that and the alternative?”

As long as it’s connected in some interesting way to the three years of TOS, a great deal for lots of us. :-)

96. Elise - March 23, 2009

93 Yeah, we should have enough for that by now. ;)

97. Alex Rosenzweig - March 23, 2009

#95 – If it’s connected to TOS, like they promise, I’m in total agreement. But then it’s not entirely disconnected, and there’s no issue. ;)

‘Course, since much of the rest is decades in the future, it really wouldn’t be relevant unless the film does something that explicitly suggests that it didn’t happen. And I’m rather suspecting that the film won’t do that, though I could of course be wrong.

98. Jess - March 23, 2009

Is no one bothered by the fact that the sky on what appeas to be Vulcan is quite blue and no where near red-orange as shown in the tv series?

99. Dennis Bailey - March 23, 2009

#98: No, not at all. Why?

100. Yspano - March 23, 2009

I hope that, by the time the movie comes out in a little over a month, we will not have seen all the best footage through the trailers! XD

101. sean - March 23, 2009

#46

didn’t they give us a trailer specifically for fans with spock in it? seems like a bone to me.

102. Shatterhand - March 23, 2009

I can’t help but wonder if, in that scene in the Delta Vega cave, Spock Prime mind-melds with Kirk to show him the future that’s been torn asunder by Nero’s interference in the past. After all, he’d have all those memories in his head, and maybe he felt the need to impart upon Kirk just what is at stake. That would certainly explain Kirk’s shocked, breathless reaction. Just speculation, of course…

Also, I’d sure like to see a preview or two not entirely focused on Kirk. What about Spock? I know Chris Pine’s the guy they want to draw the crowds, but this story is only half about Kirk.

103. Devon - March 23, 2009

#80 – “Could be. The minority which is not suckered in by all the bullcrap hoopla.”

Suckered in? More like the ones who are starting it.

104. Will - March 23, 2009

“Forget everything you know”

So… this movie is for stupid people with empty minds? Have they really just admitted it?

That joke aside, is it just me or does Kirk, as he’s walking away from Spock Prime, look almost as if he’d just been… mentally sodomized?

105. Steven - March 23, 2009

Well, as we’ve seen in the “Countdown” prequel comics, Romulus is destroyed by a Supernova, and Nero, hell-bent on vengeance, decides that he will first target Vulcan. So, if Vulcan is indeed destroyed in the new movie, we’ve had fair warning. Continuity would be a little skewed, but as the new commercial states, “Forget everything you know.” Doesn’t make my anticipation for the film diminish at all. Come on, May 8th!

God bless!

106. Chronic_Pon_farr - March 23, 2009

FORGET EVERYTHING YOU KNOW…

BECAUSE YOU PRICEY STAR TREK TOYS, DVDS, BLUE RAYS, HAVE BEEN MADE OBSOLETE…

THIS SUMMER…

GET READY…

TO THROW THEM ALL AWAY.

ONE MAN….

ONE DESIRE…

JJ. ABRAMS…

in….

STAR TREK

107. sean - March 23, 2009

#94

“No, not really. But the idea that such a sacrifice would even be necessary to get a really awesome Kirk-and-Spock story strikes me as kind of bizarre.”

I can give you a very simple answer to that, Alex – some of the canon was of questionable quality. Why *shouldn’t* they ditch the bad, keep the essentials and move on from there? Why force yourself to adhere to the minor details of a 40 year franchise that a decent portion of your audience will have little regard for? The essentials of Kirk are in his personality, not the fact that his never-again-mentioned brother died because of flying vomit or that he once served on The Republic or once met Methuselah.

108. Speed - March 23, 2009

WOW….

109. JimJ - March 23, 2009

Hmmm…wonder why the discussion baord keeps saying no comments until after you comment. Anyway, after watching this again, I get the feeling that Kirk’s meeting with Spock Prime is gonna be quite moving, in many ways.

110. Almighty - March 23, 2009

Forget everything you know is for non trekkies guys

get over it

Most people out there think every fan of star trek is a 40 + Y/O “comic book guy from the simpsons” type.

They’re trying to get a new audience and that is the way to do it .

Tell them this is a new trek and you can forget the stereotypes

Once they have them in the door if the movie is good word of mouth will sell it to others including the Trek fans.

111. The Quickening - March 23, 2009

I saw the Super Bowl commercial for the TRANSFORMERS 2 movie and remember being blown away by several diverse and amazing visual “money shots” and sequences. This TREK film seems to be showing only one, that of course being the drilling platform sequence, and they keep showing it over and over again. Blowing up planets and space battles are old school, so they don’t impress me. Either Abrams and company are holding back, or this film is wanting in this area. Not a good sign for a film that hopes to capture the youth demographic and the general audience. Good luck.

112. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 23, 2009

Avoiding reading the analysis due to wish to avoid spoilers, but Nero looks cool!

113. pock speared - March 23, 2009

#98, etc.

the sky above my house varies in hue sometimes. vulcan might also have that thoroughly non-canonical, skanky-arrogance-validating atmospheric condition.

skanks man, you’ve become your own tool. enjoy your misery, embrace your bitter dregs. it so increases my enjoyment of this, the first real trek film in years.

114. DarthDogg - March 23, 2009

Is it just me, or does the Bloddy Wound on Nero’s ear look red? Should it not be Green. I dont know of any time travel explanation that would change the color of a sprcies blood. Although ive never seen a romulans blood, i would asume that it is as green as a Vulcans.

115. DarthDogg - March 23, 2009

Actually, now that I really think about it, I have seen Romulans bleed several times on TNG and it defenetly should be Green!

116. Admiral_BlackCat - March 23, 2009

114
and klingon blood should be purple, but it changed to red at some point as well.

117. The Original Animated Next Generation Deep Space Voyager Enterprise - March 23, 2009

That screen cap of Nero makes him look like a young Marc Alaimo/Gul Dukat sans the Cardassian facial features, heh.

118. David - March 23, 2009

There is another short TV spot that I just saw that used ‘The Future Begins’ tagline

119. Izbot - March 23, 2009

34. Jeff C –
“So, riddle me this–how does going back in time change Vulcan’s sky to blue rather than pink or red?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.”

Well, T’Pol mentioned in “Strange New World” that occasionally the sky on Vulcan does indeed appear as blue as the sky on what will later be named Archer IV. And its’ sky (coincidentally) looked a lot like that of southern California. Plus, 39 gives a pretty good rationalizing.

120. Imrahil - March 23, 2009

I look forward to the Blu-Ray discs of TOS season 1. I want my Father’s Star Trek back.

121. Izbot - March 23, 2009

I wish people here would stop referring to this film as “Star Trek: The Future Begins”. The tagline is just a piece of marketing and nothing more. We don’t refer to “Star Trek: Insurrection” as “Star Trek: Insurrection: The Battle for Paradise is About to Begin” or “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” as “Star Trek: The Motion Picture: The Human Adventure is About to Begin”. Nor should anyone, after seeing this TV spot, start calling it “Star Trek: On May 8th Forget Everything You Know”. It’s just stupid.

We’ll come up with something else to abbreviate it as we can all accept.

122. Hat Rick - March 23, 2009

Regarding the new trailer: I see. I like. :-)

123. Spock's Brain - March 23, 2009

5. RD – March 23, 2009
“JUST PERFECT! FINALLY! FORGET EVERYTHING YOU KNOW!!! LOL
… BECAUSE THIS IS A REBOOT!!!!”

No. “Forget what you know” because there’s been a temporal encroachment.

124. Mockit - March 23, 2009

Looks like Pine-Kirk has mindmeld aftershock face…and that can only mean that the spirit of Shatner’s Kirk lives on yo!!!
Mwahahahahahaha!!!

125. Rich - March 23, 2009

This is what I get for missing staff meetings, but when was it revealed that the ice planet was Delta Vega? And is it the same Delta Vega from “Where No Man Has Gone Before”? Or a different planet in the system? And if it IS the same planet, can I at least posit that it’s one of the poles, as the planet in TOS was more… arid/rocky? (beginning evasive maneuvers in anticipation of “don’t freak out over canon; it’s a reboot” comments) I thought I had been fairly zealous in my spoiler consumption (to my moderate chagrin, but STILL…), but I’ve seen this Delta Vega reference mentioned here and there (only in photo captions, mind you), and was curious as to how we know this wee datum?

126. OR Coast Trekkie - March 23, 2009

Why are fans taking the “Forget What You Know?” so personally? They are telling folks who aren’t fans to forget the camp and the cheese of TOS (yes, I am a fan of the show, but I also recognize that it is also kind of campy) because this movie is gonna blow your flippen mind. I know mine is.

And action doesn’t make a movie unintelligent.

127. MC1 Doug - March 24, 2009

#36: “Romulus or Remus is the one destroyed in this commercial…which would mean that the planet that implodes in the theatrical preview is…”

Read the four-part comic prequel “Star Trek: Countdown” so you can know of Romulus and Remus’ fate.

The fact that four-parter is written by the film’s authors should give fans a sense of security.

The comic is quite good! In it, we even get some true resolution to Data’s death in “Nemesis.”

AND if there were ever the chance to do a ST: TNG reunion, after reading this comic, I would hope that Orci and Kurtzman write it. They have a good feel for those characters as well.

I am so pumped about this movie!

128. MC1 Doug - March 24, 2009

Let’s face it, the media blitz Paramount is incredibly important. After the commercial flop “Nemesis,” the studio has carefully been building the momentum to protect, enhance and revitalize th franchise.

I would have to imagine that Berman et al have to be envious of the attention e lavished on this film (budget, promos, tie-ins, etc). If Paramount had done this back then, perhaps so much wouldn’t be riding on this upcoming film.

If this movie flops (andI really do NOT believe that will be the case) it will be a long time before we see the likes of a TREK film or TV series.

so.. Paramount spin doctors, hit us with your best shot!!!!

129. Pat Payne - March 24, 2009

116: Naw, Klingon blood should be red (it was red throughout most of the different TV series-(es?), even predating VI), but they changed it to purple for VI for two reasons:

1) to allow for the “unmasking” scene (“This is not Klingon blood…”) at the end as well as to help in the mystery sequences which hinged on the dfferences between Klingon and human blood

-and-

2) to avoid a MPAA “R” rating, as the assassination scene (and subsequent surgery scene) were pretty gruesome for a Trek film.

130. Pat Payne - March 24, 2009

119: “And its’ sky (coincidentally) looked a lot like that of southern California.”

And its geology (coincidently) looks a lot like Vasquez Rocks/Kirk’s Rock :D

131. rumpcuż - March 24, 2009

Wow. This is soooo MEH! Very, very weak. And that hip music in background, that’s a turnoff.

“Forget everything you know” – what a subtle way to put “No canon for you”

I was REALLY optimistic for this movie, but recent happenings (the logo, supposedly Giacchino’s music on the website and music in this commercial) are throwing me off, sadly.

132. Chris M - March 24, 2009

TV Spot looks awesome! Can’t believe it’s only 44 days away!!

133. DJT - March 24, 2009

Finally! Some marketing. Let’s keep it going. There’s only forty something days left right?

134. Berti Semmler - March 24, 2009

‘Forget everything you know’… I hope this movie not only gets rid of forty years of cumbersome and restricting canon but also frees us from the tyranny of those pretentious and self-important Star Trek talifans! Reboot or not… GET IT ON!

135. Mark Lynch - March 24, 2009

I am sure that the “Forget everything you know” bit is aimed at casual and non fans to get their butts into the theatres on May 8th and beyond. I do not think that the more learned fans will be forgotten.

Otherwise why bother having Leonard Nimoy as Spock at all? Remember that the writers have previously said that without Nimoy there would have been no film.

I am feeling good about the movie, now.

Not too long to go now… \o/

136. Gav - March 24, 2009

Instead of “The Future Begins” it should be called “The Past Dies”. The “Forget everything you know” clearly infers to them flushing canon down the toilet.

Essentially its saying “Screw you classic fans! You don’t matter anymore. We spit on you and are happily sacrificing you for the common sheeple of the American veiwing audience, who arent smart enough to think back ten years ago, much less strain their meager intellects for 40.”

Even if this movie succeeds, it will be the death of TRUE Star Trek. A rich sci-fi legacy of one man’s noble aspirations for a better humanity sacrificed for short attention spans of people who like to say “pwn” and spell words with typewriter symbols.

137. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#20

TOS fan of old, you are totally right.

138. Battletrek - March 24, 2009

Its kinda hard to forget everything you know about star trek (even if you didn’t watch a lot of it) since there have been 10 movies, 1000 episodes, and about 10 million books.
I wish Paramount hadn’t been so willing to rape Trek brand name so much before that we could accept this new trek with clean hands, but i think its a little late for that.

139. S. John Ross - March 24, 2009

This ad’s okay. It doesn’t jazz me like the second (full) trailer does; it doesn’t make me cringe like the first (full) trailer does. It certainly isn’t quiet like the teaser trailer.

Just kinda neutral, kinda meh. Which, as such things go, puts it above the curve :)

140. filip1902 - March 24, 2009

Romulus shown on video might sugest the TNG era will be shown, maybe some TNG characters too, Nero is one of them, that’s for sure..

141. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

Please guys, don’t categorize Trek watchers as noble “true fans” and silly “short attention spans of people”. I am 36, hard-core TOS fan and I’m excited about this movie. Everything I’ve seen so far, teasers and trailers, is top notch and mind blowing. The idea of a new, different, call it rebooted Trek is pumping blood through my Trek veins. So every fan is different.

142. Mr Lirpa - March 24, 2009

#20 well put, I agree totally with what you have to say.

143. S. John Ross - March 24, 2009

#141: You’re the first person in this thread to use the term “true fans,” so maybe you’ve nothing to worry about.

144. Moses - March 24, 2009

KICK-ASS !

Great !

145. Check the Circuit - March 24, 2009

Gotta say the marketing boys seem to be dead on with their Trek campaign. There’s more mainstream positive buzz and coverage than I can remember…maybe as far back as ST:TMP. And like other posters, I’m hearing more non-fans say they want to see this movie than I EVER have. And on top of that, remember the “polls” here about 6 months ago? The approval rating was at 50% or so…at best. Now it seems to be overwhelmingly positive. Oh sure, there will always be a handful of canonistas out there that prefer to watch TOS on VHS as the world moves forward without them. But to convert so many die-hards while pulling in the mainstream…bravo Paramount marketing!

(I can’t wait until the hold outs are on this site on May 9th singing JJ Abrams praises, as if they were on board all along. Kind of like the people that initially hated the idea of TNG.)

146. Resident nEvil - March 24, 2009

“Forget everything you know” is a message for the mainstream. Because to the majority of mankind, Star Trek means “camp” and “nerdy”. It means cosplay. It means Star Trek conventions. It means boring. Whether true or not, that is Star Trek’s current perception.

For the film to be successful, they need to change that perception.

For my part, I can’t understand why some people are so incensed by the possibility of the destruction of Vulcan. I can understand the heightened emotions, but treating it as treachery against fans? Did Star Trek fans give up on the franchise when Spock died? Or when the Enterprise was destroyed?

I would have thought the destruction of Vulcan would be one of the most touching, memorable moments in Star Trek history, rather than something that validates your decision that this isn’t a “real” Star Trek movie.

I guess some fans are more fickle than others.

147. Darrksan - March 24, 2009

That TV Spot was Very Horrible.
Oh dear God, JJ has really F***-up Star Trek.

148. Resident nEvil - March 24, 2009

147: You… do know that this trailer isn’t the whole movie, right?

I mean… You DO know that, right?

PLEASE tell me you know that.

149. SChaos1701 - March 24, 2009

136

That was one of the most ignorant things ever written here.

150. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#143 “You’re the first person in this thread to use the term “true fans,” so maybe you’ve nothing to worry about.”

You know what I mean.

151. Darrksan - March 24, 2009

148. Resident nEvil – March 24, 2009
147: You… do know that this trailer isn’t the whole movie, right?
I mean… You DO know that, right?
PLEASE tell me you know that.
————————————————————————
No S***,
It is just the last straw for me.
I am sick of giving JJ’s Star trek an inch after an inch.
I am sick of some Trek-fans kissing JJ’s ***.
It is becoming more and more clear that JJ has really F***-up Star Trek.

152. The A-man - March 24, 2009

Kirk mind-melded with Sarek (ST3)
Sarek mind-melds with Picard (TNG: Unification 1)
PIcard mind-melds with Spock (TNG: Unification 2)
Spock mind-melds with Pine Kirk (STXI)

Therefore Pine Kirk has Shatner Kirk’s knowledge?

153. captain_neill - March 24, 2009

I have given up long ago this film fitting in with the past 40 year history of Star Trek.

All I can hope now is that Mr Abrams has delivered a fan that honours the philosophy of Star Trek as set by Roddenberry rather than crapping on it to turn it into another LOST.

I am a hard core, I will be seeing this movie and I hope to be proven wrong in my concerns. I want to love future productions of Star Trek but I feel JJ Abrams is the wrong guy to be at the helm.

I think it is still ok to like this film and not treat it as canon, it looks so different from what I grew up loving.

In fact I am suprised that more fans are not concerned about the changes JJ has made. He has changed things I am not happy with, especially set design.

I hope to be proven wrong and I hope that my anger towards JJ will subside.

154. Gav - March 24, 2009

People who claim to love Star Trek but embrace this new one, which intends to kill, bury, then skull-f*** the corpse of 40 years of rich sci-fi folklore are like people who claim to be vegans, but eat steak and eggs with buttered toast and a glass of milk every breakfast.

How can you claim to love Star Trek when you’re polishing the car and buying new upholstery for the guy who deliberately ran up on the sidewalk to run it over? YOu cant love both. To embrace the new is to forsake the old.

Change is not always inherently good. And this is all change for it’s own sake. At least some of us fans have the loyalty and integrity to stand by our childhood friend while other so-called “Fans” embrace everything with the Trek label on it unquestioningly. We have endured being called geeks and nerds and being told to get a life and what are we getting for our sacrifice? Thrown under the bus for the common sheeple

Darrksan is right. I will not sacrifice the sanctity of Roddenberry’s vision. We’ve made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They give us substandard Star Trek and we accept it. They ignore continuity and we accept it. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, NO FURTHER!!!

155. Alientraveller - March 24, 2009

@153: “I have given up long ago this film fitting in with the past 40 year history of Star Trek.”

That’s the point, the film doesn’t have to tether itself to the practically, and now officially, separate history of Borgs and the Dominion. Maybe in this universe the Borg can finally be a race of insects as originally intended.

156. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#154

“To embrace the new is to forsake the old.”

I totally disagree.

“And this is all change for it’s own sake.”

The movie is not out yet.

“I will not sacrifice the sanctity of Roddenberry’s vision”

Star Trek is a TV show, not a religion :)

157. Gav - March 24, 2009

149.

Ignorant, eh? Actually its very heartfelt sentiment, coming from a lifelong fan who values Star Trek. At least I care. And I respect Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a tommorrow of man rising above it’s limitations. Unlike this movie which is pretty much just man blowing sh*t up.

Just because I hadn’t sold out to the heavy style yet no substance pretender that is Star Trek in name only doesn’t make me ignorant. Ignorant is being bamboozled by flashy action and pretty effects and even prettier people. Ignorant is letting Paramount sh*t in your mouth and praising them for it.

Dont get angry at me. Im the good guy here. Im standing up for the sanctity of a 40 year treasure trove of sci-fi. Im standing up for the sake of those of us who gave our time and money to make Star Trek the icon it is today, and are being told “F*CK YOU!” as a reward. What Im doing is noble. Because that’s what Kirk and Spock, the REAL Kirk and Spock would do if they existed. Stoodf up for the underdogs against overwhelming odds.. If I were to embrace this movie I would be a TRAITOR to a lifelong friend.

158. Gav - March 24, 2009

156: You just don’t understand

159. thorsten - March 24, 2009

Pretty good new moments here… Kirk with Spock Prime in a cave on DV, perfect look on Kirk’s face after Spock told him who he is…

and I like the leap of faith in the Narada… we get a good glimpse at the ship’s huge interiors, with the old bridge like an island in the middle of theses cathedral sized structures…

This movie turns out to be I hoped to see in 1979, thanks J.J.

160. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#157 “Im standing up for the sanctity of a 40 year treasure trove of sci-fi”

Sanctity is an overused word in the context of entertainment. I repeat myself: Star Trek is not a religion and doesn’t need crusaders :)

161. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 24, 2009

Top 100 movies are out at Yahoo:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/100-movies-to-see-before-you-die.html

I don’t see a Trek movie there and I counted 5 science fiction movies.
But only If you include Star Wars in that category.

I hope this will change by next year!

162. thorsten - March 24, 2009

The pre-launch position switch of the three jumpers in the shuttle is pretty neat, too.

163. Alientraveller - March 24, 2009

The sooner this film alienates fans who confuse entertainment with religion and pyrotechnics with bad storytelling, the better. I don’t see how the story of two men from completely different planets banding together to protect a utopia from totalitarians is at all unlike Star Trek.

164. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@163…

Well said, Alientraveller.
If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.

165. Devon - March 24, 2009

#151 – “No S***,
It is just the last straw for me.
I am sick of giving JJ’s Star trek an inch after an inch.
I am sick of some Trek-fans kissing JJ’s ***.
It is becoming more and more clear that JJ has really F***-up Star Trek.”

Yeah it is becoming soooo clear that the latest trailer shattered download records at Apple.com, 91% of pollers here gave it positive reviews, Trek Merchandise is starting to pop up out the ass for all aspects of Trek, there is a renewed interest in the franchise and a potential blockbusting film on our hands.

And the fact that you are like 1 of very few people who are complaining here.. yeah, J.J. all by his lonesome has really screwed it up hasn’t he?

166. Gav - March 24, 2009

163.

That’s a nice selfish attitude, but then I don’t expect much depth of character out of an Abrams supporter. As long as you get your fancy shmancy little explosion fest, to Hell with others. I want a better Star Trek for ALL, youre just thinking about yourself.

Of course you don’t see how this movie isnt Star Trek. You obviously have trouble looking past your own nose. As long as it says “Star Trek” on it thats obviously all you need. You’re Abrams target audience all right. I bet you even like small shiny objects too.

Well, some of us actually have STANDARDS.

Try thinking about others beside yourself. Naw, that’s okay. I know you’re incapable. But Ill continue to stand up for whats right, regardless the slings and arrows thrown by small minds like yours.

167. Devon - March 24, 2009

157 – “And I respect Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a tommorrow of man rising above it’s limitations.”

And here we go with the Goddenberry sentiments…

168. Kirk, James T. - March 24, 2009

YAY finally, a Star Trek film you don’t have to know anything about Star Trek before you go to see it! :D looks amazing.

169. Devon - March 24, 2009

166- “Try thinking about others beside yourself.”

Take your own advice.

“Well, some of us actually have STANDARDS.”

Based on your posts, you don’t. At least any of merit.

170. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#166

Gav, don’t you think that some of your statements are becoming offensive?

“I don’t expect much depth of character out of an Abrams supporter”

Why are you so angry? Calm down.

171. Christian Weston Chandler - March 24, 2009

I’ m the mayor of CWCville and my town says this movie is horrible, why they made this movie to look like this?. They should have made ST XI about Picard and he’s crew how they met.

I wish they could make game/movie based on me and they should call it The Chistian Weston Chandler the Adult Chronicles.

I’m the original creator of Sonichu

172. Gav - March 24, 2009

165

Just because it has a lot of downloads, does not mean it’s going to be good. Todays audiences are shallower and more superficial. They dont like anything that would make them think, like Star Trek used to.

Baywatch got 12 seasons, not because it was good quality programming, but because the shallow T&A format lowest common denominator watched in sufficient numbers to get it going for 12 years.

Just because 91% polled are positive doesnt mean its going to be great. It just means enough people were suckered in by the pretty people and constant explosions to rate it high. A really high opinion of dog food doesnt mean it ‘ssteak.

173. Geoffers - March 24, 2009

OH god… why oh why do people have to jump up and down and shout “see, see reboot”… the tag line “forget everything you know”, can be taken many ways, and is used in many films…. Jeez, it’s about the past “as it was known” being changed, that’s the story!!! it don’t mean “oh they are changing cannon”.. or “reboot”…..it’s part of the STORY!!!..

174. thorsten - March 24, 2009

This is the truest version of Star Trek since 1968…
It’s pretty amazing how Bob Orci, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof captured the spirit of TOS and transferred it into 21st century filmmaking…

175. Captain Quail Hunter - March 24, 2009

How does anybody at Paramount or NASA advisors on this film know what it looks like when a planet is destroyed like in this trailer? Has anyone ever seen a planet get destroyed? No. This is bad science and it sends the wrong message to up and coming scientists and astrologers. A shockwave could just simple shift the planet from a orbit because planets are made up of dense materials such as igneous rock iron, etc. It looks like they used a dirt clod breaking up in that shot with no inner core magma or anything showing?

176. Geoffers - March 24, 2009

OH lord! I really can not believe someone is REALLY, saying that the look of the planet being hit by the shockwave, is all wrong!! IT’S A WORK OF FICTION… GROW UP… it isn’t meant to be an educational documentary!

177. Devon - March 24, 2009

#172 – A fanboy who knows nothing of what they are bashing and builds up past Trek to levels beyond what it really was to almost “religious status” doesn’t mean it will be bad either.

BTW, I’m assuming you’ve never seen past Star Trek trailers.. or.. uh Star Trek at all, since you seem to be new to “explosions” and act as though this is a “bad thing.”

178. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@176…

It is the same thing with the red planet that is destroyed by a singularity in it’s core… how do we know what it will look like if a black hole swallows a worldfrom the inside… when whole continents pass the event horizon.

179. Berti Semmler - March 24, 2009

136, 154, 157, 166,…

The sooner we get brainless wankers like you – people who make ALL Star Trek fans look bad – out of the system, the better. Bash your head against the wall, spit venom as much as you like and boycot the movie… see what everybody else cares!
But for God’s sake (and I think I speak for all of us) – SHUT THE F*** UP!

180. Chris J - March 24, 2009

Star Trek isn’t about the nit-picking “MUST STICK TO CANON” idea that several people on this site seem to adhere to. It isn’t about seeing that they’ve made Vulcan’s sky a bit more blue, or that Chekov is out of the academy a lot earlier than he should be. Or that they’ve changed the Enterprise herself.

Star Trek is about the bright optimism of the future. Most sci-fi is rather bleak in nature; whereas ST has the vision that humanity will overcome its struggles, hatreds and prejudices and become so much better than we are today. No other sci-fi series has this fantastic sense of… “progress”.

Star Trek is whatever keeps this wonderful message alive, and keeps it there for us to aspire to.

181. thorsten - March 24, 2009

Does anybody recognize the music in this commercial?
I am quite sure it’s not from Giacchino…
;))

182. Geoffers - March 24, 2009

~179, 180… Here, here chaps!

183. Racoon - March 24, 2009

157

You are an American, aren’t you? Always making a crusade out of nothing. Just remember what even the great William Shatner himself said… ‘Get a life!’

184. Spock - March 24, 2009

Oh this is awful. “Forget everything you know”. In other words, please lower your standards; you’re about to watch something predictable.

185. Gav - March 24, 2009

179

Brainless? Youre the one bashing someone for having a different opinion.

Such selfishness and a lack of empathy for the feelings of others. Is this what it means to be a Trek fan nowadays? Such bitter hateful intolerance. I weep for the fandom that harbors. But hey if thats the way you wanna play it you threw the first punch.

I am entitled to my opinion. ANd Ive been in Star Trek long enough for my opinion to be valid.

And what are you gonna do if I dont shut up? You spew your bile at me and you just expect me do do as you demand? Nuh-uh. It doesnt work that way. Im not spitting venom. What Im doing is giving a damn. Because if I dont who will? Certainly not any of you. You clearly dont respect Star Trek.

180

Star Trek IS about adherence to continuity. To the letter. Thats the only way to do somethign properly. It DOES matter that Vulcans sky is a different color. It DOES matter when Chekov. Consistency is the very cornerstone of quality. Canon matters. Its absolutely vitally important.

186. Devon - March 24, 2009

“In other words, please lower your standards; you’re about to watch something predictable.”

There for a second I thought you were referring to your own posts. Oops!

187. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@185…

Gav, your post 166 was over the line, and you know that.
Dial down personal attacks on other people.

188. Spock - March 24, 2009

Laddie – I was drinking scotch before you were born, and this is not scotch.

189. Geoffers - March 24, 2009

Oh dear oh dear… more fuel for the bashers.. just don’t go and see it then.. the rest of us can’t wait to go! I LOVE IT

190. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#185 “Star Trek IS about adherence to continuity. To the letter. Thats the only way to do somethign properly”

I respect your opinion, but it’s exactly *opposite* to what I think and love about Star Trek.

191. Devon - March 24, 2009

#185 – “Star Trek IS about adherence to continuity.”

No it isn’t.

“To the letter. ”

You have CLEARLY never watched Star Trek or have a severe bout of amnesia.

“Thats the only way to do somethign properly.”

No it isn’t.

“It DOES matter that Vulcans sky is a different color.”

No it doesn’t.

“It DOES matter when Chekov.”

No it doesn’t (however you were going with that.)

“Consistency is the very cornerstone of quality.”

Then the franchise has quality control issues.

192. Berti Semmler - March 24, 2009

185

So, you are entitled to an opinion? That’s your excuse for everything, for each and every one of your mental rerailments…
Opinion? Get some psychiatric help and some serious anger management instead… and don’t YOU talk about intolerance, selfishness and a lack of empathy for the feelings of others.

193. Drew - March 24, 2009

It never ceases to amaze me that we have crying bitches on here complaining.
People, Get A Life. GET OVER IT.

This movie is going to ROCK.

194. Chris J - March 24, 2009

185- I bet your brain exploded when they announced Star Trek: Enterprise huh?

195. zeo za - March 24, 2009

#191. You are truly a master of eloquence. “No, it isn’t” “No he doesn’t” “No, you are” “Your momma so fat” and so on.

196. Captain Quail Hunter - March 24, 2009

Showing a flask wielding Kirk drinking with McCoy gives a bad immoral sign to young kids seeing this movie. A hero is suppose to show good character qualities with moral christian values that young youths can look up to. The local church here in my town is preparing to picket the movie and go to the local press when it premiers. The baptist churches here have been successful in keeping these type of movies from being shown.

197. Spock - March 24, 2009

All barbs aside,
what I really, really cannot stand about Star Trek XI discussions is that you can’t dislike the movie simply on the grounds that it doesn’t look very good…
No – if you don’t like how it’s looking so far, you’re obviously some nutcase living in the 60′s, or someone who doesn’t like any Star Trek and just has something new to complain about.

Is it possible to simply dislike the trailers because they make the movie look like Pearl Harbour in space?
I tell you, hand on heart, I don’t give a flying flip about canon or TOS. If JJ Abrams wants to make Star Trek that pays no attention to what came prior, he can go right ahead – that’s what Berman was doing for almost 20 years!

I remain hopeful concerning the end product. It’s possible that the marketing people are merely hiding all of the good stuff and showing us the stuff that’s designed to get the real low-brow types in – again, those people that paid to see Pearl Harbour.

In the mean time, a trailer is subject to the same criticism that a full motion picture is, and thus – y’all need to shut up and let people criticise it. Nothing is above criticism, especially not a trailer that uses (in all seriousness) a tired old cliché like ‘forget everything you know’. For crying out loud…

198. Selor - March 24, 2009

@185
Obviously your Vision of Star Trek differs so much from reality…
Star Trek has only a tiny bit of “Consistency” in EVERY Movie and Series they do how they want to do and consistency was broken all along…
It does NOT matter how the Color of Vulcan sky is, because even Earth doesn have all the same color neither Mars do… You see a blue sky von Vulcan and it is like our “Days with blue clear sky”… good Weather man…

YOU Have to embrace change! Or you will die… everything that will go and live unchanged will eventually fail… but maybe that’s it what you want…
That Star Trek Fails and get burried deep under the plaque of shame… so that you can sit in your basement, laughing all along and watching your DVDs…

199. Spock - March 24, 2009

Quail Hunter,
If there is a Hell, I hope we’re in different bunks.

200. Gav - March 24, 2009

187

Thorsten, nice of you to single out my self defense. People didnt seem so concerned about dialing back their attacks on me? I would never had said 166 had 163 not attacked me first. But you conveniently ignored that because you support this movie. And this board is nothing but a good ol’ boys site where if you dare to think differently youre persecuted.

But then the just are never treated justly. An opinion is only allowed when it coicides with the majority. Even “Lord of the Flies” treated those who were different more fairly.

And over the line? I only regret I didnt use stronger words against that booger eating myopic little pinhead who wouldnt know good Star Trek if it bit him on the ass. central nervous system was to primitive to register it. HE attacked ME and I stood up for myself

“and don’t YOU talk about intolerance, selfishness and a lack of empathy for the feelings of others.”

Oh but I will. Because I am standing up for Roddenberry’s noble dream and standing up for the rights offans who have given their hearts and souls to this franchise, only to be cast aside heartlessly. I want whats best for ALL fans. And thats more empathy than most of what you are displaying. My sentiments are noble. Youre the ones who think TOS isnt good enough for you. My desire for EVERYONE old and new fans alike to have the best Trek possible is the epitome of unselfishness. Youre the ones wanting only what YOU want. I want whats best for ALL. And thats loads of empathy for classic fans. All youre saying is “Me me me!!!”

201. Blowback - March 24, 2009

#199

I second that motion…. Nothing like a little zealotry to destroy rational thought…

202. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@200…

Gav, I don’t see how you construct an attack from 163 that justifies your reply… All I asked you is to refrain from personal insults.
That is the way we handle this here. If you want to complain, use trekmovie.com/about/feedback for that.

And yes, I support this movie. Not because I am a blind follower of everything Abrams or Orci do, but because I am a trekkie since 1970, and I saw the 20 minutes outtakes in November. That is the base of my opinion.
If I think that this movie is a dumbed down explosion flick for the masses, after I saw the whole thing, then I will say so.

203. Kirk, James T. - March 24, 2009

All these people defending their bitching as being a differing opinion – i don’t care. If you don’t like the movie why is it you constantly bitch, moan and complain about it. I don’t like getting nasty but my god some of the ridiculous “opinions” people have over a movie, well it just shows how much Star Trek needed this movie.

as 193 said, get a life, get over it AND move on, there’s no point in complaining over something you CAN’T do anything about. An opinion is one thing, but we’ve known this movie was coming for months if not years, all the bitching and the moaning and the complaining should have ended months ago when you realized that there is more to life than constantly complaining over something that is meant as entertainment – you’ve turned something exciting, something amazingly cool, into a huge waste of your time, not to mention at the expense of people who ARE excited about this movie.

The message is simple – either forget what you already know about Star Trek and enjoy this movie for what this movie is, or go away – the fact is that eventually people will get incredibly tired and pissed off (if we’ve not already) at your constant bitching about Star Trek – so why not do yourselves a favor, and just drop it, there’s only so many times people can complain about something before complaining turns into idiotic bitching – the time has come for the complainers to stop sharing their opinions…

204. Chris J - March 24, 2009

I have an outrageous and frankly laughable idea:

Why not simply *enjoy* the movie?

Crazy I know…

205. Geoffers - March 24, 2009

#196… Plllllease tell me you are joking..

206. Sebi - March 24, 2009

@ Gav

“Star Trek IS about adherence to continuity. To the letter. Thats the only way to do somethign properly. It DOES matter that Vulcans sky is a different color. It DOES matter when Chekov. Consistency is the very cornerstone of quality. Canon matters. Its absolutely vitally important.”

You’ve clearly never watched TOS. Even there’s stuff that contradicts the other stuff. If Trek IS really about continuity, nobody would EVER watch it.

Canon is nice to have and I like, when everything fits in it. But when it doesn’t, I don’t care as long as it serves the story and THE OVERALL MESSAGE of the episode/movie/whatever.

And Gav, don’t YOU talk about tolerance man.

P.S.: I don’t KNOW if the movie will be any good or not, so let’s just see the movie and praise or bash it afterwards.

207. Geoffers - March 24, 2009

#204! At last… SENSE!

208. Berti Semmler - March 24, 2009

200

Gav, I’m sick and tired of your mental and verbal diarrhoea. I will no longer waste any time reading your inane zealot rhetorics and your pathetic self-adulation. You are hopeless with a capital ‘H’. I really, really hope – for your and everybody else’s sake – that you grow some brains one day. Until then…

When I first scrolled down this website, I actually thought that this is a forum where fans can exchange their cultured opinions. Instead I found a pulpit of the militant wing of the Church of Trekkism, where the talifan can attack anyone and anything under the cover of the ‘freedom of expression’. I’m outta here…

209. Sebi - March 24, 2009

@ Chris J

Let’s go to the movies together shall we. ;-)

210. Tox Uthat - March 24, 2009

“To embrace the new is to forsake the old.”

Ignorant.

If you can walk and chew gum, then you can acknowledge the past and accept the future.

#196. I hope you’re not serious. If your town pickets movies they disagree with, then, when did your town ban dancing?

I have to believe that by the time the movie opens, some canonistas heads are going to explode.

211. Sebi - March 24, 2009

@ 210: Absolutely right.

“If you can walk and chew gum, then you can acknowledge the past and accept the future.”

And there are even people who like the old BSG and the new BSG.

212. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#211 “And there are even people who like the old BSG and the new BSG.”

Here is one :)

213. Fansince9 - March 24, 2009

I’d say the planet getting eaten up by the shockwave has got to be Romulus so for the planet which imploded in the other commercial: Vulcan or model representation?

214. Tarrax - March 24, 2009

Wow, I cannot believe some of the posts here. Everyone here has an opinion, which matters no more or less than the person who posted before you.

As soon as you try to belittle others who are posting here to justify your own opinion, you have undermined everything you were trying to say with your lack of respect for other people. Standing up for the ideals Trek puts forward? I don’t think so.

I’m just surprised Anthony has let some of you carry on as much as you have.

215. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#213

You know, we have dissected and analyzed every bit of information about this movie, but in my opinion there are still a lot of surprises and mysteries to discover.

216. Star Trackie - March 24, 2009

#20 “Want Star Trek to live on with new adventures? Want to see the show carry on it’s legendary status and legacy? ”

NOT if it morphs into a Star Trek I don’t recognize. Quote, unquote, “Star Trek” proliferated in the 90′s all the way to it’s very timely demise at the cancelation of Enterprise and by that time I was more than ready for it to die on the vine. It could have ended (on TV) in 1988 and I wouldn’t have minded one bit. The idea of THAT type of Star Trek, carrying on does nothing for me.

The thought if THIS type of Star Trek, however, carrying on the legacy…well…I haven’t seen the movie yet… but so far these trailers have given me more of what I, personally, want in my StarTrek, than the last 20 yeas of the Berman Trek assembly line. I haven’t been able to put the words “Star Trek” and “excited” in the same sentence since 1991, it’s fun to be able to do it again. Bring it!

217. Jay El Jay - March 24, 2009

I’m a 21 year old fan who grew up on TNG etc… and although I loved and still love the TOS movies, the actual series was sooo cheesey it had mee asking for crackers! I mean, I love it for what it is, but because of my age etc TNG and the various spin-off (along with the TOS movies) have always been STAR TREK to me.

Ive only seen TOS season one (which is remastered, and to rub it in, it should have been £120, i got it for £20!! :D) sooo I suppose you could argue that my thoughts are invalid, but looking at this new movie has opened my eyes to TOS style trek, it has turned it from cheese to SWEEEET and maybe, just maybe, I’ll give the original a chance and invest in the two other series… my point is, I am someone who laughed at TOS trek and really thought it was a good effort, but really old and cheesy, this movie has given it cool status and could update those classic stories into the mainstream.

Regards

Jay (UK)

218. Sebi - March 24, 2009

@ Paulaner (nice beer by the way)

I agree with you on your posts 212 and 215. Everything we see in trailers and TV spots regarding destroyed planets could as well be just dreams, visions or computersimulations IN the movie. Or of course an “alternative-timeline-and-then-reset-button-thing”

We know nothing. Which is a good thing because I still like to be surprised….

219. Chris J - March 24, 2009

209, I’d be happy to!

I’ll bring the Spock ears, you bring the Romulan Ale.

220. Mike Ten - March 24, 2009

#211, I like the old BSG and new BSG.

As for the new trailer, I bet old Spock mindmelds with young Kirk to bring him up to “speed” with the way his life was supposed to be. That would explain the way he’s acting as he’s walking away from old Spock. Just my two credits.

221. Sebi - March 24, 2009

219, to quote Homer J.:

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmh, romulan ale… aaaaarghl…

222. Chris Pike - March 24, 2009

Trailer is gripping and exciting, my reservations are with some of the art direction and the fact that they’ve made it more contemporary looking (to make it more “accessable” apparently). It’s like some of the period dramas, some are given a slight contemporary twist, but I find that distracting and it less likely for me to invest in the film emotionally as realism is compromised. The modern world would look unrecognisable, scary and magical to someone from 250 years ago, and I expect the world to look at least pretty different 250 years hence.

223. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@220…

I don’t know about the mindmeld…
If Spock shares his memories from the Prime timeline with KIrk,
he will carry this weight all his life. Every decision he makes later on
as Captain will be influenced by the knowledge from another life…

I think he looks shocked by the fact that he just met that pesky guy that threw him off the ship in an escape pod… but from the future

224. Krik Semaj - March 24, 2009

200
What a bag of hot air you are. If this dream of protecting Roddenberry’s dream (whatever that really was) is so important to you – get a careeer going with Paramount, and then influnce them to change Trek to your “noble vision” (whatever that is)
Just like a lot of Trekkies you are hopelessly out of touch with the real world
It was just a TV show, and this is just a movie. I love TOS, and it looks like I’m gonna like this movie – a lot.
I don’t have any wacky ideas that it is anything other than good entertainment. Remember not all Trek episodes had an agenda for social change. Some were just mindless entertainment. Some were terrible.
Relax.

225. Bronto Dan - March 24, 2009

Spoiler unless you read or have reed the comic

I’m intirgue has to how you can have the romulus explosion has seen in trek countdown and not have TNG cameo??

ANyhow this movie look epic and amazing can’t wait for it!!

226. Jay El Jay - March 24, 2009

Spock Prime: Boo!!

Reboot Kirk: Ahhh who the hell are you?!

Spock Prime: You know who I am…. Jim!

Reboot Kirk: How the hell do you know my name?!

Spock Prime: Join me…. With our combined strength we can bring order to the galaxy!

Reboot Kirk: Why you talkin to me man?

Spock Prime: *Sighs* Pike never told you what happened to your father…

Reboot Kirk: He told me enough, he told me Nero killed him…

Spock Prime: Noo I am your father!

Reboot Kirk: Noo NOOO that’s not true!!

Spock Prime: LOL nooo, I’m just messing with you!! Your thoughts… give them to me…

*They mindmeld*

227. Steve Short - March 24, 2009

Diamond Select Toys website is showing a new Kirk, McCoy with short sleeves, Nurse Chapel and Rand figures. I wonder if this is for Toys”R”Us?

228. Racoon - March 24, 2009

208

OWNED!!!

229. Check the Circuit - March 24, 2009

GAV…

Take your bile to aintitcool.com. We don’t need your hating here.

For God’s Sake man, you haven’t even seen the movie. GR’s vision seemed to be about embracing diversity and new ideas. Clearly, you missed the point.

230. Trek Nerd Central - March 24, 2009

“FORGET. EVERYTHING. YOU. KNOW.” (Rolls eyes).

Well, I they’ve got to market the darned thing, and to that end they’ve made one hell of an action-movie trailer. My guess is there’s a bit more emoting and cogitating to the film than what’s suggested here.

231. Trek Nerd Central - March 24, 2009

230. That should read, “Well, they’ve got to. . . ” No “I.” involved. I ain’t got nothin’ to do with Star Trek (sob).

232. Admiral Waugh - March 24, 2009

Destroying Romulus though…………….. if this is some allusion to ignoring scientists’ warnings on Earth about global warming, I am going to be REALLY disappointed.

233. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

In the scene where Kirk/Pine has the astounded look on his face: Spock has just told him who he is and that he has come back in time, etc., then Kirk turns around and sees the timeship (my mouth would be hanging open too).

234. CmdrR - March 24, 2009

OK, it’s got effects. So does Watchmen… and see how many people are still talking about that movie.

We’re all waiting to see whether we care about the characters as they’re shown in this hi-gloss universe. As much as I dig sfx, I only come back to a movie if I care about the story and characters.

It opens this Friday, right??

235. Commander K - March 24, 2009

I think the tagline in the trailer IS to bring in new fans and for the rest of us don’t read it on face value as it is no reference to annaihlating the timeline we know

236. CmdrR - March 24, 2009

That’s Earth gettin’ poofed. You can make out Baja. I’m calling dream sequence or prelude to a reset button right here and now.

237. Check the Circuit - March 24, 2009

And also to GAV….

Take a good look in the mirror with an objective eye. You began the attacks in this thread (@154) by essentially saying that ANYONE supporting the film are sheep and of questionable intelligence. And you don’t understand why the majority of us fired back?! Wake yourself up and think about the words you used. “Skullf***”???!!!! I doubt that attitude was what GR was hoping for out of humanity as we muddle toward enlightenment. You’re taking the species backwards dude.

238. Chris Pike - March 24, 2009

225. Bronto Dan – March 24, 2009
Spoiler unless you read or have reed the comic

I’m intirgue has to how you can have the romulus explosion has seen in trek countdown and not have TNG cameo??

I would bet on it being a typical JJ style flashback quick cut…?

239. cinemadeus - March 24, 2009

I’m pretty much looking forward to opening night but there’s one thing I won’t ever understand about these trailers…
Why the hell should I forget everything I now whenever a new blockbuster is coming out?

Come on, guys. It’s is not like Andrey Tarkowskij resurrected and right now shooting STALKER 2.

This is effing ridiculous.

240. Check the Circuit - March 24, 2009

Same to you Capt Quail.

Why not see the movie before you mobilize the troops for a boycott? Heroes aren’t born…they’re molded by their environment, experience and what’s in their heart. I have a sneaking suspision James T. Kirk will rise above his challenging youth to become the hero we’ll be able to look up to (in a fictional sense of course). But Kirk was never perfect…nor are human beings. That’s what makes him (and us) interesting. And the knowledge that we all have the potential to rise above our shortcomings.

241. lwr - March 24, 2009

Just a cool thought:

what if elder Spock and Kirk DID mind meld, and Kirk saw his future.
This would explain why he was so self assured and cocky.. since he knows his desinty.

also it gives a wink and a nod to why he made the comment-
” I always knew i would die alone”
in ST V.

LOL!

242. Sebi - March 24, 2009

241. Iwr

wow, cool thought. I doubt that’s actually in the movie, but that really is a cool thought.

Well at least Picard was with him when he died…

243. AJ - March 24, 2009

Nero must have cut his ears up to hide his “Romulanness” from the Klingons, No?

244. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

AJ- It will be interesting to see why he does that.

245. Jay El Jay - March 24, 2009

244

Not a bad idea, I dunno about you, but i’m pretty excited to see what Rura Penthe is like now, whether its much different to TUC, and of course, those Klingons!!

246. Steve - March 24, 2009

I want to preface this with the fact that I am a 40-year-old, old time fan of all things Star Trek. Not a canonista, I am psyched for this movie and confident that the makers have treated our Star Trek with love, care and respect.

Realizing that they are marketing this movie to non-Star Trek fans, which they should because we’ll be there anyway, I’d suggest that, in the name of marketing it to a younger audience, they are, so far, missing the boat on one aspect. They need to begin marketing the cast of this movie. The casting of this movie was brilliant, in that so many of the cast members are real up-and-comers in Hollywood and bring with them their own followings.

John Cho brings the Harold & Kumar fans, Pegg brings fans of his movies (Run Fat Boy Run, et. al), Quinto brings the Heroes fans. Granted, some of them are a little more under the radar, i.e. Pine and Saldana, but I still think they should be mentioning the cast names in the next commercial. Thoughts?

247. S. John Ross - March 24, 2009

#246: I think that’s an excellent point, especially as regards John Cho, who’s been barely visible in the ads so far. Show him delivering one good line with a rakish grin on his face, and there’s a huge chunk of audience with their interest suddenly piqued.

248. zeo za - March 24, 2009

208

“your mental and verbal diarrhoea”

Oh, that is most cultural opinion. Now you should just give me the usual pathetic “I’m adjusting my answers according to the current intelectual level of conversation” and I’ll be on my way.

While I not completely agree with Gav, he makes some valid points and the way people respond to him is outrageous

249. Sebi - March 24, 2009

246 and 247.

I’m not so sure about that… I would guess here in Europe (or at least for me) for example, a lot of the cast except Nimoy is relatively unknown. So most of the people in the theatre will go “who?” when they see the trailer. I think the advertisement for this movie is going in the right direction, show the action for a new and younger audience, the trek fans will watch it anyway. I guess thats a good thing.

Could be MORE advertisement here in Europe though… It is not advertised as a big summer blockbuster yet, no TV coverage, no merchandising… We even have problems to get the Countdown series.

250. harris250 - March 24, 2009

me thinks the planet being destroyed is Romulus. Looks like the super nova hitting it…..

251. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

To all of those people complaining:

1) “FORGET EVERYTHING YOU KNOW” is a simple marketing tool indended to try and erase the “geek” stigma from Trek.

2) “IT’S JUST FLASHY SPECIAL EFFECTS!” – regardless of how many effects shots are in the film, the truth is that they’re going to pile them on heavy in the marketing campaign to get ‘em in the door.

3) “STAR TREK IS ABOUT CANON” – ummm…. no. Star Trek is about noble intellectual and emotional virtues, desiring to become more than what you are, and finding meaningful connections in a vast, lonely universe. Canon has always been flexible in Trek. It practically *invented* the concept of parallel timelines and mirror universes. Not to mention the mysteriously appearing Klingon head-ridges… canon, you say?

4) “A REBOOT MEANS YOU HAVE TO FORGET EVERYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE!” – that’s probably what the James Bond fans said before Casino Royale came out. To be honest, as long as this new film has the fantastic character interactions and thought-provoking issues that made the original Trek so provocative and memorable, that’s all I care about. I could care less about the technobabble. If Nemoy approves of the script and the actors, then I can’t help but feel optimistic.

252. Alientraveller - March 24, 2009

@248 “the way people respond to him is outrageous”

Perhaps it was best of all of us not to respond to him. That’s what people like him want, to descend to their level. They have nothing better to do but launch an attack in generally barren threads about generic TV spots.

253. jobryant - March 24, 2009

There is a lot of talk in here questioning what Star Trek is about. Is it about strictly adhering to canon? Is it about a bright future for humanity? It is about friendship? It is about cool starships? Is it just cheesy Sci-Fi?

I argue it’s about all of that and none of it. Star Trek is about what it is to you and only you. Some of us love TOS only and think anything other then what showed on TV in the 1960’s is not real Star Trek. Some of us feel 40 years, 5 TV shows, and 10 movies worth of canon is what matters. Some of us want to see explosions. And you know what, it’s all good. Star Trek is personal to everyone here. We all feel that what each of us thinks Star Trek to be is what it is. And that’s okay. What is not okay is to attack anyone who feels it’s something other then what you feel it to be.

If there is one word I always see attached to Star Trek, its diversity. Let us live with our diverse feelings about the movie (like or dislike) without attacks.

That being said, what I hope everyone would understand is that whatever your option may be about what Star Trek is may not be in the majority. And that singular option as far as this new movie goes is only worth about $7.50 – $10 to Paramount (depending where you live). So while they COULD spend $150 million making a movie that completely satisfies your opinion of what a Star Trek movie should be like, knowing Star Trek fans this would put them in the hole $149,999,990.

254. harris250 - March 24, 2009

A history lesson for the “you have to destroy Trek to save it” crew.
A little lesson from the 60′s that the older generation posting here will remember. “You don’t have to destroy the village to save it.”

255. ss - March 24, 2009

In canon, the ice monster has a slightly higher pitched growl! I can’t believe JJ screwed this up! I’m not going…

256. crazydaystrom - March 24, 2009

#251 SaphronGirl-

Well said.

257. Randall - March 24, 2009

Jesus Christ. You know, I’m 43 years old and remember the ORIGINAL Star Trek in its ORIGINAL run on network TV (just barely) and was a huge fan from the day I first saw it. And I’m willing to give this movie a chance. So come now, kids. Let’s not bicker about whether it destroys the original vision of Star Trek. The real, original and BEST Star Trek is still on DVD forever and ever, and it’ll be remembered. And let’s face it—this movie, like it or not, is what we’ve got. From the looks of the various trailers, I’m excited. I’ve said many times here before—sure, I’m concerned about canon, but what concerns me most is the canon of the CHARACTERS. I’m concerned about Kirk not being compromised as an epic, heroic figure. But you know, the later Star Trek films already eroded some of that. And the later Star Trek series (TNG included) eroded a lot of they mythic energy and mystery of Star Trek overall. If this new film breathes life back into it, then that’ll make up for a lot.

I’ve addressed Roddenberry’s “vision” before as well. It was a great bit of creative genius in the 60s. But even Roddenberry himself later f**ked that vision up with his incessant and sometimes slightly weird moralizing and political correctness. When an old sage (it stretches matters quite a bit to use that word with Roddenberry) spends too long ruminating on his first spark of truth–AND he wasn’t that brilliant a person to begin with (Roddenberry wasn’t–he was, in the end, just a good craftsman) then he ends up gnawing the hell out of that old bone, and warping it all out of shape from what originally made it strong and fascinating. It isn’t messing with that vision to simply reboot it to its original condition. I’d rather see a Star Trek toughened up and revitalized with action, energy, sex, and the hint of a dark side than see it continue on as it has for the last twenty years or more.

I was reminded of this last night watching some old episodes of TNG that were on TV… now granted, that show got better as it went along. But it never FULLY recovered from the flaws that were built into it in the first place, and those flaws were plainly evident in the episodes I was watching. And those flaws found their way into every subsequent Star Trek series and even the films. And I don’t care who was to blame so much, now… but what I want to see is those mistakes and flaws extinguished and erased, and a return to the simpler, far more powerful elements that made the original series such an icon of the 60s—which let’s face it was a far more powerful, energetic, simpler, and primitive time than our own, or any of the previous decades we’ve been through… 70s – 90s and on into the current time. Now, you can’t bring back the 60s and good god, I wouldn’t want to. But you can bring life back into Star Trek by reinjecting the bits of 60s, pulpish energy into it, with a 21st century face. This is what I hope Abrams was able to do. I’m not so sure he’s done it because I don’t see either him or his screenwriters as being possessed of that kind of persona. But then again I could be wrong—and in any case, they’re the closest to it that I’ve seen in a long, long time.

As an aside–has anyone noticed the reaction shots Pine delivers in the bits of the cave scene we see in this trailer? With old Spock in the background? Clearly something shocking has been said to or revealed to him—something that’s freaked him out badly. I’m enticed by that alone… I’d like to see what Spock could possibly have said to him to cause that kind of reaction.

258. S. John Ross - March 24, 2009

#251: I see “Forget everything you know” in even more benevolent terms … I see it as reassuring potential filmgoers “This is a fresh start; you can get in on the ground floor without needing to take a special 2-year college course just to follow all the gobbledeygook.” Not about geek stigma per se … just about dispelling the notion that Star Trek can only be enjoyed by those steeped in the lore.

259. Tox Uthat - March 24, 2009

#232: “Destroying Romulus though…………….. if this is some allusion to ignoring scientists’ warnings on Earth about global warming, I am going to be REALLY disappointed.”

Isn’t that what TOS was all about? Lessons for today’s world. “Let This Be Your Last Battlefield” was pretty obvious to me, even back then and I was 11 years old. The Prime Directive, allusion to not meddling in others’ affairs. “Only Nixon could go to China” in TUC, make your enemy your friend.

Didn’t GR specifically want Trek to reflect issues of the day, placed in a sci-fi setting to get it past the censors?

Now we’re bitching about what has been the message for 40 years.

260. Paulaner - March 24, 2009

#258 “just about dispelling the notion that Star Trek can only be enjoyed by those steeped in the lore.”

I agree. It’s a painful process having to explain the whole lore to friends before watching some Trek with them. It sounded like a private, restricted club. Now the message is: “Star Trek is for all. Just sit down and enjoy”. Brilliant and much needed.

261. YourNameHere - March 24, 2009

248

Now that’s rich…
You accept it that somebody pops up out of nothing and insults everybody daring to contradict his preconceived opinion, but you complain that ‘the way people respond to him is outrageous’?

However, back to the topic at hand…
The more trailers I see, the more I’m convinced that Star Trek XI is exactly the breeze of fresh air the Star Trek franchise so urgently needed. Finally a Trekkie can raise his head with pride and proclaim, ‘Trek is cool… and I already knew it before it became cool.’

262. Tox Uthat - March 24, 2009

And we really know nothing about this movie except a few things and some action packed trailers. Leonard Nimoy stated in these pages that the movie is about the the destructive need for revenge, how it affects an idividual, and how a family comes into being bec of it.

I might not like the final version but I will allow that the Supreme Court tried to make the movie about ideas and people, with action bringing in new fans. I’ll make a judgement after I’ve seen what is offered.

And if you don’t like time travel (and that is an opinion I can respect) then Trek IV, Trials and Tribbleations, All Good Things and The City on the Edge of Forever must be a disappointment to many.

263. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

(Sorry for the double post.)

264. Blue Snaggletooth - March 24, 2009

The “planet” which gets smashed at the end of the trailer actually looks like a moon to me. It appears to be getting wiped by the shock wave of a nearby exploding/imploding (whatever the mining beam does) planet, as opposed to the effect we’ve seen in the other trailers.

In any case, it still doesn’t tell us which planet is bitin’ the dust.

265. Sebi - March 24, 2009

262: I like time travel storys if they are nicely done. The ones you mentioned are all classic.

I think people who hate time travel in a story watched to much VOY, since it has done the time travel thing too often and there was always the “reset button”, so the episode didn’t really matter because nothing had consequences in the end.

From what I’ve seen, I think that this movie will be different. Although I hope that in the end vulcan and romulus will be back.

266. T'Cal - March 24, 2009

Sometimes I wish they would limit the number of posts to a few dozen or so. When they go over 50, the comments go off on bizzare tangents.

267. Mark Lynch - March 24, 2009

Ladies and Gentlemen. Please do not feed the trolls. I thank you. ;)

I must say that the comments by Gav and Captain Quail Hunter have actually given me a much needed laugh today. I could go on to say how much I think their comments are stupid, narrow minded and offensive, but that is quite obvious really.

Lets just wait until the film comes out, we see it and then let the wars begin in earnest.

At least we will have a full picture to comment upon. Sheesh.

I for one am now looking forward to seeing it. Most of all because of the inclusion of my favourite actor out of the original Star Trek, Leonard Nimoy.

268. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@264…

The drill is just the means to deliver the device that creates a black hole into Vulcan… and Vulcan has no moon.

269. Dennis Bailey - March 24, 2009

I’m just pleased that none of the folks ranting against the film in strident terms can do anything to prevent its release or damage its chances for success.

Nothing at all.

270. YourNameHere - March 24, 2009

268…

Vulcan has no moon? Please watch TMP again!

271. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@269…

well, they can always go back in time, Dennis…

272. Blue Snaggletooth - March 24, 2009

@268…

Are you certain we’re seeing the demise of Vulcan here?

273. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@270…

The “moon” appearing in the Vulcan sky in “Yesteryear” and the original TMP was actually the sister planet of Vulcan, called T’Khut…

274. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@272…

No, the planet in this commercial is not Vulcan, Blue Snaggletooth…

275. P Technobabble - March 24, 2009

I think most people do know what the message of Star Trek is, it’s just that it’s gotten some new packaging, which some people are letting it get in the way of just enjoying this, and having a good time. And, as numerous others have stated, there is a lot of flashy, exciting marketing going on right now. This is completely necessary and appropriate, because most people also know that Star Trek needs a healthy shot of adrenaline in order to survive and flourish again.
Some people will argue for the sake of arguing… yawn, yawn, yawn. From what I see, everything that I’ve been wanting to see in Star Trek is about to hit the big-screen, and, unless there is something REALLY wrong with the the writing, or the characters, I don’t see much to argue about. This is Star Trek with a modern look, period. I feel pretty confident about this based on all the words we’ve gotten from all the people involved — especially Mr. Nimoy. If anyone is going to accuse Mr. Nimoy of coming out of retirement simply to destroy the Star Trek franchise, they really should consider some kind of psychiatric assistance… in my opinion, of course.

276. zeo za - March 24, 2009

“Now that’s rich…”

No it isn’t

“You accept”

No I don’t

“somebody pops up”

No he doesn’t

“but you complain”

No I don’t

Hey, it’s kinda cool!

277. YourNameHere - March 24, 2009

273…

I bow my head in shame and accept your superior knowledge…

278. YourNameHere - March 24, 2009

276…

Well, same to you, too…

279. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@277…

No problem, I am just a darn geek canonista guy ;))

280. Blue Snaggletooth - March 24, 2009

@274…

Thank The Maker!

So…..which moon or planet is it, then?

281. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@280…

Just a wild guess, but it could be Romulus in a flashback,
while Spock Prime explains Nero’s background to Kirk…

282. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

Enemy Within

Uhura: Mr. Spock, why don’t you tell me I’m a beautiful young lady, or describe what Vulcan looks like on a night when the moon is full?

Spock: Vulcan has no moon, Ms. Uhura

Uhura: I’m not surprised, Mr. Spock

283. Edwin - March 24, 2009

“Forget everything you know….”

Yeah like the original Star Trek — That’s clearly what the writers of this film have done!

Never mind, I will still be watching my TOS DVDs whilst Wolverine and Terminator annihilate this film at the box office!

284. Chris Pike - March 24, 2009

251 interesting analogy to that of Casino Royale. If the film does what Casino Royale did, then I’ll see straight past my own reservations (mainly aspects of production design) forget them and have one of the best cinema experiences ever. I hope that’s the case!

285. Aragorn189 - March 24, 2009

thorsten.

There’s your canon solution to Vulcan’s destruction. If T’Khut is Vulcan’s sister planet and a very similar environment, perhaps the Vulcans in this timeline move there and rename it Vulcan. And TAS would be fine because in Yesteryear, we are seeing the pre-Nero era in both timelines. Just a thought.

286. Alex Rosenzweig - March 24, 2009

#98 – “Is no one bothered by the fact that the sky on what appeas to be Vulcan is quite blue and no where near red-orange as shown in the tv series?”

While it’d be cool tfor them to have gotten that consistent, it is a relatively minor detail in the overall scheme of things.

#107 – “I can give you a very simple answer to that, Alex – some of the canon was of questionable quality. Why *shouldn’t* they ditch the bad, keep the essentials and move on from there? Why force yourself to adhere to the minor details of a 40 year franchise that a decent portion of your audience will have little regard for?”

“Force yourself”? I don’t see it as being forced at all. In the process of embracing a fictional world, I embrace its details along the way, and for me, that’s a natural thing. Now, to be fair, obviously there are certain levels of detail that are minor enough that if they’re contradicted, most people probably won’t notice, or care, and that’s fine. But on the larger-scale level, IMHO, it should be kept essentially consistent. For me, it’s a core believability thing. That and I think that a franchise or other ongoing entity that can’t keep its basic continuity is far more at risk of death than one that simply isn’t producing new material at the moment. To date, neither has applied to Star Trek, anyway. ;)

(This, of course, sidesteps the whole “questionable quality” argument, but that’s so subjective that I think it best not to step into that particular morass. ;) )

#153 – “In fact I am suprised that more fans are not concerned about the changes JJ has made. He has changed things I am not happy with, especially set design.”

Aside from the fact that reactions to things like design are, inevitably, more subjective, I think people are tending to make a distinction between visual continuity, which is more tied to perceptions of a current audience (especially one that’s not used to Star Trek and its visual tropes), and storytelling continuity, which really is pretty much timeless and which there is no excuse to change.

#157 – “And I respect Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a tommorrow of man rising above it’s limitations.”

I respect that, too, but have you really seen enough of the movie to know for sure that it doesn’t? I haven’t.

#185 – “Star Trek IS about adherence to continuity. ”

Well, no. that’s not what it’s *about*. Maintaining continuity is what helps it tell the story that it *is* about. Continuity exists in the service of storytelling, and sometimes can spur ideas for more storytelling, but it’s not storytelling in and of itself.

OTOH, try to find a story that can’t maintain its basic continuity and simultaneously be effective. I wish anyone luck who takes on *that* mission. ;)

#198 – “YOU Have to embrace change! Or you will die… everything that will go and live unchanged will eventually fail…”

Yes, but change and revisionism are not the same thing at all. One can quite easily embrace change and yet reject revisionism, with no inherent contradiction.

287. Joe - March 24, 2009

Ha, you sure bet there’s a lot of flashbacks in this movie!

It’s JJ Abrams after all.

288. F This - March 24, 2009

If Vulcan is blown up, I’m done. They can kiss my green-blooded arse.

289. Lazar - March 24, 2009

I wonder if Nero’s ear injury there is a homage to Chopper Read. :P

290. Jonny Bombastic - March 24, 2009

I think this “preview” is a fake. FAAAAAAAAKE.
.
.
.
.
Fake. There’s no way they’re going to release this movie like this. It’s clearly a fake. This isn’t Star Trek. This is Die Hard in Space. It’s a fake, plain and simple.

291. MC1 Doug - March 24, 2009

Both sides of the fence are clearly lining up with their phasers set on disintegrate..

I am as rabid a fan as anyone (just take a look in my home office or ask my friends what a dweeb I am– and I mean that affectionately)… but some of you self-appointed “true” fans are crying way too much about the changes, about canon, about being mind-raped… for God’s sake, you are being such drama queens.. and some of you folks really need to take a chill pill…

The movie’s not even out yet… give it a chance, and if you don’t like it. Then you can make valid (or perhaps not) comments, but based on trailers?

C’mon.. get real.

292. Smike van Dyke - March 24, 2009

I can’t believe it you’re still discussing continuity issues! It has been confirmed on several occasions that the new film takes place in an altered timeline so there simply are NO continuity issues AT ALL. It’s a different reality. Full stop.

293. MC1 Doug - March 24, 2009

#292:

thank you

294. sean - March 24, 2009

#200

“You want to know what my vision is? Dollar signs. Money. I didn’t create Star Trek to usher in a new era for humanity…I created it so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with naked women. That’s Gene Rodenberry. That’s his vision.” – Gene Rodenberry by way of Zefram Cochrane

I figured since you quoted the film to promote your viewpoint, I had every right to do the same :)

Gene had good ideas that were made great by others like Gene Coon, DC Fontana, David Gerrold, Bob Justman, Harlan Ellison, etc. He was an admirable man for trying to bring a little hope and optimism into our future. However, he was not a deity. You need go no further than the IDIC pendant shoe-horned into a random plotline to sell trinkets from Lincoln Enterprises to understand that fact. And hey, I don’t belittle the man for wanting to be paid for his creation. More power to him. But let’s be honest about it. Let’s also not elevate nonsense like ‘The Omega Glory’ or ‘Catspaw’ into the realm of ‘sacred’.

And Gav, you came into this forum with guns blazin’. You strongly suggested anyone who would enjoy this movie was a ‘sheep’ with a ‘short attention-span’ that would ‘strain their meager intellect’ with anything more engaging. You then implied ‘true fans’ that claimed to be excited about the movie were akin to hypocrites (your Vegan/steak & eggs example) and that they lacked ‘loyalty and integrity’ (qualities that you, in contrast, claim to have in abundance).

You stated all of that well before anyone directly insulted you or chose to belittle you instead of responding to you. So please don’t be a hypocrite yourself and hide behind the old ‘it was only self-defense!’ routine. You came in here to stir things up and provoke a reaction. Don’t feign surprise or offense when you achieve your goal.

Now, if you want to have an actual discussion about your reservations about the new movie, I think many people here would happily oblige you. I’ve personally allowed for the possibility the new Trek will be great and the possibility it will be awful. I’m leaning toward the former, simply because I tend to be an optimist, but it’s not going to destroy my faith in humanity or send my worldview spinning if it ends up the latter, either.

295. The Capt - March 24, 2009

“It is not the strongest Trekkie that will survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

296. Alex Rosenzweig - March 24, 2009

#292 _ “I can’t believe it you’re still discussing continuity issues! It has been confirmed on several occasions that the new film takes place in an altered timeline so there simply are NO continuity issues AT ALL. It’s a different reality. Full stop.”

Ahh, but don’t you see? That just morphs the discussion into how different–or not–the altered timeline is. ;)

297. harris250 - March 24, 2009

Without the story, and the canon, Trek becomes “Lost in Space”…

hey, thats funny…

298. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@285…

T’I kilko-srashiv kitok-wilat, Aragorn!

299. Don Farnsworth - March 24, 2009

@46

Most of the fans who mad star trek what it is are fully on board with all this.

If we lose the mega dicks who cry like babies when they don’t get it all their way cool. They are the ones who give the rest of us the label of geek. They are the ones who sat laughing like gits at every little in joke during the movies ruining the experience for anyone new attempting to give Trek a shot.

If Abrams reboots the franchise and scrapes off the idiots who think they have claims on how it all works then fantastic.

300. sean - March 24, 2009

#286

““Force yourself”? I don’t see it as being forced at all. In the process of embracing a fictional world, I embrace its details along the way, and for me, that’s a natural thing. Now, to be fair, obviously there are certain levels of detail that are minor enough that if they’re contradicted, most people probably won’t notice, or care, and that’s fine. But on the larger-scale level, IMHO, it should be kept essentially consistent. For me, it’s a core believability thing. That and I think that a franchise or other ongoing entity that can’t keep its basic continuity is far more at risk of death than one that simply isn’t producing new material at the moment. To date, neither has applied to Star Trek, anyway. ;)”

But Alex, Star Trek – especially TOS – has always had difficulty maintaining continuity. I know we’ve had this discussion before and I’m loathe to run in circles around this, but I don’t see how these writers picking and choosing what they want to keep as the backstory for their story is any different than Leonard Nimoy deciding the Enterprise was 20 years old or Nick Meyer making the changes he did. Or TOS postulating it took place 100 years, 200 years, 300 years or 800 years in the future, depending on the episode. Or TUC stating that Praxis exploded 2 months prior to Kirk & crew meeting Gorkon, but VOY stating it took place 2 days prior.

The only difference I see is that Abrams & Co have been more up front about what they’ve changed and why.

301. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

//sure, I’m concerned about canon, but what concerns me most is the canon of the CHARACTERS. I’m concerned about Kirk not being compromised as an epic, heroic figure//

WORD! I couldn’t agree more!

//Clearly something shocking has been said to or revealed to him—something that’s freaked him out badly. I’m enticed by that alone… I’d like to see what Spock could possibly have said to him to cause that kind of reaction.//

“You are my t’hy’la, Jim.”

;-)

302. Jay El Jay - March 24, 2009

I for one am sick of all this anamosity between fans.

Gav, if your just going to cause disruption and try and stamp your own selfish views into us, then this REALLY isn’t the place for you. I respect that people have opinions, but you have no respect, you instead try an asimilate everyone elses views into your single FLAWED view of things. None of us have seen the movie, and all of us are excited, therefore we are all going to ask questions and formulate our on answers to things, as this is human nature… none of us are right, as we know it yet, so stop bitching and whining and DO ONE!! – Geezz, your like an unwelcomed virus, the comon cold of this forum, and we are sick of catching you!!

As for everyone else….

Here we are PREACHING Star Trek ideals, of love, peace and harmony and yet we fail to understand these themes, we fail to adopt these themes into our own lives…. I mean come on, we are ALL Star Trek fans, we each have this in common, this makes us friends, and if this is how we treat our friends, then what hope is there for us in 200 years??

Star Trek will forever be a fantasy, because we are not evolved enough to make it a reality…. I feel ashamed of being a Star Trek fan, knowing that part of that club is an extremist wing, it reminds me how many muslims must feel.

Rant over…

Regards

Jay (UK)

303. Toothless Grishnar Cat - March 24, 2009

Is it too much to ask for people to be objective, neither forming suicide pacts and burning the film in effigy before its release, nor acting like it’s God’s gift to the earth?

Oh wait, of course it is.

304. weerd1 - March 24, 2009

Man. What are we all going to do when this movie is just OK? When it gets some stuff wrong and gets some stuff right, and is certainly better than Nemesis, but not as good as TWOK? What do we do when the whole thing is neither the worst nor best thing to have ever happened to Star Trek and is just another version? Can we then argue about which one of us thinks it was the MOST mediocre?

No, we won’t, and do you know why? Too many people with no objectivity. To a lot of people this will be a complete affront to Trek no matter how good it is, and to a lot of people it will be the best movie EVAR MADE no matter how lame it is. No one will call it like it is, because we can’t- we are too wrapped around the axle about Trek. As Admiral Kirk said, C’est la Vie.

But I am going to laugh my pointed ears off when it is just average.

305. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

I think a lot of folks are just scared that those testosterone, action loving guys who beat them up in high school are going to start liking Star Trek.
You know, it’s like your worst enemy stealing your girlfriend.
And that’s okay. Maybe now there will be a whole new level of empathy between social classes.

To the design canon obsessed: This isn’t a period drama, star trek is about a fictional future.

306. Anthony Pascale - March 24, 2009

Gav
warning for flaming and trolling

it is all about civility here. All opinions are welcome here but you do not have the corner on the market of Roddenberry’s vision and ‘true star trek’. Everyone here is a fan and loves star trek. Those of any given opinion are no better and no ‘truer’ than any one else.

And to everyone piling on Gav…back off. Do not let one person become the focus of a thread.

307. Getting nervous - March 24, 2009

I’m a little worried about how the script is going to be. Orci & Kurtzman aren’t exactly known for cerebral work — lots of bang bang and zoom zoom.

308. Commander K - March 24, 2009

As Shatner said to Trekkies (or most likely to Canonisatas)..

“GET
A
LIFE”

309. Ayries - March 24, 2009

That song that starts up halfway through doesn’t seem to be going down so well, but it’s caught my attention bigtime. Anyone know where it’s from/if there’s a ‘clean’ version kicking around?

310. RD - March 24, 2009

#300 ARE YOU NUTS?
“The only difference I see is that Abrams & Co have been more up front about what they’ve changed and why.”
They have repeatedly denied they were tinkering with Star Trek at all, engaging in deceptive double-speak to hide the fact they were engaged in a full-on reboot to keep from alienating the fan-base. Finally this trailer s-p-e-l-l-s it out, because now that they have eased-in the hard core fans upon which this film depends if they miss their marketing target, they have to reel in the people upon whom its blockbuster success depends, who would normally avoid this film, by finally admitting the truth: this film is NOT “Star Trek”, but a high powered Summer action adventure film set in space that happens to use the same name and some of the same characters.

Only NOW has Abrams come clean and admitted what he’s been up to. He has admitted he was never much of a Trek fan and what he’s done is taken a franchise he never much cared for and Lucas-ized it to make it something he would have liked as a kid, Roddenberry’s vision be damned. Abrams sees Star Trek as a phenomenon, but he will finally make it a success. In his mind, it was a good idea that needed to be fixed. You know like, Mission Impossible, Felicity, Alias, Lost and Fringe.

311. pock speared - March 24, 2009

#46 (don)
thanks man. the “joke gits” were long out of hand, and had me squirming away from the franchise since TNG. “humor” in trek has degraded to a sort of tastleless wankery, and only served to alienate entire demographics away from what had become tripe anyway.

on the other hand, gav cracks me up. i think maybe GR would be begging him to “please, please god, please stop defending my vision” at this point.

also, i think the planet that’s being vaporized is in fact “Canonica”, a contradictory world where nothing makes much sense, no one is allowed to think for themselves, they all have names like “skonky”, “skunkly”, “skenky”, etc., and everyone lives in a basement fantasizing about sex they will never have with prothestic-headed actresses they will never meet. The destruction of which is long overdue and needed doing.

312. Rocket Scientist - March 24, 2009

After skimming through this VERY interesting thread, I’d like to put things in terms everybody can understand:

“I…willnot…flame…TODAY!!

That is all. Play nice!

313. Jefferies Tuber - March 24, 2009

We’ve been invaded by late-comers, rehashing 6 months of speculation and disagreement.

Who knows if they’ll end up reseting the timeline in this movie, but it appears that Vulcan and Earth will be destroyed in this movie, turning the leaders of the Federation into Space Jews.

The planet being destroyed by the shockwave is one of the planets affected by the Superdupernova in COUNTDOWN. That’s totally separate from the Narada’s superweapon, which we see over San Francisco and Amanda Grayson’s balcony on Vulcan. That weapon leads to the implosion effect seen in that last trailer.

However, we’ve been told that a Battleship Enterprise will make an appearance in this movie, implying a modification of the pre-TOS timeline. So, whether you ever took the LSAT or not, that would seem to indicate that any or all of Spock’s Jellyfish, the Narada and the Enterprise travel back in time and take the battle further back in time.

For example, if Spock were to travel to the Archer era, he could seed the Federation with technology and information that would result in a heavily militarized, thoroughly prepared Federation when Nero shows up to destroy Vulcan and Earth.

Bottom Line: they’re only showing us a few segments of the movie from different angles. There’s a lot more to this movie than Iowa, the Academy, Pearl Harbor on Earth and the destruction of Vulcan.

314. Fansince9 - March 24, 2009

Great new commercial, awesome! Where is the background music from?

315. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

Who’s Gav?

-Yea, the Orci and Kurtzman Bang, pow thing makes me wonder a bit too. But from reading on this sit all about Orci’s trek love and how he’s been reading Trek novels all of his life, I think his ability to write action will mind-meld with his backlog of trek knowledge and produce a professional fan made Valentine to trek….at least that’s how it seems so far. I haven’t seen the film yet, and no one else on this board has yet either.

316. Alex Rosenzweig - March 24, 2009

#300 – “#286 – ““Force yourself”? I don’t see it as being forced at all. In the process of embracing a fictional world, I embrace its details along the way, and for me, that’s a natural thing. Now, to be fair, obviously there are certain levels of detail that are minor enough that if they’re contradicted, most people probably won’t notice, or care, and that’s fine. But on the larger-scale level, IMHO, it should be kept essentially consistent.
[snip]”

But Alex, Star Trek – especially TOS – has always had difficulty maintaining continuity.”

It had glitches (“R” vs “T”, for example), of course, but its macro-continuity was pretty sound. If this film maintains the macro-continuity, I’ll be fine with it.

“I don’t see how these writers picking and choosing what they want to keep as the backstory for their story is any different than Leonard Nimoy deciding the Enterprise was 20 years old”

I think that was more Bennett than Nimoy, and we basically ignored the line for the obvious inaccuracy that it was. Nothing’s absolutely perfect, and relatively few folks are going to lose sleep over the occasional glitch. We all knew, going in, that the folks on this film were going to occasionally have to resolve the occasional glitches in TOS’s character backstory, and that, too, is fine. But using those relatively small things (and, let’s face it, they were pretty small) as an excuse to say that continuity, overall, doesn’t matter still won’t wash with me. It isn’t a binary choice, either there must be perfect continuity or no continuity, after all. There’s room for flexibility in such things. :)

“or Nick Meyer making the changes he did. Or TOS postulating it took place 100 years, 200 years, 300 years or 800 years in the future, depending on the episode.”

Again, until much later, things hadn’t been settled upon, so TOS was indeed inconsistent. Now that it has been settled upon, there’s no further need to introduce more inconsistency. Obviously we know that early TOS had a number of detail inconsistencies, because they hadn’t settled on a lot of things at tthe time, and will be impossible to be consistent with all of them. Again, flexibility. :)

“Or TUC stating that Praxis exploded 2 months prior to Kirk & crew meeting Gorkon, but VOY stating it took place 2 days prior.”

See above re an obvious error. VOY’s writers got it wrong. We note the mistake and move on.

“The only difference I see is that Abrams & Co have been more up front about what they’ve changed and why.”

Except that there have been hints that they’re going far beyond an occasional writing glitch or deciding that a detail isn’t important. The potential to change the overall continuity, potentially on the macro-level, has been built into the story, and that’s a lot different than the examples you cited, all of which were fairly minor things and never even remotely intended to suggest that the entire universe had changed. Ergo, when the writers got it wrong in the various series or movies, it was easy to either dismiss the error as such, or to come up with an explanatory work-around. Indeed, such things were, in a more relaxed age, part of the fun.

If this movie confines its changes to things on the detail level, I don’t think it’ll really be an issue. It’s the potential for much larger and more sweeping discontinuities that disturbs those of us who care about such things.

Obviously, until we actually *see* the movie, we’re probably not going to be able to judge it, but that doesn’t prevent us from understanding the parameters of the issue.

317. Aragorn189 - March 24, 2009

298 thorsten

English please. I’m not fluent in Vulcan.

318. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

Now i want to see a commercial with full on Matrix appeal.

-Where’s the techno?

-You folks are so easy to manipulate. The last trailer had a slower tempo, and had moody music playing and everyone loved it.
It’s, almost, the same footage cut differently to different music and now the haters come back.
Do you all only eat after you hear a bell?

-Oh, and this trek will be fine.

I think Kirk is tripping from a mind meld with old Spock, in fact I’ll bet on it.

let’s start a betting poll, is that legal?
Whatever, take it up with Starfleet .

319. Frederick - March 24, 2009

I think the only way we old-time trekkers can enjoy this movie is if we go in with the mindset “forget what you know” and just let it happen.

320. Jefferies Tuber - March 24, 2009

This totally cracks me up. I was never beat up in High School, but the girlfriend analogy is true.

305. SpocksinnerTurmoil – March 24, 2009
I think a lot of folks are just scared that those testosterone, action loving guys who beat them up in high school are going to start liking Star Trek.
You know, it’s like your worst enemy stealing your girlfriend.

The real fear would be that, in success, the producers double down and make the next film more Bay-like and vapid. But that just doesn’t seem to be in Bob Orci’s creative DNA. TRANSFORMERS is a contemporary story, with a rice paper-thin mythology, where slang, ‘splosions and silly jokes are fair game.

For every sure sign of sex & ‘splosions in the new movie, there are twice as many indications that this is a grand introduction to our characters. We had almost 100 hours of material to get to know our characters, but there’s never been an origin story for people who didn’t care for the limitations of 60s SF.

321. Frederick - March 24, 2009

Oh, and Vulcan has no moon, since the re-edit of ST:TMP they were taken out according to canon, and that was fixed.

322. Chris - March 24, 2009

I like the “forget everything” tag, to me it doesnt mean any slight towards the Star Trek of the past like some seem to worry, it means take nothing for granted anything can happen…after all I dont want to go watch a bunch of movies where theres no real risk to any of them paying the ultimate price for doing what they do.

Bring on May!

323. Pleasure Girl1990 - March 24, 2009

Is this based on a true story?

324. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

Hey 316, what do you mean by macro-cannon?
Is blowing up Vulcan macro-cannon?
What about Kirk, as a kid having an alcoholic Uncle, is that macro-cannon?

Micro-cannon, macro-cannon…is there a list somewhere that divides the two?

I like the idea of cannon, and i enjoy a consistent fake history in a story. But if an interesting new Star Trek with Kirk, Spock and McCoy etc can be made while blowing up the planet Vulcan then fine, blow the planet up.
The Klingon’s found another planet to live on, what’s the problem.

325. Jefferies Tuber - March 24, 2009

Has anyone here seen CHOPPER?

That’s the Australian movie that propelled Bana from TV comedy in Australia to an American career, not unlike Russell Crowe in ROMPER STOMPER.

When you see that movie, you’ll see what Universal and Ang Lee were thinking when they cast him as Bruce Banner/Hulk… and get a better idea of what to expect from Nero. He’s what Noel Coward was referring to when he sang of “Mad dogs and Englishman.”

326. sean - March 24, 2009

#316

“…as an excuse to say that continuity, overall, doesn’t matter still won’t wash with me.”

I have never, ever said continuity doesn’t matter. I’ve simply said that it takes a back seat to A)Character & B)Story. I believe that’s the route the Star Trek writers have always taken, so I feel comfortable with that view. If you have a great story about Kirk, but it somehow contradicts/precludes his serving on Republic or never encountering the Romulan Commander from ‘The Enterprise Incident’ or never meeting Gary Mitchell, I say story takes precedence (assuming it’s a good story – I’d be just as annoyed were a good story sacrificed in favor of a crummy one, and that goes for the new movie, too).

Now, I’m not suggesting every single story chuck the continuity from the previous one. I completely understand the believability/suspension of disbelief argument with regard to consistency. However, to me, if I can accept wildly inconsistent accounts of the same event (such as Tuvok’s recounting of TUC, where the timeline differs and Valtane dies despite being visible on the bridge of the Excelsior at the end of TUC), I can deal with changes every dozen movies or so. And given that this is a new team of people trying to come at this with a fresh approach, I am open to alterations, even macro ones. I think we were all open to that in Star Trek II, which was essentially a micro-reboot of TMP.

“Except that there have been hints that they’re going far beyond an occasional writing glitch or deciding that a detail isn’t important. The potential to change the overall continuity, potentially on the macro-level, has been built into the story, and that’s a lot different than the examples you cited, all of which were fairly minor things and never even remotely intended to suggest that the entire universe had changed. Ergo, when the writers got it wrong in the various series or movies, it was easy to either dismiss the error as such, or to come up with an explanatory work-around. Indeed, such things were, in a more relaxed age, part of the fun.”

To me, you perfectly explain why the changes here are less relevant than the internal inconsistencies within the Star Trek framework, but somehow we’re on opposite sides of the debate…perspective is a funny old bird, ain’t she?

Orci, Abrams & Co have all provided a perfectly reasonable, in-universe explanation for changes. Nimoy (regardless of whether Bennett came up with the idea, Nimoy has admitted they made a conscious decision to ignore continuity) or Meyer or Rodenberry simply contradicted themselves without any reasonable, in-universe explanation. They did it because they wanted to and it served the story they were telling. Or they simply forgot. Regardless of the motivation, the result is the same. I say if we can accept those changes without explanation, we should be even more receptive to accepting changes that are given a specific explanation.

327. Mark Lynch - March 24, 2009

#323
Of course it is, but you have to wait 200 or so years to see it happen for real. ;)

328. Pleasure Girl1990 - March 24, 2009

#327 Sorry I don’t understand…

329. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@317…

Okay!
You had a good idea there, maybe the Vulcans terraform T’Khut, with the help of the other worlds of the Federation… But maybe the Vulcan ragtag fleet leaves Nevasa for good, searching for a new Home…

330. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

For every sure sign of sex & ’splosions in the new movie, there are twice as many indications that this is a grand introduction to our characters.

-Agreed!

-So, if new Kirk just mind melded with old Spock does that mean he now has the knowledge and competence of Kirk Prime. It’s probably been a while since the two have melded, just off the top of my head: since TOS. “Requiem for Methuselah” maybe?, anyway, do you think a sort of “down load” of knowledge and ability would follow? I mentioned the Matrix as a joke earlier, but I am wondering if mind-melding could be a more organic way of jacking into the matrix and learning kung-fu…you follow me?

331. thorsten - March 24, 2009

On the other hand, the whole system will destabilize after Vulcan implodes, so T’Khut will not be a safe place…

332. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@330…

If Spock shares his memories from the Prime timeline with KIrk,
he will carry this weight all his life. Every decision he makes later on
as Captain will be influenced by the knowledge from another life…

I think he looks shocked by the fact that he just met that pesky guy that threw him off the ship in an escape pod… but from the future

333. Picard's barber - March 24, 2009

If there was ever one thing that I’ve learned from Star Trek it’s to keep an open mind. We’re not perfect and we shouldn’t expect that of others or of Star Trek itself. Star Trek is a great work of fiction made to be enjoyable while still trying to open our eyes with optimistic possibilities for the future. JJ can’t be everything to everyone, so why cry about it? That’s the way of the world. Deal with it.

334. Getting nervous - March 24, 2009

@305. SpocksinnerTurmoil

LOL…I didn’t get beat up in high school (I beat people up if anything ;))…I just have taste, and don’t want to see something I enjoy and respect ruined by flavors of the week. But keep up the self-aggrandizing non-solicited advice!

335. acb - March 24, 2009

To #316 and #326

The fact of the matter is that continuity in this film from any previous series is null after Nero goes back in time.

From a story telling concept, It is the notion of the butterfly effect (and not the dumbed down version in Aschton Kutcher’s craptacular film.) When Nero goes back and commences with his first interaction with the past he alters the past. Now judging by the trailer his actions are far small. Thus he goes on to alter every interaction from that point on.

It can be as simple as someone going left instead of right, being delayed longer than before, or someone perhaps even being killed that had not been before Nero. By doing this everything seen in the original series is null because most of the incidents on the 60′s occurred by the simple fact the Enterprise was in the location it was at that exact time.

What does this mean unforunately. Well more than likely no Khan being revived, no trouble with tribbles, no encounter with the guardian. Much of that will not occur or will not occur to this new crew…..that is until some producer decides to revisit it for the purpose of drawing in an audience through regurgitated ideas rather than originality.

Overall, the continuity of what came before in this case really means nothing because in the end this is not even how the Original series crew met anyways. They had lives that originally followed different paths. If we were to get even more detailed within this, these characters could potentially not even be the same people (Look at it from this stand point – If your parents had sex three days later or even one day later than they originally had when you were conceived, physically you would not be the same person). Just look at the scene in Star Trek V (which I regret having to use as an arguement for quality Trek) where Kirk rambles on about each person’s individual pain.

As much as I hate to admit it, this new Trek is not the Trek any of us grew up with in terms of continuity and what happened to what character on what day. That does not mean however that it will not be Trek in spirit and feeling though.

I personally hope that Abrams manages to capture the feeling Trek did have both on screen and for fans internally. Though I will miss the Spock and Kirk I have come to know in nearly 3 decades of existence.

336. Film Commercial Plays Like Any Other Movie - March 24, 2009

I’ve watched and rewatched the trailers and have come to the conclusion that there isn’t much to show to the average filmgoer that makes this movie SPECIAL or DIFFERENT from any other BIG RELEASE this summer. You’ve got short, exciting clips of different action scenes, very few pieces of dialog and an old man telling this kid to rise above his mediocrity. I get it. Thats it?

Now, to play cynic, why should I care? Why should I pay my $11, or $14.50 for the IMAX version and spend 120 minutes of my life to see this movie? Why should I care about the blue eyed guy that reminds me of the popular jock in h.s. many despised? Or, the Asian guy who looks like he should be serving me my beef with broccori at my local Chinese restaurant?? The bald man with the bad tattoo? :)

337. Closettrekker - March 24, 2009

#5—”Forget everything you know” is merely a way of encouraging those with preconceived notions about Star Trek to disregard them, IMO.

And it is not a reboot. A reboot requires that previously established continuity be discarded and ignored.

It is impossible to discard or ignore continuity that is essential to the story advancing to this point. The moment the timeline formed by the 5 live action series and 10 previous films is depicted (as reported that the film’s opening does indeed)—that previously established continuity is acknowledged as a prelude to this story.

Moreover, the possibility of interference with the past resulting in the creation of an altered timeline is an important aspect of that continuity.

By definition—this is not a reboot, just as the film’s producers said it would not be.

#52—”I guess I am in the minority but as a Trek fan my whole life I am loving this. I can’t wait to see a new Trek film that restarts this franchise for a whole new generation.”

You are most certainly *not* in the minority.

#326—”Orci, Abrams & Co have all provided a perfectly reasonable, in-universe explanation for changes. Nimoy (regardless of whether Bennett came up with the idea, Nimoy has admitted they made a conscious decision to ignore continuity) or Meyer or Rodenberry simply contradicted themselves without any reasonable, in-universe explanation. They did it because they wanted to and it served the story they were telling. Or they simply forgot. Regardless of the motivation, the result is the same. I say if we can accept those changes without explanation, we should be even more receptive to accepting changes that are given a specific explanation.”

Especially when that “specific explanation” provides for the preservation of “canon” and continuity built over the last 4 decades (ENT-NEM) by making all of that necessary for the story to advance to this point.

Nothing depicted in TOS, the original films, TNG, the TNG films, DS9, VOY, or ENT is precluded by this story. In fact, this story is dependant upon each and every event depicted in the 5 live action series and 10 previous films forming the timeline of which Nero and Nimoy’s Spock are each a product. By all accounts, this film’s story *begins* in that very timeline.

338. Yakari - March 24, 2009

@336…

Why should WE care what YOU think you have to say?

339. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

334-I’ll stop cracking jokes when you stop taking yourself and star trek so seriously.

Which flavor of the week do you think this new film is: strawberry, chocolate malted crunch maybe?

Determinism is an overrated, and very flawed method for speculating about a film yet to be released.
Not every film property is send through the Hollywood executive “flavor of the week” mill.

Again, seriously…learn to laugh, unless you’re a Vulcan, and that would be down right offensive.

340. Shane - March 24, 2009

Regarding the continuity debates, let me try to put it in a way that I have found to be the most helpful in understanding why a great many fans are very unhappy with the idea of a reboot, regardless of how perfectly it may be designed to fit into the pre-existing continuity.

The issue is simply this: To these fans, Star Trek is not Star Trek because of phasers, warp drive, Klingons, the United Federation of Planets, or any of that other stuff. Every science fiction franchise has it’s own version of these different things.

No, to these fans Star Trek is Star Trek because of the characters. Yet again, not because of the character types. It’s not Star Trek because it has an alien struggling throughout his life to come to terms with his humanity, or the gallant captain who’s not afraid to break a rule here or there to get the job done, or the all too human doctor who is constantly at odds with the alien, or any of that. Again, every science fiction story has its own share of unique or interesting or likable characters.

To people like me, Star Trek is what it is because I’ve spent decades “with” these characters, getting to know them through all of their experiences, getting to see them develop individually and as part of deep friendships. I “was there” the first time Spock smiled, when he and McCoy nearly died together and grew closer, when Spock died and Kirk wept, and when they threw their careers away to help him, and when Spock made Kirk the liaison for Chancellor Gorkon, and for decades I was there through the joyful times, the sad times, the funny ones, and so forth, and I was also for those characters in the other series.

The point is that if this is a reboot, I won’t really care about these characters, and many others won’t as well. These will not be the same characters, no matter how closely it is tied to canon, and no matter how much they try to connect them via Mr. Nimoy. These will be different people, with different experiences – people who I never went through all of these emotional experiences over several decades with. They can have the same personalities. They can behave exactly as I’d expect them, but in the end it will be as if my family was replaced with perfect clones: however much the same they may be, they just wouldn’t be my family. Similarly, the new crew of the Enterprise would be no more than clones to me, and I couldn’t care about them as hard as I tried.

To those who may object that it is only a fictional franchise and I’m going a bit overboard with the emotions here, I’d point out that while it may only be a television show, any movie, broadcast, or book which is is just fiction brings us to develop some connection to the characters. It is, after all, one of the important things that reviewers look for in entertainment: does this film/book/etc. make me care about the characters?

All of that said, I want to say that the simple fact is *we don’t know that it will be a reboot*. There are certainly indications that it will be, but there are also many indications – some rather strong, in fact – that it will not be a reboot but will wind up, in the end, where we all are familiar with. I think it’s profoundly silly that so many people are treating it as certain that it will reboot the franchise, whether they laud it, bemoan it, or are indifferent. For a film as tightly guarded as this one, it’s just rather silly to make such iron-clad assumptions, especially given, as I said, the level of ambiguity to the evidence that we do have.

341. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

I love how after my first post, two people have already felt the need to assure me “…i never got beat up in high school.”

Okay, that’s cool. But your all missing the point ( occationally i have a point to my jokes):

It’s the idea of sharing, or having to share. I have an good friend who’s been a Tolkien fan since forever and before the LOTR films came out he was sweating over the future of Tolkien fandom. Before the films, Tolkien was special and exclusive to those who made the effort and read all the books and leaned about Tolkien’s influences and reveled in the maps and history. That way, if you meet another Tolkien fan, before films, you knew this other fan had to go through the same journey you did, the same effort was made. After the LOTR movies, any one and everyone new a rough history of middle earth.
—Do you see the point i’m making now?

My Tolkien friend was fine in the end. He realized, after the films came out, he was worrying over nothing, and no matter what the films were and who they created fans out of, his past experiences were still there and so were his maps and Tolkien biographies.

Our Trek is safe, no matter what happens with this new film.

Gene R. didn’t make Star Trek for you, he made it for the human race!!!

342. Closettrekker - March 24, 2009

#335—”The fact of the matter is that continuity in this film from any previous series is null after Nero goes back in time.”

To whom?

To the fictional characters not from the previous timeline, sure…except for whatever information that Nimoy’s Spock or Nero emparts to them.

But to the fans—certainly not.

ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the ten previous films form the continuity which leads the story to this point. For audiences familiar with it, previous continuity is preserved as “what happens before this”.

As for those non-traditional fans who aren’t familiar with it, the 5 series and ten films will matter no more or less to them than if one of them had seen TWOK without having first seen TMP.

Some may become curious to see how things got to this point. Others will not care. But for those of us who have been fans for decades, it could never be any more “null” than an older Star Trek production becomes when its sequel is released.

The fact that the sequel to Nemesis leads to the formation of an altered timeline is irrelevant. The potential for that in the Star Trek Universe has always been there. It is an aspect of canon nearly as old as the franchise itself.

343. Imrahil - March 24, 2009

Am I crazy, or is anyone with an opinion that isn’t positive–no, make that glowing–about this film just shouted down on this board?

344. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@343…

No, Imrahil, that is not the case.
Give it a try, and voice your opinion!

345. William Kirk - March 24, 2009

I don´t like as I didn´t like the trailers before. Now, it doesn´t look like Beverly Hills 1701, but like an average action movie of today. Action, exploding things and…oh, I didn´t notice anything more there. Sorry.

346. Sailor83 - March 24, 2009

I love Trek and own all the DVD’s etc. But seriously, some of you guys need to chill out. What does it matter about so called canon? As long as the characters are true to the originals and and the spirit of the show remains intact, it really doesnt matter if things don’t always marry up. After all, it is science FICTION.

This trailer is rubbish by the way. The last one was much better!

347. S. John Ross - March 24, 2009

#343: You’re not crazy, but that would be overstating it. I’d reckon that only about 5-10% of the non-glowing comments are “shouted down” in any real (metaphorical) sense … the majority are just ignored in the general rush toward the kum-ba-yahs, or given brief (non-shouty) dismissal.

The shouting-downs are more visible and memorable, though, which distorts perceptions, understandably.

348. Getting nervous - March 24, 2009

@341. SpocksinnerTurmoil

You take yourself waaaaay too seriously.

“—Do you see the point i’m making now?”
It’s sorta like Sarah Palin pointing out the patently obvious, and then thinking the obvious is a revelation.

349. bmar - March 24, 2009

Re: 340 – Shane

I’d argue that even if the assumptions we have about the movie are all true, you can’t make the assumption that these won’t be the same characters, the same experiences that you grew up with.

While the circumstances around this moment in their time line may have changed from what we know (or THINK we know), you can’t say with certainty that the events portrayed in the movie won’t lead to the events that we all know from TOS.

It’s one of the nice paradoxes of time – perhaps everything we know from TOS originated from the events of this movie (forgetting about the design differences in the technology, sets, weapons, etc. which I write off as a creative choice, rather than something that has to be accounted for in the “reality” of the fiction). Who is to say that Spock won’t have his first smile exactly the way we saw it, or that he won’t “die” saving the Enterprise from Khan, just the way we saw it?

I guess what I’m saying is, if you allow yourself the freedom to imagine the possibilities, you won’t feel that these characters are “clones” that you wouldn’t care about.

Just a thought.

350. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@347…

I just discovered Spacedock Stencil, neat!
And I like Yank and Newfie!

351. smarkey - March 24, 2009

340. Shane – March 24, 2009
“The point is that if this is a reboot, I won’t really care about these characters, and many others won’t as well.”

That may certainly be true, but I ask this: do you not make *new* friends in real life? Do you say to yourself, “I have no shared history with this person who is otherwise interesting to me, so I cannot expect the possibility of learning more about him and maybe (just maybe) eventually ‘caring’ about him?”

In the end, it is any movie’s job to *make* you care about its characters. If it doesn’t, it has failed.

Given that, there is a potential that these new fictional friends may be rewarding in their own right. I hope they are given that chance.

352. Closettrekker - March 24, 2009

#349—”While the circumstances around this moment in their time line may have changed from what we know (or THINK we know), you can’t say with certainty that the events portrayed in the movie won’t lead to the events that we all know from TOS. ”

Or that–even if they do not lead to events unfolding *precisely* that way–that the characters will not still evolve into basically the same people we know already.

After all, there can be more than one road leading to the same destination.

There is already a glaring difference in the backstory.

In the previous timeline, Kirk meets Pike when he is promoted to “Fleet Captain”. In this timeline, he meets Pike prior to Kirk’s enlistment in Starfleet. Moreover, Chris Pike takes a more significant role in his life.

Does all of this mean that the Enterprise will not, for example, discover the SS Botany Bay adrift with genetic supermen in cryogenic freeze?

Not necessarily. This is fiction. Anything is possible.

353. Frederick - March 24, 2009

We’re lucky that Voyager never released “Year of Hell”‘s two parts theatrically or after the trailer’s scenes of destruction the internet would have burned up with all the screams. And then at the end: it never happened! We might see a lot of that here; big stuff that they show in the trailer thatgets corrected before it’s all over.

For Vulcan’s sake, let’s hope so.

354. NaradaAlpha - March 24, 2009

#196—and kirk and friends drinking alcohol is what you viewed as immoral? how about in previous trailers uhura undressing, or the fact that religion doesnt seem to exist in the 23rd century? hmmmmmm??? GOD please forgive this flake for said flake knows not what he/she says…

355. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

343-I believe it’s not the opinion itself, but the iron-fisted, “i’m right and you’re wrong” delivery.

When some one posts something along the lines of “this new film will be bad, and anyone who thinks different cares less about star trek then i do.” that tends to irk a few people.

I’m sick of all of it.
NO ONE has seen the film here yet, pro or con.
The useless debate over this film being good or bad is taking up space that could be used for interesting trek discussions.
(at 330)

I tried to suggest a point to analyze earlier and no one seems to care, they just want to damn or defend a film no one has seen yet.

356. Shane - March 24, 2009

349 bmar:

The idea that the events we know from TOS originated from this movie – if I understand your meaning correctly – is not in the realm of what my thoughts were directed towards.

Others have suggested that TOS as we know it is in fact itself the very “alternate time line” created by Nero, in a sort of paradox similar to Star Trek First Contact, where it turns out that the interference of the Enterprise-E crew was exactly what was supposed to have happened in the first place.

I’m not talking about that sort of thing, which is actually what I am predicting for the film, whether I turn out to be correct or not. No, I am referring to the idea of creating a “true” alternate timeline – one which is indeed different from lived out in TOS, TNG, etc. and in which any number of things could happen differently – a timeline in which the characters really are just the “clones” I was referring to.

357. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@355…

well, I answered on your 330…
;))

358. Kirk, James T. - March 24, 2009

319: “think the only way we old-time trekkers can enjoy this movie is if we go in with the mindset “forget what you know” and just let it happen.”

I think for the majority of Star Trek fans who aren’t so serious or fanatic about the inner workings of Star Trek and just enjoy it for what it is will LOVE this movie – old timer or not.

The people who will and are shooting themselves in the foot are the people who can’t let go of the past and want Star Trek to remain there – they have probably never met reality.

The reality is however, the Star Trek people are saying this movie is degrading or insulting, or even as over the top as raping (LOL speaks volumes doesn’t it) died in 2005 with the cancelation of Enterprise.

JJ Abrams vision of Star Trek is far different from Bermans or even Roddenberry’s and that my friends is what is so great about this revival – it isn’t going to be the same as what we’ve seen so forget what you already know and get ready to like this new franchise.

Btw, forgetting what you already know does NOT mean just completely blank out the last 40 years. nothing can destroy what has already been seen and loved but it is time to move on. This Star Trek is for the people who have thought Star Trek was shit, not the people who’ve loved it since day one – the trailers, this one in particular scream out; forget the cheesy sets, hammy acting and joke of a franchise Star Trek once was and prepare for the beginning…

a casual Star Trek fan, and fan like myself who just loves Star Trek, will be loving this movie – a fan who takes him or herself and the franchise too seriously – will hate it because it messes with all the time and money they’ve invested in Star Trek – not realizing that it had to move beyond the basement dwelling geeks of Trek’s past and into the glittering Star Wars infested mainstream.

359. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

348

dude, why do you make these things so personal.

why are you’re responses only about the incidental phrases and jokes I pepper my posts with.

It’s like arguing with my younger siblings when i was twelve.
You end up arguing about the way you argue instead of the discussion at hand.

to bad…we may have ended up having a lot of things in common.

goody bye.

360. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

357

I missed it.

I’ll go back and look.

361. Chris Pike - March 24, 2009

356. Shane – March 24, 2009 Others have suggested that TOS as we know it is in fact itself the very “alternate time line” created by Nero, in a sort of paradox similar to Star Trek First Contact

yes, TOS could be argued to be an alternate timeline to ours – our timeline had no Keeler who was killed in 1940, had no Eugenics war, Khan or Botany Bay sleeper ship in the 1990′s etc etc…?

362. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

-Thorsten

Got it!

But what about physical ability?
Does he instantly know how to pull off a sweet shoulder roll?

363. NaradaAlphai - March 24, 2009

hmmmm i was just thinking… that planet being blown up by the shockwave looks a lot like the one being sucked into the red matter black hole created by neros drill… what if the planet being destroyed is NOT Vulcan but instead a planet in the solar system that revolves around the star that neeo destroys the kelvin at on kirks day of birth?

364. NaradaAlphai - March 24, 2009

typo…sorry…meant NERO not neeo

365. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@362…

haha, okay, that should work!

366. bmar - March 24, 2009

@352 – Closettrekker

My point exactly! This is fiction, anything is possible.

Try this one on for size…I could suggest that when Kirk says to Commodore Mendez in The Menagerie “I met him when he was promoted to Fleet Captain” – which is the one reference which seems to set “canon” in concrete – maybe Kirk didn’t feel like telling Mendez his backstory about Pike having an influence on him and getting him to join starfleet, and that he had a troubled youth. Maybe it was simpler for him just to tell a white lie to Mendez and overlook the whole thing. How many times in life do we avoid the details or tell a white lie for expediency’s sake?

I know, i know, anyone could poke holes in this too. My point is that if we are to accept these characters as “real” – in other words, as beings that have lives other than the moments we’ve seen them on screen, and thoughts that we aren’t privy to, then ANYTHING is possible, since we don’t and can’t know the whole story.

And don’t get me wrong – it could very well be the writers and director’s intentions that this movie creates a whole new timeline with adventures completely different from TOS, but my point is that if that’s not the case, ten there are plenty of ways to shoehorn this into existing story.

If there’s one thing all of the people responsible for creating all of the various of incarnations of Star Trek have done well over the years, it’s writing around problems of existing story lines.

367. JWM - March 24, 2009

This new trailer is The Awesome. I have to admit, I’m pretty sure I’ll go opening weekend now, whereas before I was going to wait a week (I always do). But the ads are really effective in urging me to get in and see it quickly just because it seems like it’ll be a lot of fun.

LANDRU! I am OF THE BODY.

368. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

I know it sounds like I’m kidding, but really (in truth i’m wrapping a potential real discussion in humor.)

would new Kirk actually inherit Kirk Primes abilities, or just be consciously aware of them?

369. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@368…

that is a good question, I am not sure if physical abilites are transferable, ST…

370. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

369, or anyone…

is there trek precedent for someones abilities being transferred?

I can’t think of any off hand, but my knowledge is limited to TOS, TAS, comics, a couple books, the movies and TNG.

371. bmar - March 24, 2009

370/369 –

I’d say (pure speculation) that mind-melds are not open conduits that instantly dump from one mind to another. It would seem logical that whomever is controlling the meld (in this case, Spock) has the ability to connect at a level he deems appropriate for the situation.

Think about it as sharing over the network from one computer to another. In some cases, you can just browse around and see what’s on the other computer, in other cases you can transfer data back and forth.

We’ve seen examples of both – Spock sifts thru Van Gelder’s mind or the Horta’s mind for information – neither of them take on Spock’s qualities. On the other hand, we’ve seen the “dump” version of the mind meld – Spock to McCoy in TWOK and Sarek to Picard in which information from one mind in purposefully transferred to another.

Lastly, I would say that even in the dump scenario, we have seen that abilities are not transferred, as is apparent in ST3 when McCoy tries to Vulcan Nerve Pinch the security guy to no avail.

Finally, I would say that everything I said can be chucked out the window if the writers feel that it works for the story. (see my previous post)

372. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

370 – After Spock died in WOK and was re-born, he basically inherited all his old memories from McCoy. It took him a while to integrate them all, but it seems that he remembered Surak’s teachings and all the other Vulcan mental disciplines. Otherwise, he would have been an emotional being.

373. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

As a supplement to my post at 370; has a non Vulcan ever used the neck pinch after a mind meld?

Growing up I always though the neck pinch was dependent on Vulcan physiology, then Data pulled the move in Unification so…

374. The Quickening - March 24, 2009

#174

150 million dollars didn’t hurt either.

375. Shane - March 24, 2009

373

Captain Archer used the nerve pinch after Surak’s Katra had been given to him in a mind meld.

376. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

372-

Thanks for reminding me of ST:III and McCoy’s failed attempted. That answers my question at 373.

But, and this is a point i find interesting in the new film; I can’t recall if anyone has been given their OWN memories before in trek, or more specifically, I can’t think of anyone else in trek history who has mind melded with a Vulcan he or she has mind melded with before and received past/future memories/knowledge/ who they are etc.

If anyone can think of precedent for this, perhaps in one of the later shows i don’t watch.

377. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

375-

Interesting, that seems to contradict ST:III.
And McCoy experienced a more intense meld then, i assume, Archer did, am i correct?

I mean, Spock dumped EVERYTHING into Bones.

378. bmar - March 24, 2009

376 –

Again, I’d say the mind meld is a bit like a swiss army knife – able to do different things depending on the intent of the user. Read minds, transfer info, backup and restore (like McCoy & Spock in ST 2 & 3) and so forth.

I think in TNG Picard retained Sareks memories and such after they melded.

Like I said, it’s a writer’s tool – a convenient way to make the story work, and therefore, can do anything they want it to do, within reason.

As a side note, I did some work with Nimoy on a project and one of the things he said was that he felt that the mind meld got over used and away from its original intent – i.e. “a deeply personal lowering of barriers” – to the point that they had him doing it at the drop of a hat – through walls and so forth.

379. Shane - March 24, 2009

I have to make a supplement, to my 375 post.

I would suggest that the issue with the nerve pinch is twofold – technique, and strength. Data was able to perform the pinch because he, being an android, was able to precisely control his hand so as to do it, and because he had the physical strength to apply the appropriate pressure. Vulcans, obviously, possess both the superior strength and the superior mental abilities to do likewise.

Other instances, which I have just looked up at Memory-Alpha, would seem to support this. Dr. McCoy, though possessing Spock’s Katra, was not successful in Star Trek III, whereas Archer was able to. This may be because Archer was clearly stronger than the aging and overall less fit McCoy, or because Surak’s Katra was in Archer in a somewhat ordered way, whereas Spock’s Katra was very clearly in McCoy in some way which was more “jumbled” than in the case of Archer, or both.

Picard also seems to have been able to perform the pinch. He was certainly stronger and more fit at the time he used it than McCoy was during his attempt. This, notably, occurred after his meld with Sarek. Finally, Seven of Nine used the pinch. She both possessed the strength of a former Borg drone as well as the mental precision that no doubt stemmed from the remaining Borg implants, and it is also possible that she was acquainted with many a Vulcan’s mind through the collective.

380. David P - March 24, 2009

what, shat is not in the movie???
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!

381. Shane - March 24, 2009

377. SpocksinnerTurmoil –

Archer received everything as well. In both cases, Katra was passed on to preserve it before the death of the bearer. The difference was that in Spock’s case, it was his own, whereas the Vulcan who melded with Archer was the keeper of Surak’s Katra, which had been passed down for generations. For whatever reason, Surak’s Katra was more “solidly” in Archer than Spock’s was in McCoy. What I mean by that is that when McCoy received Spock’s he was very mentally unstable. He was pretty crazy if you recall. Archer was also effected, but in a far more ordered way. He was not crazy, so much as he seemed to take on certain aspects of Surak’s personality, or behavior, as it were.

In any case and for whatever the cause, Archer was *far* more in control than was McCoy. Archer was in control, just different, whereas McCoy was fairly psychologically damaged.

382. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

379-

So the pinch is a technique then, something that can be learned given the strength of the individual, as apposed to something dependent on Alien biology. Growing up, i always thought it was the latter. I don’t have a problem with later cannon making it the former. I just preferred it being a special alien trick.

When did Picard perform the neck pinch?

383. Space Squirt - March 24, 2009

Tag line apologetically states “Forget everything You know”.
I wish I could.
I hope this isn’t just another watered down take on Star Trek.
So far I’m not impressed.
This movie needs more than some bad expensive CGI and Kirk in his tighty whities to be a real hit.(at what cost 150 million?yeesch).

384. AJ - March 24, 2009

Not all Vulcans, it’s been shown, possess melding ability, and amongst those who do, it stands to reason that there are varying levels of ability. Spock and his dad (and *gulp* Sybok) seem to be at ‘super’ level, and we can assume that Surak was at least as high as a priest, being the founder of Vulcan logic, etc.

385. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

Getting back to why i started this discussion: since all the posts seem to agree that, if the conditions are right, a physical ability CAN be transfered through a mind meld…sweet, that means Spock Prime can help Kirk Prime teach new Kirk the shoulder roll!!

Did i mention how happy i am this new movie is coming out.

386. S. John Ross - March 24, 2009

#350 Thorsten: Yay!

My lovely and oh-so-non-canon Andorian font is over on my Trek page … :)

387. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@383…

excuse me?
where did you spot “bad expensive CGI”?
and what makes you an expert?

388. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@386…

Hah! I’ll check it out, John!

389. Closettrekker - March 24, 2009

#368—Shatner’s Kirk and Pine’s Kirk would have been born with the same potential.

Even if Pine’s Kirk experiences a different upbringing, there is no reason to assume that he cannot also come to realize that potential—even if under different circumstances.

390. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@389…

and I would assume that they teach martial arts for line officers at the Academy…

391. Closettrekker - March 24, 2009

I think that mind-melds can transfer knowledge, but not (for example) the physical strength necessary to perform a “nerve pinch” (as evidenced by McCoy’s inability to do so). I think in Archer’s case, he is physically stronger than McCoy (although we’ve seen him knock a man unconscious with a single blow to the back of the neck in COTEOF)–so it is perhaps not so much of a stretch.

Personally, I don’t believe that Archer should have been able to perform the pinch (as he likely would not suddenly have the strength of a Vulcan), but he did—and so it is canon.

392. T'Cal - March 24, 2009

That’s it! I’m closing this thread.
***LOCKED***

393. Shane - March 24, 2009

382. SpocksinnerTurmoil –

All of what I said about what is necessary for the pinch is my personal speculation, backed up of course by the various examples I cited.

To me, at least, it seems similar to the ability of martial arts experts of breaking boards of wood or concrete blocks. Obviously, this requires strength. It also requires, more than knowledge of a special technique exactly, a tremendous deal of mental focus.

The Vulcan nerve pinch would – at least in my estimation – require the same two things: strength and tremendous focus. Normally, humans are not able to perform the pinch, for while perhaps many possess the strength, none possess the ability to focus their minds as is necessary. In this regard, I contend that it *is* a unique alien thing, for the Vulcans have the extreme discipline of mind that a human, presumably, could never have. This is why the only humans who have been able to do it are those who have received in one way or another the mind of a Vulcan.

Archer received Surak’s Katra. Picard took into himself a significant portion of Sarek’s mind, if you recall, so that the latter could perform a task free of the debilitating effects of an incurable mental degeneration. It is interesting that while McCoy did receive Spock’s Katra, he very clearly did *not* have nearly *any* discipline of mind – for whatever reason. (Perhaps it lies in the fact that, while human minds are simply incapable of soundly holding the Katra of a Vulcan, Archer received the Katra of *Surak*, perhaps the most most highly disciplined Vulcan mind of all time, whereas McCoy received that of a a Vulcan who not only was not Surak, but was also half human!)

By the way, Picard seems to have used the pinch in the episode ‘Starship Mine,” which is the one where he stays on board the Enterprise to fight the band of villains who use the occasion of a Baryon sweep to steal deadly material. You might find the following link interesting: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Vulcan_nerve_pinch

394. Closettrekker - March 24, 2009

#392—Is it something I said?

395. Space Squirt - March 24, 2009

@387.
Here’s just a few of some bad ,expensive CGI examples which look cartoonish to me and are typical of gratuitous CGI abuse in movies.
The corny planet implosion (terrible,unbelievable CGI).
The planet being destroyed by shock waves(again cartoonish)
The ice monster (phoney as visuals get).
The miles long drilling platform(gee if that isn’t reaching too far what is?I fully expect it to deploy out of a small box).

396. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

//sweet, that means Spock Prime can help Kirk Prime teach new Kirk the shoulder roll!!//

Not to mention the flying leg-kick. ;)

397. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@395…

okay, thanks!

398. Shane - March 24, 2009

395 –

I just looked at all the examples, and honestly they didn’t look bad to me. They were sure as heck not the Incredible Hulk, forever to be the standard by which terrible CGI is judged. Do you have a particular source for where you saw them and felt them to be cartoonish or fake-looking?

As an aside, the miles-long drilling platform isn’t the least bit unbelievable to me given that current science is actually investigating the possibilities of creating such devices.

399. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@398…

Shane, the effects are done by ILM, they are the best stuff available.
ILM’s Roger Guyett was Visual effects supervisor and Second Unit Director on Star Trek.

There is nothing wrong with the SFX, they are top notch.

400. T'Cal - March 24, 2009

Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine!

401. Space Squirt - March 24, 2009

@398
The source is the trailer.

402. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

Space Squirt#395- Did you watch all the trailers on a fuzzy YouTube download or something? Everything I have seen in all the trailers, effectswise, measures beyond what I had expected. HD was particularly exciting when viewing the last trailer before this one.

403. Space Squirt - March 24, 2009

@399
Your opinion.

404. Space Squirt - March 24, 2009

@402.
Did You read my post for the examples?

405. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@403…

Yes, absolutely my opinion.
And I accept your opinion, no problem.

But my opinion is that ILM outdid itself,
which is quite an achievement for the company
that started the modern era of visual effects…

406. Chris Pike - March 24, 2009

no, the cgi is top notch so far – my fave is the SF bay shot from the academy (of Starfleet that is!), nice compositing with no halo at all too all round

407. Shane - March 24, 2009

All I can say is, having watched the trailers, all of the CGI looked fantastic to me. I’m sorry that Space Squirt does not enjoy it.

408. Andy Patterson - March 24, 2009

One thing I’ve taken from this from the beginning when details were starting to leak(and maybe I’ve taken away the wrong message) is that everything really hinges on Kirk; that this Nero guy deems him that important And hence the motive for this movie. That makes me feel good and just affirms what I’ve always thought and felt about Star Trek….that Kirk was the most important part. Nimoy/Spock may have gotten more fan mail but to me Shatner/Kirk set the tone. Made it all work. I know some disagree…but this is what it always was to me. I’ve always said put Jack Lord in there, Loyd Bridges…whoever, it wouldn’t have been the same.

409. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

Space Squirt#404- Yes, I read your post. ILM has done an outstanding job (with the input of NASA’s Carolyn Portoco also) in my estimation.

410. tribble farmer - March 24, 2009

Badass.

411. ShawnP - March 24, 2009

395. Space Squirt

Seen many planets implode or blow up? What’s the basis for your analysis, and why is it more valid than others’?

412. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

396-

Three cheers for the flying leg kick.

Or, and i’m not sure what it’s called, the bounce off the wall and drop kick move Kirk pulls in Journey to Babel.

413. space squirt - March 24, 2009

@409,407406,405
You guys thought the planet implosion looked real?

414. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@413…

The effects in this movie are the best work I have ever seen.
Space never felt so real.
But I watched 20 minutes on a big screen,
not just the trailers…

415. AJ - March 24, 2009

Best lookin’ planet implosion I’ve ever seen.

The shots with the drill platform are outstanding as well, on Vulcan, and over Earth.

416. space squirt - March 24, 2009

@414.
You didn’t answer my question about the planet implosion.

417. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

SpaceSquirt#413- Real and real…what is real? I have not personally viewed a planetary implosion through a supertelescope, but I believe ILM did an admirable job of depicting what one might look like.

418. AJ - March 24, 2009

thorsten:

Does planet go “boom?” Or is there no sound in JJ’s space?

419. space squirt - March 24, 2009

@415
A drill platform that’s miles long is ridiculous self indulgent CGI in my opinion.

420. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

AJ#418- Planet go boom…

421. sean - March 24, 2009

#419

Why?

422. space squirt - March 24, 2009

Looks like Spock sacrifices himself in this movie too(ala Trek 2).
Apparently ,if You look at the trailer ,his jellyfish ship hits the Narada kamikaze style.
Why hasn’t anyone but me noticed this?

423. space squirt - March 24, 2009

@421

Because.

424. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

Space Squirt#422- Mr. Nimoy made a statement in an interview that nothing in the script precludes his return if future screenwriters would want to call him back for another film. Based on that statement, it appears Spock does not die in the Narada/jellyfish encounter.

#423- LOL!

425. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@418…

AJ, that was not in the scenes shown, but I side with Denise. Boom.

@416, 422…

It looked convincing to me, yes. In the trailer in HD.
What do you expect a planet with a singularity in it’s core to look like
while it got swallowed into the black hole?

And if Spock sacrifices himself again, do you really expect them to give it away in a trailer? I don’t think so.

426. sean - March 24, 2009

#423

Oh because? Well, I hadn’t considered that. ;)

427. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

Hey everyone,

It looks like Space Squirt has designated himself as the new Hater/troll on this board.

Is that a paying position, or is it volunteer?

428. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

Surprise, when he finally brings up a real point to discuss (Spocks jelly fish sacrifice), he thinks he’s the first one to notice.

429. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@427…

If everybody would love that movie and the plot and the bridge and the phaser and the music…

Where would be the fun in that?

;))

430. Shane - March 24, 2009

Space Squirt – As I said, they’re actually looking into developing – here in 2009 – miles long stretches of technology that raise to the sky. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

I, too, have to add myself to the group of folks who thought the implosion looked good. Like I said, if you didn’t enjoy it, I’m sorry about that. I don’t mean that in a nasty way, either. I really am disappointed that you’re disappointed . I’d prefer everyone be happy.

431. Thorny - March 24, 2009

Old Trek. New Trek. Action Trek. Romance Trek. Tweaked Trek. Altered-History Trek. Reboot Trek.

I don’t care, as long as it is GOOD Trek. I’ll be in line on Opening Day.

432. MC1701B - March 24, 2009

72.

Take a look at the Shat’s sideburns in ‘WNMHGB” again. JJ accidentally stumbled into a bit of correct continuity.

433. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

Spocksinner#427- Now, play nice…

434. MC1701B - March 24, 2009

306.

So, really, Anthony, in your opinion, there’s no difference between “Shades of Gray” and “The Inner Light?”

Would you like to nuance your statement a bit, or would you really like to find out what flaming is? Because if you’re really going to state that all opinions are equally valid, I can play that game, and play it with relish.

435. space squirt - March 24, 2009

@ 433
He’s just jealous of my good looks!

436. John from Cincinnati - March 24, 2009

Chris Pine has captured the Shat’s look of incredulousness perfectly.

437. Jamie - March 24, 2009

Has it occurred to anyone that, due to this film, Star Trek might actually become LESS nerdy than Star Wars?

438. AJ - March 24, 2009

425:

thorsten:

“What do you expect a planet with a singularity in it’s core to look like
while it got swallowed into the black hole?”

You know, I really thought about an answer to that one, and I started thinking of eating a huge pizza with everything on it, drinking too many shots of cheap vodka, my head spinning, and then just making it to the bathroom in time. FLUSHHHHHH.

Then I stopped thinking about it. MMMmmm, Pizza.

439. thorsten - March 24, 2009

hahaha… great one AJ!
Now I want one too!
New York Slice, I love you!

440. Terence - March 24, 2009

There’s NO denying it people STAR TREK is back and yes History repeats itself… 30 years ago,( I was only a baby) Star Trek went through a similar phase with the birth of TMP and subsequent films, and thus we got TNG DS9 and so forth. I am proud of Paramount for investing in this prime piece of SCI-FI. This movie will do more for the franchise than we imagined… We as fans have to get behind this movie. I’m glad it took years for Paramout to do this.. looks like they got it right… Time will tell But in the meantime, I say bring it on!!

P.S. If this goes well, a new series cold be on the way too… Which could be marketing/ratings gold if the new TREK series follows what this movie is trying to convey, which is Star Trek is cool

441. The Governator - March 24, 2009

Woooow. I go away for four days and this is what happens? Its like a damn debate on steroids. CHILL people. Clearly this trailer is not aimed at fans and so what, you guys got your good trailer with Watchmen.

btw…. While I was away, I brought the original TOS to watch since I had no tv or internet with me. So basically the entire time I wanted to watch something, I watched TOS. And you know what? I am STILL looking forward to this movie. Imagine that.

442. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@441…

Welcome back!

443. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

AJ#438- I always thought you had quite the imagination, my darling…

444. The Governator - March 24, 2009

Who is this Space Squirt? I read all the posts on this sight and have never seen him before. Hell, there’s always got to be someone on the offensive. Figures….

445. The Governator - March 24, 2009

442. thorsten

thanks!

446. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

408:

//One thing I’ve taken from this from the beginning when details were starting to leak(and maybe I’ve taken away the wrong message) is that everything really hinges on Kirk; that this Nero guy deems him that important And hence the motive for this movie.//

Allegedly, in this new film, Spock learns that Nero’s actions and the resulting death of one man creates a parallel universe formed by cascading chain of events entirely different from the existence he (and thus we, the audience) knows. In this mirror universe, he and Kirk never become friends, Kirk is not the captain of the Enterprise, and thus untold millions will never find salvation by way of his heroic interventions. Spock risks his personal safety to protect the lives of many (like in WOK) and travels back a crucial fulcrum-point in time in order to “course correct” those devastating chronological mistakes.

One must wonder if the repressed human side of Spock’s DNA allows him to experience the bittersweet emotions which would go hand-in-hand with seeing one’s dearest life-long companion in his youth; as brash and brilliant as always, but not truly the person he was meant to be. Or perhaps even worse, seeing a young mirror image of yourself rejecting the friendship you hold so dear (and doubtless exists now only in your memory, since Kirk’s demise in Generations). Essentially, the fundamental theme of this new Star Trek film is Spock’s realization that sometimes the events binding a pair of young men together can have significant consequences for untold lives around them, and the good of the few is ultimately linked to the needs of the many. In other words, Kirk and Spock are each others’ destiny, and with them lies the destiny of all.

:) So the movie’s kind of a space-age bromance.

447. AJ - March 24, 2009

443:

Denise:

It’s also a sense of humor, sweetie, which is lacking more and more in some of these threads.

448. Anthony Lewis - March 24, 2009

Gav=Troll Anthony should look into at least warning him for trying to start a flame war.

And I for one am happy other planets are getting destroyed. All to often Trek fans get mad because earth is always in danger (and I’m sure it is here as well based on the available footage) but at least other planets are in danger here.

449. Denise de Arman - March 24, 2009

Humor… it is a strange concept…

450. boborci - March 24, 2009

196. Captain Quail Hunter – March 24, 2009
Showing a flask wielding Kirk drinking with McCoy gives a bad immoral sign to young kids seeing this movie. A hero is suppose to show good character qualities with moral christian values that young youths can look up to. The local church here in my town is preparing to picket the movie and go to the local press when it premiers. The baptist churches here have been successful in keeping these type of movies from being shown.

Do you think the tale of a man who QUITS drinking is worthy of attention?

451. thorsten - March 24, 2009

Hah, Bob!
Tell us, is there any mindmeld in the movie?

;))

452. VOODOO - March 24, 2009

Captain Quail Hunter #196

Bob Orci can’t say it so I will….GET A LIFE

453. AJ - March 24, 2009

446:

I think Spock Prime realizes that, with the destruction of Romulus in the 24th century, his life’s work has ended. He is also getting old. The needs of the many, etc.

No-one knows if he truly understands the “alternate timeline” thing that will be introduced. Spock, having gotten used to ‘fixing’ his own timeline through targeted interventions, may be going back to save the one in which he exists, only to find that George Kirk’s death has destroyed what was the life of the Kirk he knew (Tarsus, Intrepid, Farragut, etc).

His personal mission changes. He must get Kirk into a position of command as best he can, knowing that his important formative years have been lost. Spock Prime forces Kirk to confront his younger self with arrogance and violence to get command, beat the bad guy and move on. He knows the friendship will develop.

Question is, did Spock Prime get Pike to take an interest in Kirk? Did Spock Prime follow Nero back to the Kelvin, and then manipulate events from that time forward?

454. VOODOO - March 24, 2009

Captain Quail Hunter #196

“The local church here in my town is preparing to picket the movie and go to the local press when it premiers. The baptist churches here have been successful in keeping these type of movies from being shown.”

Please tell me that you are kidding… What exactly do you mean when you say “these types” of movies? It’s Star Trek not the next Jenna Jameson movie.

Hey Quail hunter, I heard that if you play Leonard Nimoy’s bit from the trailer where he says “live long and prosper” backwards. It actually says “satan rules the world”

What a tool!!!

455. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@453…

I don’t think that Spock Prime will meddle with Pike, or Starfleet.
He will seek out young Kirk, that’s it… maybe Prime follows the Enterprise from Vulcan to Delta Vega…

456. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

447-

Totally, thanks for sticking up for me.

I love how Squirt is given carte blanche to run wild, yet i’m asked to play nice when i crack a joke about his activities.

That and I’m jealous of his good looks.

On a separate note: I wish Orci could have joined our mind meld discussion earlier. I’m sure he’s contractually required not too…perhaps after the film comes out.

457. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

453:

//Question is, did Spock Prime get Pike to take an interest in Kirk? Did Spock Prime follow Nero back to the Kelvin, and then manipulate events from that time forward?//

Very good question! Was Spock able to precisely calculate his arrival in the past… or perhaps even more important, did he know that George Kirk’s death was THE catalyst in the altered timeline? If so, he would likely have gone back to that point and saved Jim Kirk a crappy, directionless childhood. So it seems that he was perhaps “flying blind”, or just simply following Nero. Once he realized “when” he was, and how events had unfolded in Jim’s life, he likely did everything he could to get things back on track. And that would start with Pike.

The funny thing is, the butterfly effect seems to have changed his childhood as well. Spock appears to be displaying far more emotion than what we are used to seeing… did he chose the path of a human instead of a Vulcan in this altered timeline?

458. thorsten - March 24, 2009

@456…

Some days, when he is really exhausted from writing Fringe,
Bob gives tiny nuggets of knowledge away, SpocksinnerTurmoil.
You have to keep digging ;))

459. AJ - March 24, 2009

450:

C’mon, Bob.

Kirk and Bones are legendary drinking buddies, and McCoy is always the enabler.

My suspected “extended” trailer scene:

Cadet Kirk: “Oh, man. I’m scared sh*tless. Going into space and all, and Spock’s speech about fear in the face of death…”

Cadet McCoy: “Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence!”

Cadet Kirk: “That’s not helping…”

Cadet McCoy: “Would you like a tranquilizer?” Takes a swig and hands Jim the flask. “Leonard McCoy.”

Cadet Kirk: Raises it up. “Jim Kirk.”

460. pock speared - March 24, 2009

Captain Quail Hunter #196

“a hero is suppose to show good character qualities with moral christian values”

not my heros, o my brother. i was so happy to see him have that drink because i’m so very tired of orwellian “christian values” censoring the arts. jeez. couldn’t a hero have “moral” muslim values? irish catholic values? hebrew values? vulcan values? frenegi values? costco values?

young people aren’t parrots; they can make life choices and still see a movie, goddammit.

anyway, i say gimmie the brandy!

461. Omnibus - March 24, 2009

Hmmm… I’m just amazed at the assumptions being made as to why this film will be good or bad. From , “There’s the sin of any sort of action in the film and everything gets destroyed so it WON’T really be Star Trek and will be BAD!” all the way to “There’s the blessing of big explosive action in the film and everything that was Star Trek will be destroyed so it HAS to be GOOD!” LOL!!!

Trailers all looks great. The action will add to the adventure factor of the movie, not make it a good or bad Star Trek film. As someone stated already, it will be the treatment of the characters and the story quality involving them that will make or break the film. I think the writers and JJ are aware of this. I have a suspicion that both those hoping for a total radical change in Star Trek and those wishing for total adherence to the what has come before won’t get 100% of what they are expecting. That’s probably a very good thing. I think this is going to be true to STAR TREK with a meaty character story line and it will be a full adventure to boot. Hmmm… meaty story + adventure means…. THE RETURN OF TOS …FINALLY!!! YES!!!! For me this is going to be the return of the GOOD Star Trek. :-)

462. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

I find it difficult to understand how someone like Captain Quail Hunter can even enjoy Star Trek. I know it’s possible, hell even common.

I just gotta assume they tone out all the agnostic, sometimes straight atheist, perspective on the universe and society that lays the foundation of the show.

How do you reconcile Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination, yet still condemn anything your preacher or the bible tells you to?

463. SpocksinnerTurmoil - March 24, 2009

460- couldn’t a hero have “moral” muslim values? irish catholic values? hebrew values? vulcan values? frenegi values? costco values?

young people aren’t parrots; they can make life choices and still see a movie,

—those kinds of ideas on a star trek board?

your crazy.

464. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

I suspect Captain Quail Hunter was being facetious. Or a troll.

465. Shane - March 24, 2009

460: “not my heros, o my brother. i was so happy to see him have that drink because i’m so very tired of orwellian “christian values” censoring the arts.”

*Ahem.

lol It’s been a good many years since any “Christian values” had any influence over the arts!

466. Jon - March 24, 2009

Captain Quail Hunter is obviously just a troll, tbh.

467. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

465.

//lol It’s been a good many years since any “Christian values” had any influence over the arts!//

Tell that to anyone who has ever endeavored to make a mainstream movie prominently featuring homosexual characters. Brokeback Mountain is the we’ve had to a popular success in that regard, but no major Hollywood studio since has made the leap of faith that Focus Features did when it produced and distributed BBM. It’s sad… I thought that movie would open so many doors, but it’s been years and all that has follwed is more arthouse fare like Milk.

Let me just add, SHAME on Star Trek for still not having a homosexual main character. For all the social barriers it has broken in the past, what a major issue to shy away from!

468. betterthanstarwars1977 - March 24, 2009

the drink is to show that he’s a hero in the making, zephran cochrane was also a drinker

469. pock speared - March 24, 2009

#467 (SaphronGirl)
outside of harry mudd being rather a closet queen, i agree completely.

470. Shane - March 24, 2009

465.

While I appreciate the effort, I can’t agree that your example supports your point. The issue of homosexuality is not one that is unique to Christian values. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, and a wide variety of Eastern cultures and religions all have varying degrees of opposition to homosexuality. The only religions I can think of which do not are atheistic and those which generally are listed under the heading of “pagan” or “neopagan.” However, important for the sake of this point is that these latter two “systems” (for lack of a better term) have not (as of yet) produced *cultures* as have the Abrahamic religions and the Eastern religions.

None of this has anything to do with the issue of homosexuality itself, which I think fairly obviously is not something which this site is really an appropriate place for the discussion of. The point is that the example of homosexuality in modern entertainment is not something which can be associated with Christian values, as virtually every world culture I can think of (and nearly every associated religion) would have more or less the same viewpoint as the Christian value. I just don’t think it’s a good example at all.

471. Fansince9 - March 24, 2009

FYI, I was watching “That 70′s Show” tonight, and saw the trailer (this one, and #3). It’s good to see that these commercials are being shown more often on television. :)

472. Kirk, James T. - March 24, 2009

lol this space squirt guy, are you really serious?? LOL Oh dear.

473. Fansince9 - March 24, 2009

#470: Good post!!!

474. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

470:

Christian or not, it is still an example of religious influence (in particular, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad) dictating what is socially acceptable. My point still stands – religion has an affect on art. As you mentioned yourself, in the absence of religion, there is no controversy.

(I’m surprised that you would consider the subject of homosexuality inappropriate for discussion on a Star Trek blog. This is a subject that is culturally relevant, impacts human rights, and is comparable to the way ST:TOS opened minds and asked tough questions in the 1960s.)

475. Davey - March 24, 2009

In response to killing Pine giving Kirk a shitty directionless childhood… Yes, I agree completely. What’s outlandish is that after that, Kirk through sheer determination can become a starfleet captain in a week.

That must be one hell of a montage. I’m certainly not a man with his eye on a military career, and if some old dude came up and said “YOU HAVE TO BECOME THE COMMANDER OF AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER LIKE RIGHT NOW” I would wave him off. I wouldn’t just wave him off, I would tell him that I’m in no way fit, able or willing to be an aircraft carrier captain.

476. Falvoant - March 24, 2009

467 http://www.startreknewvoyages.com

Blood and Fire Part 1

Its been done!

477. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

476:

Thanks for the link… I was aware of that story line in Phase II, but I was referring more to primary canon (the movies or network television series). Hawk was written as homosexual for the novelization of First Contact, but any reference to it was obliterated from the film and utterly denied by Bermaga. I think that speaks volumes. :-|

478. Davey - March 24, 2009

#477

“AH WE’RE BEING ASSIMILA- by the way Hawk, aren’t you gay?”
“Why yessir, I am! AAAARGH”

I don’t think it would have really fit into that film.

479. Sarah - March 24, 2009

I know this is not the place for religious discussion, but being a Christian myself, I feel compelled to defend this.

467, 474: Religious influence is something I believe is misunderstood. Yes, religion does have a direct impact on art. It’s not due to any political characteristic, though. In my case as being a Christian, my beliefs are sacred, are a way of life, and are part of who “I” am. My beliefs are a part of the fabric with which I am woven. In controversal subjects over religious beliefs versus a subject like homosexuality, it is in all reality not the believer who is opposed. Instead, it is the beliefs which are opposed and as such, people too often tend to “shoot the messenger” so to speak when this subject is discussed.

I myself, do not believe in homosexuality. I do happen to work with people who are however, and treat them as who they are: They are people, human beings who deserve respect and consideration like anybody else, anywhere else. I can pray for them, however the fact that I believe their behavior is a sin does not invalidate them as people, nor does that invalidate the sincerity of what they believe. I can tolerate that. There are people on both sides who ask for tolerance. I’ll ask that you please extend tolerance toward those whose values oppose your own. The fact that you may not believe the same as we do, does not invalidate the value of our beliefs, nor does it invalidate our affection for the God Who we cherish.

480. Christine - March 24, 2009

WHOA.

That was 30 really, really intense seconds. Seriously. O:

481. Christine - March 24, 2009

Oh, and #467 ::

“…Let me just add, SHAME on Star Trek for still not having a homosexual main character. For all the social barriers it has broken in the past, what a major issue to shy away from!…”

Yeah, I gotta agree with you. But, you can’t expect them to be perfect. If they did, there’s a risk that the franchise could lose a large audience… Maybe we’ll see it someday in the future. Hopefully, anyways. Keep in mind, also, that most people in the US weren’t open about their sexual orientation until recently. But I see your point — It’s the right idea.

482. SaphronGirl - March 24, 2009

470:

It is your personal belief, you are not imposing it on others, therefore you have nothing to apologize for, or to defend. Unfortunately, there are people in this world who don’t share your more benign philosophy. We still have a long way to go in truly understanding and accepting the differences that make our species so diverse.

The future waits for us to take the first tentative steps.

483. Alex Rosenzweig - March 24, 2009

#324 – ‘Hey 316, what do you mean by macro-cannon?”

Large-scale changes to character and setting, for example, as opposed to throw-away lines which are insignificant to the story being told (e.g., “the Enterprise is 20 years old” or “Faster than light, no left or right”).

“Is blowing up Vulcan macro-cannon?”

Considering how important and extensive a role Vulcan continued to play in later Trek history, absolutely.

“What about Kirk, as a kid having an alcoholic Uncle, is that macro-cannon?”

Well, considering that Kirk’s uncle has never been canonically discussed, that’s a non-issue, on either the micro or macro level. For that matter, precious little about Kirk’s father has been discussed, too, so really, unless the movie explicitly says that what they’re showing is different than before, we’d have no canonical basis to say it is or isn’t. ;)

“Micro-cannon, macro-cannon…is there a list somewhere that divides the two?”

I doubt it, ’cause everybody’s going to have a different idea of what falls on each side of the line. I have my ideas, but I’d not be so high-handed as to assume that everyone will agree with them.

“I like the idea of cannon, and i enjoy a consistent fake history in a story. But if an interesting new Star Trek with Kirk, Spock and McCoy etc can be made while blowing up the planet Vulcan then fine, blow the planet up.”

I don’t agree with this. If a story in Star Trek requires the destruction of a major setting established as continuing to be important later, it is teh story that’s the problem, not the setting, and it needs to be changed. IMHO, of course.

“The Klingon’s found another planet to live on, what’s the problem.”

Huh? I’m afraid y’lost me here. Not sure I understand.

#326 – “316 ‘…as an excuse to say that continuity, overall, doesn’t matter still won’t wash with me.’

I have never, ever said continuity doesn’t matter.”

You haven’t, but others have. The argument has been made, here and elsewhere, that since Trek’s continuity has been fairly loose from time to time on the detail level, that continuity therefore doesn’t matter. I was disagreeing with the general argument.

“I’ve simply said that it takes a back seat to A)Character & B)Story.
[snip] ”

While I think there be cases where certain bits of continuity might validly be altered for the sake of a particular story, in general, I think that a story that requires a significant breach of continuity to work at all is already, pretty much by definition, flawed. One should immediately start asking, “Why is this necessary, and is there a way to do it without the breach in continuity?” The story itself might not be bad *as a story*, but whether it belongs in an ongoing series is a different question.

“However, to me, if I can accept wildly inconsistent accounts of the same event (such as Tuvok’s recounting of TUC, where the timeline differs and Valtane dies despite being visible on the bridge of the Excelsior at the end of TUC), I can deal with changes every dozen movies or so.”

Ahh, I couldn’t. I freely admit, I rationalized out the differences, and where I couldn’t do that, I simply chucked out the Voyager interpretation of those events as a mistake and moved on. ;) Fortunately, rationalizing most of that as distorted memories of an ill Vulcan was pretty easy. As for the “actual events”, TUC took precedence for me in every case of conflict.

” And given that this is a new team of people trying to come at this with a fresh approach, I am open to alterations, even macro ones. I think we were all open to that in Star Trek II, which was essentially a micro-reboot of TMP.”

Yes, but TWOK never asked us to believe that TMP, let alone any part of TOS, didn’t happen, nor did it require ignoring what had been previously established in order to move forward. Whether the new movie will do the same remains to be seen.

” ‘The potential to change the overall continuity, potentially on the macro-level, has been built into the story, and that’s a lot different than the examples you cited, all of which were fairly minor things and never even remotely intended to suggest that the entire universe had changed. Ergo, when the writers got it wrong in the various series or movies, it was easy to either dismiss the error as such, or to come up with an explanatory work-around. Indeed, such things were, in a more relaxed age, part of the fun.’

To me, you perfectly explain why the changes here are less relevant than the internal inconsistencies within the Star Trek framework, but somehow we’re on opposite sides of the debate…perspective is a funny old bird, ain’t she?”

Aye, she is indeed! In this instance, much comes down to whether one is comfortable with the idea of simply “jumping the tracks” and exploring a whole different continuum or not, which is the excuse that we’re being given for all this. Speaking only for myself, while I have no problem with an occasional episodic exploration of an alternate world, the idea of hopping he whole franchise into such a thing and not going back is really not something I find interesting or enjoyable, so the prospect of this being done to Star Trek is not, to my mind, a good thing.

“Orci, Abrams & Co have all provided a perfectly reasonable, in-universe explanation for changes. Nimoy (regardless of whether Bennett came up with the idea, Nimoy has admitted they made a conscious decision to ignore continuity) or Meyer or Rodenberry simply contradicted themselves without any reasonable, in-universe explanation. They did it because they wanted to and it served the story they were telling. Or they simply forgot. Regardless of the motivation, the result is the same. I say if we can accept those changes without explanation, we should be even more receptive to accepting changes that are given a specific explanation.”

None of the changes prior to this film (assuming the most extreme interpretation of what we think this film may do, and including the usual caveats) explicitly required us to accept the idea that the entire world of Trek had changed, and that what had been previously established as “having happened” should be ignored. *That* is the difference. Yeah, we had to spend some time reconciling the occasional discontinuities (e.g., long debates about what Morrow “really meant” ;) ), but like I said, within an overall framework of a generally consistent fictional world, that was part of the fun. When the answer to any such question can simply become, “Oh, forget all that other stuff, it doesn’t matter anymore”, that’s not fun for me. (Ergo my oft-stated hatred for reboots, whether accompanied by fancy explanations or not.)

484. Alex Rosenzweig - March 25, 2009

#335 – “The fact of the matter is that continuity in this film from any previous series is null after Nero goes back in time.”

Assuming true, that would be precisely my problem with it. Assuming (again ;) ) that it’s not reconciled in some way, it will lose a substantial amount of money I’d previously budgeted for the support of this film, back when I thought it was going to be a real prequel/origin story.

I ask no one else to make that choice, but it’s the choice I can and will make for myself.

#349 – “While the circumstances around this moment in their time line may have changed from what we know (or THINK we know), you can’t say with certainty that the events portrayed in the movie won’t lead to the events that we all know from TOS.”

A valid-enough point, and this is something that various members of the production team have suggested. And to be fair, if this is what happens in the end, I’ll still give them that money I’d originally planned.

#361 – “yes, TOS could be argued to be an alternate timeline to ours – our timeline had no Keeler who was killed in 1940, had no Eugenics war, Khan or Botany Bay sleeper ship in the 1990’s etc etc…?”

Well, heck, that’s been self-evident for a long time, hasn’t it? The Star Trek Universe *isn’t* the same one as our “real” universe. One of those ongoing fandom debates has been where the point of divergence might be. The various ideas have been a lot of fun to explore.

#366 – “Try this one on for size…I could suggest that when Kirk says to Commodore Mendez in The Menagerie “I met him when he was promoted to Fleet Captain” – which is the one reference which seems to set “canon” in concrete – maybe Kirk didn’t feel like telling Mendez his backstory about Pike having an influence on him and getting him to join starfleet, and that he had a troubled youth. Maybe it was simpler for him just to tell a white lie to Mendez and overlook the whole thing. How many times in life do we avoid the details or tell a white lie for expediency’s sake?”

I just figured that the mental addition of the word “last” right before “met” or after “him” would resolve that issue fairly neatly. :)

“And don’t get me wrong – it could very well be the writers and director’s intentions that this movie creates a whole new timeline with adventures completely different from TOS, but my point is that if that’s not the case, ten there are plenty of ways to shoehorn this into existing story.”

Sure. As folks have said, there’s so much we don’t know about the film that a lot of the details, including making it possibly mesh with the established Trekverse, probably will have to wait ’til after it’s released.

485. Jeff C - March 25, 2009

Because I felt like this belonged more in this thread:

STAR TREK WARS!!!

Episode XI: Ten Years after Episode I – The Reboot Menace

A Sea of stars. A voice in the darkness:
“Iowa Farm Boy Jim Kirkwalker finally gets his dream of escaping his hum-drum, Earthbound existence when a terrible threat strikes the Federation.

With the guidance of the mysterious sage Obi-Spock Kenobi and the help of sarcastic know-it-all Han McCoy, Kirkwalker teams up with the Starfleet rebels Uhurabacca, Suluthreepio and Checkovdeetoo to help Princess Spock avenge the destruction of the planet Vulcaraan by the evil Darth Nero, using the Romulan Star Empire’s mighty weapon–THE DEATH NARADA, which has the power to destroy entire planets…

Only with the mysical power of THE PRIME DIRECTIVE can Kirkwalker fulfill his destiny and the prophecy imparted to him by Obi-Spock Kenobi, that he will become the greatest Starship Captain of all time!

SADDLE UP! LOCK ‘N’ LOAD! Forget the Past!

This is NOT your DADDY’S Star Trek!

This is your older brother’s flashier, less-satisfying-circa-1999, ‘STAR TREK WARS: THE BEGINNING’!!!”

(kidding…mostly)

486. Jeff C - March 25, 2009

483 -484
Alex–have we gotten a confirmation that Vulcan is indeed destroyed?
And if so, does it stay Destroyed?

‘Cause if it does, I have a SERIOUS problem with that.

487. thereare4lights - March 25, 2009

Uhm, Jeff. A red imploding planet doesn’t ring a bell? Especially when we know the Vulcan, a red planet, is being drilled by Nero. So yes, Vulcan is destroyed.

488. Battletrek - March 25, 2009

I can’t believe Nimoy was so bought off like this.
Makes me sad and MAD!

489. Battletrek - March 25, 2009

Nimoy was bought and sold, this makes me ANGRY!

490. Trev - March 25, 2009

Is Sulu a bad-@$$? Hells, yeah!

491. Greenstar - March 25, 2009

Vulcan with blue sky in the new movie. Big canon violation.

492. Dr. Diehard - March 25, 2009

Forget everything? OK. Wow, this looks like a dumb action movie, I’m staying home.

493. Andy Patterson - March 25, 2009

450

Hey Bob, tell me you didn’t write the “yeah, we do”,…or “Why you talkin to me man?” lines with the beach dude delivery.

494. Bill Lutz - March 25, 2009

Vulcan….Destroyed?
……………………………………………

495. TIBERIUS CORLEONE - March 25, 2009

THE LAST PLANET… IT IS NOT, ROMULUS? FROM THAT HAPPEND IN STAR TREK COUNTDOWN No. 3?

496. Bronto Dan - March 25, 2009

@ 238 chris pike: I would bet on it being a typical JJ style flashback quick cut…?

humm I guess it’s one way to look at it… one interesting way :)

497. EFFeX - March 25, 2009

Looks great, but…

“Forget everything you know” :-(

498. Planet Pandro - March 25, 2009

I know this has been covered earlier in this thread, but:

I don’t think “forget everything you know” is directed at fans, or relates to canon in anyway, but rather is a message to the average non-fan movie goer. Forget your preconceptions about Trek as geeky and nerdy and holding the patent on “not cool.” Forget your preconceived notions about Star Trek and come on a wild ride with us this May, you might just get the thrill of the summer movie season.

That’s the way I see it, anyway…

499. Alex Rosenzweig - March 25, 2009

#486-487 – No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no confirmation of whether the destruction of Vulcan-if it happens at all–is permanent.

I rather suspect the folks making the movie would be pretty upset if such a confirmation leaked out ahead of time.

#498 – Yes, it’s been covered before, but I do think you’re right. That commercial is solidly marketing to the mainstream, not Trek fandom.

Of course, if we’re wrong, the only thing I’d be planning to forget is the movie. ;)

500. SChaos1701 - March 25, 2009

489

Could you sound more ignorant?

501. ...i have touched the sky - March 25, 2009

Wow….this entire constant battle that some of you keep insisting on having is getting quite old, boring, and honestly quite aggravating.

If you don’t like the movie, don’t watch it. I’m a fan of all series and everything to do with Star Trek. I’m dying to watch the movie!

So if you’re not, I can think of two reasons why you should put your anger on chill so that you don’t ruin the awesome experience for a) those fans who are looking forward to this movie, b) and more importantly, those fans that this movie is trying to attract.

BRING BACK STAR TREK!

502. acb - March 25, 2009

To Closettrekker response #342

Actually what I was referring to in terms of continuity was in regards to specific events and meetings that occurred in TOS after the time that Nero travels back to. I was not saying that all of the Trek material that was previously created does not matter now. I enjoy the original series and grew up on TNG and it would upset me more than most if I was forced to completely dismiss them at this point.

What I was responding to were statements others, both fan and those involved with the film itself, were trying to argue in terms of saying that these depictions of the characters is “how they all came togerther or met originally.”

The fact of the matter is is that this Kirk and crew are not the same characters. They have experienced different lives, had different encounters and have made different choices in their lives than what would have been the “exact” path the characters in TOS followed. So in arguement theses characters did not face the same moments that shaped their lives and made them who they would be when we watched TOS or any of the films.

That goes the same for those who try to argue that these events will lead to those shown in TOS. Continuity is not an issue in terms of saying that the Kirk and crew of this film will do this or that later becuase their paths have already been altered. Moments and experiences in life are a result of specific timing and choices made in one exacting instance. The best example I can give for a visual reference is to a scene in “The Curious Case of Benjarmin Button” where Pitt narrates over a scene that shows how the choices people make in creates a chain of events that impacts someone else. Either positively or negatively.

For some to try and argue that the events in this film will 100% lead to the events in TOS is untrue in terms of the reasons that those creating the film are attempting to suggest as to why everything looks different from TOS. The filmmakers hint that because of Nero the timeline has been altered, thus resulting in changes to TOS that everyone is familar with. If this is true than the stories in TOS are also null and void for the this new film as well.

Again I am not saying that all the Trek material prior to the new film must now be overlooked or ignored, because it all did lead to the moments that led to this film occurring. What I am saying is that it can not be used to say that it defines the characters of the same name in the new film.

………If that is upsetting I am sorry. Imagine how upset I was when I realized much of this and how this could also mean that TWOK never happens or that Data is never found or even that someone in TNG may never be born….I love time travel paradoxes.

503. acb - March 25, 2009

error correction

paragraph 3

The fact of the matter is is that this Kirk and crew are not the same characters. They have experienced different lives, had different encounters and have made different choices in their lives than what would NOT have been the “exact” path the characters in TOS followed. So in arguement theses characters did not face the same moments that shaped their lives and made them who they would be when we watched TOS or any of the films.

…sorry had to add the “NOT” back in there to make my point.

504. thorsten - March 25, 2009

@499…

Alex, if we assume that Nero is successful…
drilling, placing the red matter into Vulcans core, starting the singularity,
Vulcan implodes… How would you undo that? Another Time Travel?

505. Speed - March 25, 2009

I went over to my fathers house for a visit TO MY SURPRISEmy father saw the trailer and last night he said, “hey I want to see the new movie it looks good”. He does not like Sci Fi especially space related tales. He does not find them real. He never wants to see anything like that or even like Star Wars. I watched this again and I realize that most of the scenes are terrestrial. Very limited space fare planet explosion excluded. The advertising is working on my 67 year old dad. A man who does not like Star Trek. I have to say it regardless of the outcome of this movie, they have gone where no one has gone before…my father’s interest..

However I must say SULU IS A JEDI NOW MOTHERF(*&*^…lol.
Not so sure I am ready for that yet!

506. JohnWA - March 25, 2009

467 -

Your point is a valid one. It is rather bizarre that a segment of the human population has apparently disappeared off the face of the planet – including from major cities like New York, San Francisco, London, and Paris – without any explanation or justification. The only answer I can give you is the same one Ron Moore, Kate Mulgrew, Whoopi Goldberg, Jonathan Frakes, and numerous others have given over the years:

There’s simply no good answer for it. Other than what we already know:

- Star Trek fans are very conservative. As a rule, they are resistant to changing “the formula” that the franchise has been working with since the 1960s. Fundamentally, the vision of the future presented in Enterprise (2001-2005) was no different from the one presented on TOS.

- Some individuals intimately associated with the franchise (who shall go unnamed, but whose initials are “RB” and “BB”), have made it clear they will not tolerate the inclusion of the folks in question. Period.

507. Davey - March 25, 2009

#506

I see the lack of openly gay characters with related plots less as a “OMG NO GAYS” situation and more of a “it’s so normal no one cares”. Excluding the DS9 mirror universe episodes, every time it was hinted that there was a homosexual relationship, it didn’t have any special attention brought to it.

That’s because it’s the FUTURE and people no longer care! It’s normal! Haivng a whole storyline devoted to it would be stupid.

That said, I know it’s just because the producers are homophobes. But if there were gay characters, I wouldn’t want it to be exclusively stated just because they can. Refer to my post about Hawk… his character could very well be gay in First Contact, but it’s not like it matters because they’re in a crisis situation and sexuality is barely mentioned at all.

Good on New Voyages for trying something new, but the five minute make out scene in one of their latest episodes was ridiculous. Okay, the characters are gay. I get it. You DON’T have to draw attention to it every five minutes.

508. thereare4lights - March 26, 2009

#499 Mark my words. The destruction of Vulkan WILL be permanent.

509. Paul - March 26, 2009

#506 – don’t forget there was a hundred years of war and post-war chaos between today and Star Trek times. It’s pretty easy for a segment of population to disappear in such times.
You see… when shit happens, people are looking for a scapegoat. It has to be someone rather different: blacks, yellows, jews, arabs, gays. Simply someone they can point their finger at and yell “Burn the witch!” In the time of crisis, it’s not a good time to be a member of minority.

Survivors would of course want to keep their heads down and keep their “specialty thing” for themselves. Which explains why you don’t see any in the public.

510. Alex Rosenzweig - March 26, 2009

#508 – But do you *know* that, or do you just think that? :)

I’m not saying you’re wrong, or right. I just can’t claim to have any confirmation, one way or the other.

What I can say is that *if* it’s true, this movie will lose me, and as many folks as I can take with me.

511. SaphronGIrl - March 26, 2009

507.
//I see the lack of openly gay characters with related plots less as a “OMG NO GAYS” situation and more of a “it’s so normal no one cares”. Excluding the DS9 mirror universe episodes, every time it was hinted that there was a homosexual relationship, it didn’t have any special attention brought to it.//

That’s one way to look at it… but it’s still disappointing that every romantic relationship portrayed in ST has been between a male and a female (not counting Dax’s encounter with her former wife in DS9, which allowed them to glance the surface of the issue without diving in). This reboot is a way for them to be more inclusive, seeing as certain homophobic producers are no longer involved. Heck, even a reference to bisexuality would be refreshing. (“Jim Kirk’s got ecclectic tastes. Human, alien, male, female… you name it, he’s done it.”)

//Refer to my post about Hawk… his character could very well be gay in First Contact, but it’s not like it matters because they’re in a crisis situation and sexuality is barely mentioned at all.//

In the novelization, I believe his significant other is introduced in a social setting where his colleagues’ spouses, etc. are in attendance, so it was more of a peripheral piece of information. I’m not so irritated that it was cut (or maybe never even filmed) as much as I’m irritated that a scene so simple could have been included in any of the recent ST television series, but never was.

509.
//don’t forget there was a hundred years of war and post-war chaos between today and Star Trek times. It’s pretty easy for a segment of population to disappear in such times.//

That doesn’t mean that alien races would demonize that segment of their population. Deltans and Orions come to mind as peoples that would likely be very tolerant of homosexuality.

512. Marian Ciobanu - March 26, 2009

- I can see now Nero’s chewed ear much clearly….very cool….

513. cpelc - March 26, 2009

I don’t like characters because they are heterosexual…

So why would you like a character more if they are homosexual?

It’s the adventure and the action and the science that gets me with Star Trek…not the romance or fornication preferences.

Pointing out something like sexual preference when it doesn’t add anything to the story is ridiculous and unnecessary.

514. Closettrekker - March 26, 2009

#502—I understand your point, but bear this also in mind.

It is also possible, particularly in fiction, for more than one road to lead to the same destination.

I would describe James T. Kirk as having particular characteristics that define him as a man. Of course, some of these characteristics are a result of “nature”, whereas others may be more attributed to “nurture”—but that does not mean that the James Kirk of the altered timeline cannot learn the very same lessons as the one with which we are familiar. It seems to me that the character can be “nurtured” by events in his life which cause similar evolution to that caused by the events in the life of the JTK we already know.

The same principle may apply (again—because this *is* fiction) to events depicted in the Original Series and beyond. To use one of your own examples, there is no reason binding the writers (present or future) to suggest that the Enterprise will not find the SS Botany Bay adrift in space with genetic supermen in cryogenic freeze, nor that the subsequent exile of Khan and his followers will not result in exactly the same outcome in *this* timeline.

Let’s face it—”realism’ has never exactly been a restriction to the outcomes of events depicted in Star Trek stories. The writers can resolve things any way that they want, as they have always done.

515. SaphronGirl - March 26, 2009

513.

The cleverness of Star Trek was that Gene Roddenberry employed futuristic settings and flashy technology to disguise the fact that he was tackling relevant social issues and inter-personal relationships. The explosions and the aliens were fun, but they were really just a means to an end.
It’s not the “fornication” that’s at all relevant. It’s the human connection. True, Star Trek has never been particularly adept at portraying romances, but if it’s going to give screen time to male/female interaction, then it would be nice to see the dynamics of at least one male/male or female/female relationship as well.

516. cpelc - March 26, 2009

515

I see your point.

My point was that I don’t really care for the romantic aspects at all. Regardless of the flavor.

Balance is key and you are right that there should be some if you have the other.

My main point was that there’s no reason to really push and have for instance “A Very Special Episode of Star Trek” where they deal with a homosexual relationship just to show everyone…”Look we’re trying to show this!”

I would be much more accepting of it coming up casually just as other relationships would. It’s when it’s main painfully obvious that it deviates from what the show should be about and that’s seeking out new life and new civilizations.

517. Alex Rosenzweig - March 27, 2009

#504 – “Alex, if we assume that Nero is successful…
drilling, placing the red matter into Vulcans core, starting the singularity,
Vulcan implodes… How would you undo that? Another Time Travel?”

That’d be the simplest answer, I s’pose. There’s already some pretty clear evidence that things are happening at different times, and there’d been rumor of different continua already being part of the movie, so different time jumps may be happening anyway. Is there any sense, even, of the order (from, say, Nero’s point-of-view) in which the various attacks (Kelvin, Earth, Vulcan) take place? Or are we to assume that he jumped back to 2233, failed at that time, and then just waited for the next 3 decades to try again? It seems like more’s going on, and that leaves room for “correction”.

A lot of this is part of the fundamental weakness of time travel storytelling, anyway, unless it’s very well focused. “Assignment: Earth”, “City on the Edge of Forever”, and “The Voyage Home” demonstrate reasonably well-focused time travel storytelling. “Generations” did not. To wit, if a problem isn’t resolved at Temporal Point B, why not just jump back to Point A and try again?

Even from a dramatic standpoint (never mind the logic of time travel), if the sort of destruction this movie is hinted to be showing goes “uncorrected”, then it would seem to be a story of surviving in the wake of tremendous failure. (I think that, for Spock, the loss of Vulcan would be every bit as important as the loss of Kirk, and probably more so.) I just have this feeling that’s not the story these folks want to tell. “Yeah, the characters get together, but their homes have been destroyed…” A kicker for me was the attack on Earth, too. Is Earth also going to be destroyed? I just keep feeling there’s more going on here. And I also just don’t believe that the entire production team is engaged in the sophistry of “we can say that canon is intact because we’re talking about an alternate timeline”.

As I’ve said, I could be wrong, but I think there is a resolution of some sort, whether it be through more temporal shenanigans or whether Nero is just prevented from being successful at multiple points in the timestream. But if I am wrong, if there is no resolution, then this will be the first Trek in 45 years that I will just plain reject. I’m still hoping, though, that I’m not wrong, and that they haven’t been misleading us to that degree about how much they plan to throw away of Trek’s world.

518. Kirk, James T. - March 27, 2009

people do know that this movie is set in a Universe “B” to the Universe “A” we already know? yeah?

519. SaphronGirl - March 27, 2009

516.

//My main point was that there’s no reason to really push and have for instance “A Very Special Episode of Star Trek” where they deal with a homosexual relationship just to show everyone…”Look we’re trying to show this!”//

Oh, I absolutely agree. That’s why I’d like to see a main character (or at least a peripheral one who is in a fair number of episodes) in a long-term relationship with someone of their own gender. Nothing that will beat us about the head and face with an “IMPORTANT MESSAGE”, but just normal spousal interaction. If they ever plan on making another television series (or sequels to this film), I hope they consider it…

520. Alex Rosenzweig - March 27, 2009

#518 – Which is precisely the outcome to which I object, yes, assuming that Universe “B” is sufficiently different that the events of TOS and onward in Universe “A” are intended to no longer apply.

Of course, if it’s not–as various members of the production team have implied–then I withdraw the objection. :)

521. cpelc - March 27, 2009

Has anyone figured out the song from this yet?

522. browzin - March 30, 2009

I love how in those pics that the character I’ve never heard of (Olsen) is wearing RED! Guess we know what happens to him, lol.

523. MC1 Doug - March 30, 2009

Funny that this thread would become all about gay issues and TREK, and I guess I am going to add fuel to this one:

There are countless reasons why the issue has not been addressed in the past, none of them good.

If anything, RB and BB made so many excuses “why we can’t do that” that when a movie/episode is finally made that includes any gay characters, the media hype will be so intense that it will be uncomfortable for everyone on both sides of the issue.

There are countless reasons why this should be done, and won’t be done so easily… sad thing is, it should be so easy, but won’t be because it is such an emotionally charged issue… and because it has been delayed for sooooo long.

Someone in this thread said TREK fans are basically very conservatve… I don’t think it’s safe to make such generalizations; I don’t think we fans are so easy to categorize,,, but then really, who is?

Sad thing also is that no matter how it is finally done, it will not satisfy everyone (look at “ST: PII’s Blood and Fire” as an example — note: I felt B&F was emminently satisfying, but look forward to Pt II to see the resolution that I hope makes all the scrutiny all the more worthwhile).

On another note:

I don’t know if James Cawley is “in here” or not, so I would find it interesting his view on this, fans too:

Question: Do you consider Star Trek Phase II’s stories to be canon? Why or why not do you think this?

524. Darnell Chanthasene - September 11, 2011

Hi, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, fantastic blog!

525. Heide Mccarl - March 5, 2012

Such a are actually terrific once more work outs by which assists you to chill out all the back plus sleep appropriately without the practical knowledge in regard to difficulties inside of your all over again.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.