New Star Trek “Beginning” TV Spot Video + Screenshots & Analysis | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

New Star Trek “Beginning” TV Spot Video + Screenshots & Analysis April 4, 2009

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

As reported earlier, a new TV commercial started airing this week on cable (so far seen on Spike and MTV). Paramount have not yet made it available, but video is now online for this new spot. Check it out below with TrekMovie.com’s usual screen caps and analysis.

 

Prepare for a new beginning – and get ready to fight
With the tagline “prepare for a new beginning” new TV spot is another seemingly targeted at a male action-movie crowd who aren’t necessarily fans of Star Trek, complete with a driving guitar rhythm. It is very focused on Kirk, with lots of ‘fight’ scenes, which make sense since this trailer was first shown during “UFC Fight Night” on Spike.

Screencaps & analysis
[SPOILERS]

This new TV spot has a few new shots, mostly extensions of scenes we have seen before. Below is a breakdown of all the new stuff in this commercial. [NOTE: caps are based on best video available - will be updated if/when Paramount provide better source].

Click images to enlarge


Establishing shot of Iowa Bar (this will be the scene the audience first meets Kirk as a young adult – played by Chris Pine)


In Iowa bar: Starfleet Academy cadet confronts Kirk after Kirk hits on Uhura (also an Academy Cadet) [Dialog - Cadet: "There are four of us and one of you"]


Kirk gets right back in his face
[Dialog - Kirk: "So get some more guys and then it will be an even fight"]


Kirk fights four academy cadets (note: Uhura at bar behind Kirk)
…This commercial makes Kirk look like he won the fight…he didn’t


Day after bar fight Kirk rides motorcycle to Riverside Shipyards (where Enterprise is being built) to take shuttle to Starfleet Academy – gives keys to worker who admired bike [Dialog - Worker: "Nice ride, huh?" , Kirk: "It's yours"]


Previously seen shot of shuttles leaving Starfleet Academy in San Francisco – but reversed


James T. Kirk – big man on campus – as cadet at Starfleet Academy
(looks like he is greeting his friend McCoy)


Close-up on Sulu’s ‘folding katana’ sword – used in fight with Romulans on Narada drilling rig above Vulcan


Kirk punches Romulan on drilling rig
[Voice over (unknown person): "You are captain now, Mr. Kirk" and Kirk replying "got it"]


Pike’s shuttle heads towards Narada while over Vulcan


New angle on previously seen fight between Kirk and Spock (Zachary Quinto)

 

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.

(Video cap thanks to  CinemaClockHD)

Comments

1. WhatInBlueBlazes?! - April 4, 2009

Well, they’ve certainly got their specific audiences targeted. Very action-packed.

2. yendis - April 4, 2009

First! Looks cool…

3. GraniteTrek - April 4, 2009

I try to play it but a “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available”.

4. Harry Ballz - April 4, 2009

Me likey!

5. Will_H - April 4, 2009

yeah, it got ganked. The fight screenshot between kirk and spock looks more like theyre gonna high five

6. Nelson - April 4, 2009

Kirk fighting a Romulan before Balance of Terror?

7. Will_H - April 4, 2009

and now it works, and honestly i think this is the worst of the trailers, really makes the movie look brainless. But I guess they have to appeal to everyone

8. Trelane - April 4, 2009

Great Stuff! Can’t wait to see the movie…

9. The Governator - April 4, 2009

Good stuff. It was not made for me, which is blatantly obvious, but it does what it needs to and provides us with a few more seconds of new shots.

10. John Cooley - April 4, 2009

I still just don’t know about all of this fairly un-Kirk like stuff. We’ll see next month I guess.

11. The Real Stanky McFibberich - April 4, 2009

This whole thing is such a mess.

12. Aggi - April 4, 2009

#6. Nelson – April 4, 2009

Kirk fighting a Romulan before Balance of Terror?

Yes, because it is an alternate timeline…

13. Reliant - April 4, 2009

I’m just wondering if there is enough clips from the trailers to put together a “short” film of it all. But agreeing with everyone else “great stuff” indeed!! Can’t wait for it to come out!

14. Chris Basken - April 4, 2009

6: “Kirk fighting a Romulan before Balance of Terror?”

Romulans who come back in time. History is altered.

15. The Governator - April 4, 2009

11. The Real Stanky McFibberich

Well, if you’re referring to what we’ve seen of the whole movie, then I disagree. If, however, you are referring to the new tv spot, then yeah, that about sums it up.

16. MDSHiPMN - April 4, 2009

New tv spot #3 at startrekmovie.com

17. Will_H - April 4, 2009

Im starting to fear that the fact that the Romulans go back in time gives JJ a golden key to re-write cannon because the time line’s been altered. Still, strangely enough even with that they have to stick to Enterprise cannon since that was all before. Still doubt they care.

18. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 4, 2009

Officially a reboot which is ok to me. Don’t know why they have been so afraid of just calling it a reboot. The Kirk and Spock I grew up with are of in another fictional Universe doing their thing and always will. When you are calling something a ne beginning it’s oficially a reboot. Maybe a reboot with cannonical elements from our beloved Original TOS Trek Universe but a reboot none the less. Khan is going to show up in one of the sequels you can bet your ass on that, but a newer different Khan (prob a female Khan)

Except for No Shatner, the bumbling comic relief Scotty and the entire secondary hull of the new E I am stoked and thrilled this is coming

The whole thing is in fact a reboot

19. Anthony Pascale - April 4, 2009

Midshipman
we covered TV spot 3 previosly, including the embed from the official site
http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/23/watch-new-star-trek-movie-commercial-download-hd/

this is actually TV spot 5 (with the kids trailer counting as 4). Paramount have not put either up, yet. I expect them to put this one up, but maybe not the kids one. Which means this one may end up being called ‘tv spot 4′

20. BrF - April 4, 2009

The goatee on the cadet who starts the bar fight with Kirks suggests a time travel subplot involving 1992, which is consistent with the sweater we’ve seen Spock wearing on Vulcan.

21. Enc - April 4, 2009

stupid unimpresive theyre going aftyer the least common denominator. wheres the fan stuff the one that remind me of TOS. ’cause im not seein it.
i dont like the reverse pic bit. wish they would stop it.
what nice ride? the bike?
more guys even fight. please. that ones getting old. cliche.

22. slap abrams - April 4, 2009

The federation had never seen what a romulan looked like. Referance TOS.

It seems that JJ abrams used a very lame excuse to break every rule in the book> Parallel universes…

For those who dont know much about Sci – fi writing this is as low as you can get!

Kirk driving a car (cant on TOS), the Enterprise built in the wrong place and looks worse than the original design (tos), Romulans as vilains ..

I seriously hope this movie is a total flop.

23. Enc - April 4, 2009

17
no offense but youre just now comig to this.
that previous canon u speak of (assumeing the kelvin inncident is the Neros first arival) the Kelvin itself should look like a movie ver of a TOS design. It dont. the Kelvins shuttles etc.
the Kelvins crew are wearing 1701 insignia.
are to believ that the Kelvin incident moved the acedmey to the south side of the bridge.
That the Kelvin incident moved the city building closer to the bridge.

24. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#10—I don’t think it’s fair to paint any of this as “un-Kirk like”.

Even later on in TOS, as a more polished Starship Captain, Jim Kirk was never hesitant to use his fists—and we know virtually nothing of his story between the time in which he is suggested to have lived on Tarsus and his entry into the Academy. Even without the element of a timeline-altering catalyst, we don’t know what kind of young man he was.

Where his story does pick up again, canonically, details are scarce. We know that he (in the original timeline) gets into the Academy with the help of a man whose son would later serve and die under Kirk’s command (“The Apple”).
We know that he has some trouble with an upperclassman (“Shore Leave”).
We also know that he has no qualms about cheating on a command test at SFA in order to come out a winner in a situational drill designed to prevent success; that he has an affair with a young lady named Carol Marcus, the fruit of which is an ‘illegitimate’ child; and we have Carol’s dismissive retort to her son’s suggestion that Jim Kirk was an “overgrown boyscout” (TWOK).

Apparently later on, he develops a discipline which is more “by the book”.

By the time he serves (as an ensign) aboard the USS Republic, he is unwilling to overlook an incident of negligence—even for the benefit of a friend (“Court-Martial”).

By the time he is promoted to Lieutenant, he—at some point—returns to the Academy to serve as an instructor. One of his students, Gary Mitchell, describes him as a “stack of books with legs”, and someone for whom other students cautioned him to “watch out” (“Where No Man Has Gone Before”).

Obviously, there is a maturing process over that time, but even much later in his career—Jim Kirk is still quite capable of “bending (or breaking) the rules”, disobeying orders when he believes himself correct or, at times, even merely for friendship, and certainly doesn’t lose his “appreciation” of beautiful women.

He has never been an overly simplistic or even “straight-laced” character.

I think it is difficult to say what is “Kirk-like” and what isn’t, especially during a period of time not yet canonically depicted within the Star Trek Universe.

25. Can't Wait for May 8th 2009 - April 4, 2009

The audio is the only thing im not liking about this commercial. Im I the only one thought that they said “Mr. Cook” instead of Mr. Kirk?

26. jas_montreal - April 4, 2009

ROCK N ROLL BABY. I can’t wait for this new trek movie. I don’t understand why some fans are saying … ”this isn’t what star trek is…” or wtv… Well , Can you tell me what Star Trek really is ? If this movie can hold on to the philosophy of what Star Trek really is (which it does most likely) then it’ll be great. The only thing thats changing is hte presentation of the story and the scale. Like Orci and Kurtzman said…. ”we wanted to add a little bit of rock and roll to star trek”. This movie will have what we love a lot and really make it even better. But a lot of Modern day Star Trek fans aren’t too much of TOS series fans. TNG was VERY stale and sterile. TOS was pushing all buttons when it was on tv. Even JJ Abrams said that in a interview. Star Trek is supposed to be sexy and fun. Were talking about the future people…. The future isn’t stale and sterile like TNG presents all the time. The future will be really diverse and what not. Clearly this movie is exciting and diverse when i see it and fun to watch. It will also have that philosophical stuff that we trek fans love and enjoy. It will be a great movie ! Go JJ !

27. Schultz - April 4, 2009

YEAAAAAAH!!!

28. Mr. AtoZ - April 4, 2009

Looking better all the time.

I love it when someone says “First” and they’re not!!

29. Charles Trotter - April 4, 2009

The guitar riff sounds like its from “Ladies and Gentlemen” by Saliva.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxo3OnekPg8

30. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#18—”Don’t know why they have been so afraid of just calling it a reboot. ”

Because it wouldn’t technically be accurate.

A reboot (like “Batman Begins”) discards and ignores previous continuity as if it never happened in the broader story.

The difference here is that the story begins in the very timeline in which all of that previous continuity exists. The story in ST09 not only does not “discard” or ignore previous continuity, but actually is dependant upon it.

The story in ST09 cannot take place without previous continuity leading the broader story to that point in which people from the Post-Nemesis era travel back in time.

While it has the potential to display certain aspects of a “reboot”—the word simply doesn’t accurately describe ST09.

Previous continuity is not discarded, nor is it ignored. It is—in fact—essential to the story.

31. ThePhaige - April 4, 2009

22 — I seriously hope this movie is a total flop.

Now there’s a trek fan I really want to be associated with. (sarcasm)

32. ThePhaige - April 4, 2009

Where did Post 27 – 31 go?

33. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 4, 2009

Poopey pants why did you change your handle again?? I like poopey Pants the best anyway!!

I said reboot with Cannonical elements. Come on brother poopey you’re slicing the meat awefully thin. I also said a reboot is not a bad thing either. It has much more akin to Batman Begins and Casino Royale which were both called reboots of the franchises than a continuation of the saga (or origin story) or Kirk and Spock

Walks like a rebooot, talks like a reboot, it’s a reboot and the boot has soles and maybe laces from the Trek Universe we grew up with but the leather is definately a new re-boot

And please go back to poopey pants you my friend are no Mindless Boob!!!!

34. Anthony Pascale - April 4, 2009

Slap
you have been warned before, and changing your name doesn’t hide who you are

goodbye

35. thomoz - April 4, 2009

why all this negativity over a collection of fight scenes (with all the plot trimmed neatly away)?

Sheesh, it’s only an “action focused” trailer people!

36. The Real Stanky McFibberich - April 4, 2009

re: 15. The Governator – April 4, 2009
“11. The Real Stanky McFibberich
Well, if you’re referring to what we’ve seen of the whole movie, then I disagree. If, however, you are referring to the new tv spot, then yeah, that about sums it up.”

I was specifically referring to this spot, but in my opinion it also applies to the project as a whole. If there is much good in it, so far the makers and promoters are hiding it.

The biggest problem lies in the idea to do a recast version of those characters. The second problem is with contriving this alternate timeline backstory. From the get-go this project has stunned me with its lack of adherence to the basic look and feel of the show. If you are going to do the show and the characters, then DO the show and the characters. Spend more money and use better materials, but make it look and feel the way it is supposed to.

I could accept the movie versions with the original cast because it was a progression in time, and although I wasn’t always happy with some of the design and other decisions in those, we still had the real actors in a somewhat logical time progression.

The thing that has been striking me the most about this, especially in the last few months, is the talking-out-of-both-sides-of-their-mouths interviews with the makers…The transparent, bullcrap, tell–you-what-you-want-to-hear comments directed at various factions. “We’re making this for fans and non-fans alike.” Please.

Well, they are turning me into a non-fan.

I keep holding out hope for some reason.

37. Enc - April 4, 2009

22
well the thinking among the supporters is that the kelvins destruction put these things in motion.
try this. Kirks life changed at birth. differant stress levels, his body puts put diff melanin levels causing his blues eyes to stay that way instead of turning brown.
the kelvin is destroyed. even though tthe attack on earth dosent come until some 20 yrs later, someone desides its a good idea to move the acedemy. assumeing the rumor about this attack on earth being the call to action that puts kirk on the Enterprise.
Now we know what the city looks like in TMP. the city center is not much differant then today. the downtown (large collection of skyscrapers) is centered near the bay bridge. but JJ mobves it to the golden gate bridge. Why? did the kelvins lose or an early attack on earth cause a rebuild in a new location? or is he going with the escuse that the city is like it is now. then moves toward the golden gate (u know its the future, it could happen). then nero attacks (pre TOS). then the city rebuilds back to the way it was, close to the bay bridge now looking much like TMP.

38. Alan Hsiao - April 4, 2009

LOL! the trailer is just outrageous, hopefully the movie will be better. And to all of you who are fooling yourselves with the alternate timeline element of the movie, face the facts: you are just excusing JJ of destroying whatever vestige of the ST cannon remained after ENT. Move on and let Star Trek live.

39. The Real Stanky McFibberich - April 4, 2009

re: Garth

I agree. It’s a reboot. What I disagree on is that a reboot is a good thing.

re: 35. thomoz – April 4, 2009
“why all this negativity over a collection of fight scenes (with all the plot trimmed neatly away)?
Sheesh, it’s only an “action focused” trailer people!”

Because that’s all they ever show. We hear about the intelligence and spirit of Star Trek all the time from the makers. What we see is quick cut action crap.

They are so intent on bringing in the young money-wasting audience, that they really don’t care about anything else to any great degree.

Yeah, I know. It’s a business.

Monkey business…

40. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 4, 2009

Give em Hell Stanky !!!!!!

Not in your boat on this one (agree with alot of what you said on the production design thus far though!!!)

But you are one of the few orignal forum brothers still here after more than two years !!! Way back when we were ripping the terrible quality of the original Remastered episodes (and alot of the later ones as well) there were only a few of us and you were one of them !!!!

So give em hell Stanky good for you bro!!!!

41. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#33—-”And please go back to poopey pants you my friend are no Mindless Boob!!!!”

Thanks, Lord Garth.

It’s just for today. Yesterday, someone on another thread suggested that this moniker suited me better.

I’m just having a bit of fun with it.

But, point of order—-it was “Poopeyface”.

:)

I’m just suggesting that perhaps the creative team felt that the ST09 story distinguishes itself from a ‘traditional reboot’ in a fictional series, and that may be why they are seemingly hesitant to brand it this way.

I cannot say I blame them. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I much prefer that this time period be altered canonically—as seems to be the case—as opposed to simply pretending that the events depicted in previous continuity never occurred (in any timeline). It is far easier for me to get on board with it this way—since the potential for the creation of an alternate timeline due to interference with the past is an element of canon nearly as old as the franchise itself.

I just think that this course is so different from any past “reboot” that perhaps ST09 deserves another term with which to describe it—even if it is just something like “functional reboot”.

Maybe I’m just being silly, but then again—I am a mindless boob!

:)

42. McCoy - April 4, 2009

36….

well said. I agree

43. Trek Nerd Central - April 4, 2009

35. Thank you.

Good grief, people, it’s a thirty-second spot.

Grant you, it’s a moronic testosteronal thirty-second spot, probably the loudest, stupidest thirty-second spot ever produced for a “Star Trek” movie.

But what the heck. It’s obviously not aimed at me. The gurus at Paramount are clearly going for the action crowd in this one — whadda they gonna do, fill the trailer with scenes of little Jimmy’s birth? (Push! Push! He’s crowning!) No doubt they’re keeping that for future trailers aimed at the chick-flick crowd. Can’t wait to see it.

44. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 4, 2009

Ok Poops Let’s call it functional reboot!!!!

Off to the health club girls !!!!

Curious to see where this thread goes

Check in later

45. Jarod - April 4, 2009

But I’m interesting how this movie ends. We have a time travel influenced Kirk. Nero needs to be stopped. Now will Nero simply be killed but all his changes to the time line remain uncorrected? That would be bad, because this Kirk is still not the real Kirk.

And if the timeline is restored, how will they show Kirk’s ‘real’ development from kid to Captain that has not been influenced by time travel? And with all this new audience talk, why would they even bother with Deja Vu style time travel and timeline restoration in the first place?

46. Enc - April 4, 2009

How about this.
trek is more then the some of its parts.
and that collection gives us its optimism et al
however we cant see all of this untill the movie comes out. right now its all out of context.
But I dont like the parts im seeing.
I dont want TOS. I want a movie ver of TOS. where is that?

47. sean - April 4, 2009

#39

In all fairness, Stanky, every Star Trek trailer since TMP has focused on the action of the story. Heck, the trailer for TWOK didn’t address the Genesis subplot at all. The trailer for TSFS consisted of all the battle clips strung together. This is really nothing new, other than this particular team is really crossing the divide and reaching out to new audiences in a much more significant way than ever before.

48. sean - April 4, 2009

#46

In your local video store. They’re called TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH and TUC (we all know that fifth one doesn’t count).

;)

49. Poizen_Prince - April 4, 2009

Anyone else wonder if the “You’re a captain now, Mr. Kirk”, is actually taken from a clip of someone talking to GEORGE Kirk on the bridge of the Kelvin?

50. Enc - April 4, 2009

48
im not even LOL
;)

51. OneBuckFilms - April 4, 2009

38. Prove the writers wrong then.

52. Poizen_Prince - April 4, 2009

Actually, to expand on my theory – listening to it again, I’m pretty sure it’s Captain Robau talking to daddy Kirk, just before he goes off to the Narada.

53. The Man from Del Monte - April 4, 2009

22:
Right – here’s what we’ll do. I’ll go see my film, which I’ll enjoy along with the majority of other people, and you can protest and bitch about it on the internet despite not being able to come up with anything the moviegoing public would want to see more. OK?

Anyway – good trailer. I guess they’re pretty serious about trying to pitch this thing to as many audiences as possible. It’s good to see Paramount taking Trek so seriously – a far cry from the days of Enterprise when it was just buried with a bad ending. Hopefully with this approach it’ll be successful, and they’ll be able to resuscitate the other elements of the franchise in a similar fashion.

54. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#45—-I don’t think that the original timeline will be restored, nor does it (IMO) need to be.

I do think that, judging from some of the comments made by Mr. Orci here, that at some point the two timelines will begin to parallel each other to some extent.

After all—more than one road can lead to the same destination (particularly in fiction!).

As for this being the “exact” same Kirk—-why should he be? We’ve already seen how *that* story plays out.

Again, I can only speak for myself, but I have never been a big fan of Star Trek that wasn’t featuring the characters we know from the original series. The way I see it, this is an opportunity to see these characters handle an entirely new set of obstacles—one that includes an altered set of circumstances surrounding their development.

I think it appears very much to be a “nature vs. nurture” story. I think that James T. Kirk is destined for greatness (with perhaps, under these circumstances, a little help along the way), and the resolution of this story will be the antithesis of what the villain Nero suggests (“James T. Kirk was a great man—but that was another life”).

If this is a “James T. Kirk for a new generation”, then so be it. Good. A great character like him shouldn’t be confined to 79 episodes of a 1960′s television series and 7 movies, IMO. He should be shared with yet another generation of potential fans—like any iconic hero.

Is every established fan of the Original Star Trek going to be open-minded about it? Of course not.

But this one is.

55. Enc - April 4, 2009

52
so what. the captain is sayin he knows he aint coming back?

56. Aragorn189 - April 4, 2009

Everyone is getting up in arms over all these changes. Whose to say these events didn’t happen as in predestination paradox. Personally, that’s how I see this going. Also, looking at the dossiers most of the events of Kirk’s Academy years seem to be covered (instructor and whatnot). They aren’t going to show everything and the only thing this movie would change is the time frame of the events of Kirk’s life. He still went to Tarsus IV offscreen. He still romances Carol Marcus offscreen. He still encounter’s Finnegan offscreen. As he was on command fast track, he probably served on the Republic and the Farragut over summer terms. Spock and Pike’s mission to Talos IV is still up in the air due to the fact that we don’t know if Spock already has his commission or not. Either way, the Talos IV mission could have been during the shakedown runs. Some people are asking where Pike’s 2 5-year missions are. Well, one could have been on another ship and the other was just in the first or second year when Kirk goes to the Academy. Either way, canon is served if you just look between the lines. The filmmakers aren’t going to include every little detail that we want because some of those details are either implied or aren’t necessary for the plot of the story. Everything can happen as in TOS (even Vulcan’s destuction can be ameliorated by the terraforming of its neighboring planet T’Khut into a new Vulcan). It just takes a little imagination. I look forward to this film and I hope that everyone will give JJ a fair chance. Advertising is just ot pique peoples interest, not reveal the entire story. I have faith that this production team will deliver a compelling story. Even the worst Star Trek is better than some of the movies produced today.

57. Jote - April 4, 2009

That music stinks big time

58. bigby bananaman - April 4, 2009

Looks to me that Spock hits like a girl.

59. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#55—Nero’s MO appears to be luring the opponents’ captain away from his ship at some point. If Robau is leaving for the Narada, and in particular—if he fears that there is a danger of not coming back, he may very well say to George Kirk that “you are the captain now”. George Kirk is, after all, the first officer of the USS Kelvin.

So his theory is perfectly plausible, IMO.

60. Valar1 - April 4, 2009

Each new promo makes me more excited for this movie.

61. Tracey - April 4, 2009

I can’t wait to take my nephew to see this- I was his age when I first saw Star Trek and it has been a great ride! :)

62. DGill - April 4, 2009

I really liked the Superbowl spot the best, but I hated these last two. I don’t care for the rock soundtrack on this one. Also, I sincerely hope that there is some genuinely good stuff beyond what they’ve been showing over and over again (bar fight, Uhura taking her shirt off, drilling rig fight, etc). Here’s to May 8th.

63. Enc - April 4, 2009

59
isnt that what i just said?

64. Crusade2267 - April 4, 2009

The marketing for this movie seems to be taking a “something for everyone” approach. Action movie crowd, Kids… Maybe this one will actually break the record. We may have a TWOK here

65. McCoy - April 4, 2009

54.

We of course got the alternate character version, yes. No turning back. But no one was asking for it.

I bet if you did a poll before anything was put on paper “do you want a movie that tells the backstory of the characters we grew up with -or- a movie about an alternate version — most fans would have picked the former.

66. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#56—Much it may indeed happen offscreen, but a few things would probably still remain contradictory.

1) Kirk would meet Christopher Pike long before his promotion to fleet captain (contradicts dialogue in”The Menagerie”)

2) Kirk would have at some point learned to operate a manual transmission ( *seems* to contradict “A Piece Of The Action”)

3) Kirk and co. would have seen and dealt with Romulans prior to the Bird Of Prey attack upon the Earth Outposts along the Neutral Zone (contradicts “Balance Of Terror”)

But aside from that, we’ve seen nothing which would definitively eliminate events described in “The Conscience Of The King”, “Court-Martial”, “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, “Obsession”, “A Private Little War”, etc., which provide some vague information as to the character’s backstory, as things that could ultimately take place in this seemingly altered timeline.

I think it more likely that the story doesn’t preclude these events from happening, but only because they happened in a timeline which leads the broader story to this point.

We’ll see.

67. DGill - April 4, 2009

#59

I know that’s Captain Robau’s voice. No doubt about it. He’s talking to George Kirk, but it sounds like they spliced Pine’s line in there (no different than the “Set a course for earth, kill everything” line in the “Nemesis” trailer). ;D

68. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - April 4, 2009

I seen the commercial on my network tv last night during wwe smackdown. Love the beginning as we see a guy that says to Kirk. Thers 4 of us and 1 of you. Then Kirk says get more then will call it even and then we see a bit of the fight. Loved it. this will be a great movie and Im so there on may the 8th at 1201am.

69. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#64—My intention was not to argue with you, but to simply expand upon the point. Don’t be so sensitive.

70. Enc - April 4, 2009

Anthony
yes sure it was reported about the kids version but….
with all this talk about the trailers/tv spots. the action, fast pace cuts etc.
can you confirm from any sources (like the responsible ad agency) EXACTLY the intended audiance of each one?

71. The Real Stanky McFibberich - April 4, 2009

re:40. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar

I guess I don’t remember doing a lot of ripping on the Remastered project, because I enjoyed most of it, but anyway, Garth, I am surprised that anyone has held on this long, especially me.

I though there was supposed to be a feature or review on the Remastered “The Cage.” Either I missed it or it hasn’t happened.

72. Jarod - April 4, 2009

Closetrekker, problem is I “believe” in causality. If Kirk is any different, because his father was killed in a space battle that wasn’t meant to happen, that will continue to alter the entire galaxy. He will live a whole different life, and his life will affect the lives of hundreds of different people.
And the families of the officers killed on the Kelvin in battle… Kirk’s life is not the only one being influenced by Nero’s time travel.

So if that time travel is not completely undone by the end of the movie, it will be very hard for me to accept that. Because then those are not even the characters I’m interested in. I’m interested in the original characters, not in mirror universe characters.

He might not even meet Khan. Or Chekov won’t be aboard the Reliant when he should be. LOL, one SECOND difference, and he won’t have a son with Carol Marcus, but a daughter. And so forth…

73. Jarod - April 4, 2009

If you want to do a reboot, then do a reboot. And no “bastard” inbetween.
That was also Superman Returns’ huge problem.

It was not Batman Begins’ and Dark Knight’s problem. Or BSG’s. Those did it right. A full blown reboot, self confident. No cameos, everything new.

Or do a Star Wars style prequel. But then, goddamnit, stick to the canon!

74. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#65—”We of course got the alternate character version, yes. No turning back. But no one was asking for it.

I bet if you did a poll before anything was put on paper “do you want a movie that tells the backstory of the characters we grew up with -or- a movie about an alternate version — most fans would have picked the former.”

Probably.

Most people don’t go out of their way to seek drastic change, particularly in a playground in which they have been comfortable for a long time.

And I don’t recall very many times (if any at all) when I “got what I asked for” with a Star Trek story. I don’t know why this should be any different. No one asked what I wanted, nor should they have.

They should simply tell a good story. It is perfectly legitimate to tell a story involving time travel that results in an altered timeline. The door has been open for that for more than 40 years.

It could be good, or it could be bad, but the fact that the characters’ backstories differ from those of the original timeline will have nothing to do with that.

Like anything else, it will be acting, directing, and writing which determine whether the story is good or bad.

75. Nero=Bitch - April 4, 2009

22–I CAST YOU INTO THE BLACK HOLE SPOCK AND NERO FELL INTO AT THE END OF COUNTDOWN #4!!! BE GONE WITH YOU!!! How dare you want this movie to tank! Gene Roddenberry was very fond of reinvention and disregarded canon intentionally on several occasions so in saying u want this film to tank because of it breaking canon is an insult to Roddenberry which exposes you’re not really a Trek fan but a hater spy…

By your definition every alternate timeline story is shitty because its an alternate timeline…including YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE…

76. Tracey - April 4, 2009

I agree with Closettrekker on the “reboot” discussion. I like the fact that it depends on everything that has come before and opens up all sorts of possibilities for this new future. Best of all (IMO), Kirk may not die ala Generations (which I hated).

77. The Real Stanky McFibberich - April 4, 2009

re: 47. sean – April 4, 2009
“#39
In all fairness, Stanky, every Star Trek trailer since TMP has focused on the action of the story. Heck, the trailer for TWOK didn’t address the Genesis subplot at all. The trailer for TSFS consisted of all the battle clips strung together. This is really nothing new, other than this particular team is really crossing the divide and reaching out to new audiences in a much more significant way than ever before.”

That would be fine if not for all the talk of another aspect of this movie. An aspect which has ONLY been talked about. They figure they have the long-time fans in their pocket just because of the name, so they aren’t going to waste any resources on them. Well, I’m not going to be wasting a lot of my meager resources on them, either.

Anybody who has already proclaimed that they are going to see this movie multiple times “to keep the franchise alive” is a sucker, plain and simple. If you end up liking it, fine, then do it. I don’t even really want to see it the first time, but I’m sure I eventually will. But it better be darn good if I’m gonna go back.

78. Warpler - April 4, 2009

49
The “You’re captain now, Mr. Kirk” line sounds to me like Leonard Nimoys voice.

79. Captain Roy Mustang - April 4, 2009

This is awsome

80. The Governator - April 4, 2009

I think people need to stand down from red alert. Just because they’ve put crap rock music in a couple trailers doesn’t mean there will be crap rock music in the movie. Certain things appeal to certain people, and this is just a marketing tool to sucker in the UFC Fight Night Live watchers and the football players and the Harley riders etc. This trailer was NOT meant for us, so don’t take it for much more than a grain of salt.

As for those who don’t get why the trailers are just action and quick dialogue lines, I suppose you are not familiar with how trailers are done. That’s just the way it is. Its purpose is to get people’s attention. The trailer is not suppose to be a shorter version of the movie. Just a bunch of quickly put together scenes taken out of context that show off >some< of the cool stuff in the film. If you have thirty seconds to show off a movie and you are trying to appeal to a certain audience (not Trek fans), you are not going to give away the “intelligence” of the film, because the intelligence is usually grounded in the story, something that shouldn’t be given away in trailers. That’s just stupid.

81. Jarod - April 4, 2009

A regardless of how silly Episode I – III might have been, and how many are disappointed by the more kid-oriented-funny-droids-and-funny-funny-Jar-Jar-meesa-stoopid approach, those were still proper prequels to the original trilogy.

82. Wes - April 4, 2009

Wow, the haters are out in force today. *waves* Hi haters! As for me, I’m still counting down the days until this movie comes out. In my opinion, this is what Trek needed….as much as I’ve loved it since childhood, I could still recognize that it had become stagnant and bloated. All things must adapt to survive, even popular entertainment. Evolution 101, baby.

83. The Invader (In Color!) - April 4, 2009

Hate that stupid rock music over the trailer…ugh.

Nothing screams “Pander to the young audience!” more than that.

84. Nero=Bitch - April 4, 2009

P.S.–ANTHONY…I think the ‘You’re captain now, Mr. Kirk’ line came from Bones…or Pike

85. The Governator - April 4, 2009

Oh yeah, in three days, 1600+ people will have seen the movie, including several Trekmovie posters. So I guess we’ll find out shortly whether it passes the litmus test for both fans and the general movie audience. From now until opening day, things are going to get really interesting.

86. Phil 123 - April 4, 2009

#25

No you’re not!! I thought i heard Cook too. had to listen again to catch that it was Kirk

87. Devon Richards - April 4, 2009

#24 !!!
It is about damned time somebody said this!
All this bitching about deviations from Kirk’s character have been based on …what? A couple of the novels? So what? They are not canon. We all know they are not canon, and yet there is this faction of the fandom that insists that any interpretation of Kirk’s past be a mere filming of the events in those novels.
Spock is the only character whose childhood we’ve seen a glimpse of in the “psuedo-canon”, and if you use logic, and the fact that there are accredited “Vulcan Bullies” in the cast list, you can guess they are going to further explore those events. That’s right – we are actually going to get to see events from the animated episode in the movie. Is anyone happy about that?! Nope.
They just want to bitch about Kirk.
Trek fans have accepted a lot of non-sensical crap over the years – A constantly singing Doctor hologram, a singing lounge singer that lives in the holosuites INSIDE AN ALREADY EXISTING LOUNGE, a Starfleet Captain that is willing to watch her crew get picked off like flies on a weekly basis in order for her to continue to pretend to keep following protocol, An alien pedophile crew member ( Kes would have been 7 to 10 years old in Occampan years when she and Neelix met, and yes, His attraction to her was sexual then), multiple mental rapes of the same telepathic character, a cat that changes sex mid-season, ( How’s that for established canon?!) A Captain that has hair in his Academy years in the series and is bald at the Academy in the movies, A FREAKIN COUNTRY SONG AS THE THEME TO A STAR TREK SHOW!!!!!!
But can you accept the fact that young James Kirk, the passionate rebel of Starfleet, was a passionate rebel as a young man? Noooooooo!!!

88. RTC - April 4, 2009

Interesting to see the whole ‘canon’ thing come up again. I thought we’d mostly moved past that.

But be that as it may … call me naive, but I *still* think we haven’t seen proof that this wipes away what we’ve come to know about the Trek universe. Yes, the Enterprise is a lot different — and the only element I’m still struggling to embrace — but assuming we’re not going to see every single moment of the early lives of these characters, there’s still room for them to have the experiences we’ve come to know — Finnegan, Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell, Kodos, Garrovick, Pike’s accident, etc. etc. We don’t know that the crew realize Nero & his gang are Romulan (don’t forget Nero’s ear job). And so Kirk can drive a ‘Vette (maybe with an automatic clutch?) and not a ’20s era (possibly double-clutched) Packard or whatever it was in ‘A Piece of the Action.’ I can live with that bit of canon waffling.

But when this spirals into what color eyes Captain Kirk ought to have, the debate definitely isn’t fun anymore….

89. Nero=Bitch - April 4, 2009

#37–that early attack on earth that motivates the change in Starfleet locations you speak of? that’d be Paxtons attack on San Fransisco in the Enterprise 4th season two parter “Demons/Terra Prime”…

90. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#72—”Closetrekker, problem is I “believe” in causality. If Kirk is any different, because his father was killed in a space battle that wasn’t meant to happen, that will continue to alter the entire galaxy. He will live a whole different life, and his life will affect the lives of hundreds of different people.
And the families of the officers killed on the Kelvin in battle… Kirk’s life is not the only one being influenced by Nero’s time travel.”

That’s a valid perspective on the effects of time travel, and probably the more conventional one.

On the other hand, (and perhaps not coincidentally) Bad Robot’s take on it seems to be a bit different—that the universe corrects itself, so that only the course toward major events is permanently altered.

My personal view is that some elements of a man’s character are derived from “nature”, whereas others are developed through “nurture”.

If nothing else, the story potentially provides an added element of dramatic jeopardy, in which the audience’s hinderance derived from “already knowing the outcome” is removed—and thus the opportunity for surprising turns is somewhat enhanced.

“So if that time travel is not completely undone by the end of the movie, it will be very hard for me to accept that. Because then those are not even the characters I’m interested in. I’m interested in the original characters…”

Perhaps then it would benefit your potential to enjoy this story by simply *embracing* the notion that these are entirely different characters. If you become interested in them—great. If not, then what have you lost? $10 and a couple of hours?

Personally, I see them as the *same* characters, only facing an entirely new and unique set of obstacles. I suspect that the point will be that the “nature” of Kirk and company triumphs over the obstacles they face due to the timeline incursion.

In the end, nothing is done to harm what came before. Everything we know from ENT-NEM happened, albeit in another timeline. I see the prospect of our heroes going through life again before our eyes under an altered set of circumstances to be an intriguing prospect—-one for which the canonical potential has always been present, yet never really explored beyond the confines of a single episode that ends with a neat little bow on it.

91. Daoud - April 4, 2009

Thank you 80. People judging trailers directed at non-Trekkers using their Trekker sensibilities indeed are missing the point.

We’re trying to draw in *additional* fans to Trek. Get them in with the action, and then let O&K’s story win them over to the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic, and the heart and soul of Trek. Then they’ll be there for the sequels.

#Boobtrekker or whatever it is today: You state:
1) Kirk would meet Christopher Pike long before his promotion to fleet captain (contradicts dialogue in”The Menagerie”)

Oh, when in The Menagerie did they tell you when his promotion was? They didn’t. Kirk could have first met Pike long before Kirk became captain. Looks like in this Neronian universe, Pike meets Kirk right after Pike’s been given Fleetwide recruiting duty for the Enterprise project. Seems like a Fleet Captain kind of thing to me.

2) Kirk would have at some point learned to operate a manual transmission ( *seems* to contradict “A Piece Of The Action”)

Oh, you do realize that a 1931 Cadillac didn’t have a modern standard stick-shift? I didn’t think so. They’re very different manual transmissions. So it doesn’t even *seem* to contradict. It doesn’t contradict.

3) Kirk and co. would have seen and dealt with Romulans prior to the Bird Of Prey attack upon the Earth Outposts along the Neutral Zone (contradicts “Balance Of Terror”)

And that’s clearly what makes the Neronian universe different. But we don’t have a script yet, so we don’t know that they identify themselves as being Romulan or not. Until we do…. Plus, Archer’s already dealt with Romulans prior to Balance of Terror.

Enough with all the “contradictions”. It’s not that problematic. This universe diverges the moment Nero and the Narada, and Spock and the Geordi LaJellyfish go back in time.

92. Ensign Ricky - April 4, 2009

The only thing I can really find fault with in this movie is the character of Chekov. He should be too young @ this time. Hell he is 10 years younger than Kirk is supposed to be. Other than that I am really beginning to like this movie.

93. P Thomas - April 4, 2009

Wasn’t every time travel story in Trek based on the idea that they were trying to set history back on course? Maybe at the end of this movie, everything is set right again to the way canon says it was- the elder Spock having succeeded on his mission. Of course, canon said so very little about this time period, I don’t believe there was ever a mention of Kirk’s father or mother (or even Iowa until ST4), that a creative writer could come up with just about anything and it would still fit what we know. And if not, who cares? It might be a good story about Kirk and Spock anyway.

94. FS9 - April 4, 2009

Wow, cool! Five weeks to movie day, folks.

95. OR Coast Trekkie - April 4, 2009

What’s wrong with rock music? What’s wrong with adding a little testosterone?

96. OneBuckFilms - April 4, 2009

93 – I think emotionally and situationally the characters end up in the right place, but the Romulans having already appeared, and things looking different will remain.

Some things will be permanently different, but the crew of the Enterprise will be where they were destined to be in either Universe.

Ready for the next voyage of the Enterprise.

97. Sid - April 4, 2009

God, that was awful. Just corny as hell, and that’s the one thing this movie cannot afford to be seen as.

98. OneBuckFilms - April 4, 2009

95 – It’s non-traditional :-)

I’m not a big fan of the choices for this TV spot, but I’m not the target audence.

I love some Rock music, Led Zeppelin II is fantastic, so the Electric Guitar licks are a completely appropriate non-issue to me.

It’s for the Fight Night, Drink beer and watch the match crowd.

Stereotypical “jocks” or “dudes”. Usually late teens to mid 20s, love sports and action movies.

When making judgement on each sales pitch, the bar is not how closely it matches the Star Trek we all grew up with, but how well it sells the movie to it’s target audience.

The spot works, and reveals a little more footage for us to pick apart and debate over.

99. Jackson Roykirk - April 4, 2009

Looks good so far. Most previous Trek movies either had little action or the action scenes were awkward and phony. This will appeal to the sci-fi crowd as well as the Fast ‘n Furious crowd.

And either of those groups are vastly larger than all the hard-core Trekkers put together, and I include myself among the Trekkers. In the long run, building a next-generation audience will be far more profitable than simply milking a shrinking old-school fan base with the same old formula.

Maybe the most recent Trek ad said it best: “Forget Everything You Know.”

100. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#91—”Boobtrekker or whatever it is today…Kirk could have first met Pike long before Kirk became captain. Looks like in this Neronian universe, Pike meets Kirk right after Pike’s been given Fleetwide recruiting duty for the Enterprise project. Seems like a Fleet Captain kind of thing to me.”

Boobtrekker?

I don’t think there was ever anything to really pin down the notion that Kirk and Pike’s meeting took place at the Enterprise “change of command” in the first place—only the implication that Pike would have been promoted to “Fleet Captain” upon finishing his tour as captain of the Enterprise.

I like your thinking on that one. I can’t think of any concrete preclusions to that theory, beyond the literal implications of the term “Fleet Captain”. I could probably get on board with that interpretation.

“Oh, you do realize that a 1931 Cadillac didn’t have a modern standard stick-shift? I didn’t think so. They’re very different manual transmissions. So it doesn’t even *seem* to contradict. It doesn’t contradict.”

Your condescending tone aside, I’m not a mechanic–nor a particular antique auto-enthusiast (I’m just a furniture manufacturer/store owner), so I’ll take your word on that. But I will say that it still *seems* to contradict to those of us who are “laymen”. But if it doesn’t *actually* contradict—so be it. Good.

“But we don’t have a script yet, so we don’t know that they identify themselves as being Romulan or not. ”

Here’s where I think the buck may stop on a “predestination-paradox” interpretation.

While we do not have a script, we *do* have the numerous reports from the 20-minute preview, some of which openly suggest that Kirk is aware (prior to the attack upon Vulcan) that the people responsible for the attack upon the Kelvin in 2233 (as well as for destroying quite a few “Klingon warbirds”) are indeed “Romulans”. Reportedly, he says as much to Pike, and enlists Uhura’s support to back him up. Assuming that is accurate, and that the attack upon Vulcan is “pre-BOT”, then that would be an obvious contradiction.

“This universe diverges the moment Nero and the Narada, and Spock and the Geordi LaJellyfish go back in time.”

That is my contention as well. My point was never that it was problematic at all, just that a predestination paradox is rather unlikely.

While I like some of your thinking, I also believe you could work a bit on your courtesy… I like a good discussion amongst varying viewpoints, but I don’t think you need to be condescending to make a point.

101. Lou - April 4, 2009

I hope Kirk does a drop kick! lol

102. SChaos1701 - April 4, 2009

To all of those who keep talking crap about the trailer….when I first broke the news on this site, it was during a UFC show. Everyone I knew who wasn’t a Trek fan and saw that spot during the fights is now pumped to see this movie. Hell, I got a friend of mine watching all the TOS movies just to get acquainted with the characters. STOP BEING SO DANG ELITIST!!!!!

Also to #22. Shut the hell up and GO AWAY!

103. enterprise1965 - April 4, 2009

#18 a totally new Khan storyline?

I can deal with that.

104. Enc - April 4, 2009

91
“Enough with all the “contradictions”. It’s not that problematic. This universe diverges the moment Nero and the Narada, and Spock and the Geordi LaJellyfish go back in time.”

but when is that?

105. SaphronGirl - April 4, 2009

(Is it bad that I thought it says “SEX” behind them on this mag cover: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3104/182cov.jpg)

106. The Spirit of Truth - April 4, 2009

I love the new trailer, and still wish people would listen when I say, “Stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us!!!!” If you don’t want to see it because your fan-fiction character based on your persona isn’t really Kirk’s best-friend from high school (well, first get over that) or whatever else reason you can think of, leave us alone and stop trying to ruin it or better yet, don’t even come to the movie!!! But the rest of us who can understand what is going on want to see it and are tired of you trying to bad mouth it before you could know anything.

107. J.J. Savard - April 4, 2009

If they wanted to bring rock and roll into Star Trek, just play Magic Carpet Ride, or Ooby Dooby again.

108. Devon - April 4, 2009

#22 – Ignorance isn’t always bliss I guess…

Anyway, yes, this was shown during the UFC Program as #102 said (and provided the first video as well.) So take a bit of a breath when knowing this. However, don’t be expecting them to show the new commercials off in the same vain as the old ones. They have to show these off to everyone. Trekkies can’t keep a hold of something for themselves only forever, that would be suicide for the franchise.

109. The Spirit of Truth - April 4, 2009

#22 GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And please, don’t see the movie.

110. Ryan - April 4, 2009

If the people promoting the movie are making some fans mad, then they are doing a great job, IMO.

111. Ryan - April 4, 2009

#105 LMAO

112. The Governator - April 4, 2009

110. Ryan

Oh, you are too honest.

113. Bill Peters - April 4, 2009

Gettting more and more excited!

114. What is it with you? - April 4, 2009

I’m not so worried that this will be an action fest…

Really, we’ve only seem the same action sequences repeated over and over in all the released video footage.

This probably means that these are the only action set-pieces in the entire film.

Lots of room to develop a philosophical/intellectual heart.

Though there is a danger in promoting a film as something it is not. Last Action Hero, anyone?

Magic Ticket My Ass, McBain!

115. The Governator - April 4, 2009

105. SaphronGirl

lol. :-)

116. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

#104—-”but when is that?”

From 8 years after Nemesis to 2233 (or sometime prior).

117. Bill Peters - April 4, 2009

I hope it does well in making money! I think I am going to love this film!

118. Tiffany - April 4, 2009

Still no Chekov?

119. pock speared - April 4, 2009

if this film is a reboot, then so was TMP.

i think i like this ad so much because it boldly courts a new audience; the beer-swilling, fisticuffing anti-nerd. this, it’s own way was an aspect of the original series, when westerns and crime fighters were so popular.

roddenberry would have understood, i think, that to tell his stories and push his “cerebral” agenda, a certain part of the male ego needs a bar brawl (or gorn whipping) to justify a heroic narrative. the space babes dig it too.

also, i really enjoy the retro 60′s design and motif i’m seeing; the corvette and the enterprise resemble the juxtaposition between young kirk and the one who becomes captain. very nice iconography by b’orci &co.

thanks for putting up the trailer anthony!

120. cpelc - April 4, 2009

81 -

The problem with those prequels was that you knew exactly what was the ultimate outcome…anakin would become vader, luke and leia would be born, the empire would rise, etc.

How boring is that – there was no suspense because you already knew everything was going to turn out a certain way.

With this movie you don’t have that same problem….yes it is a prequel but the characters don’t have to live or act in the same way so that future events come to pass

121. Enc - April 4, 2009

119
“if this film is a reboot, then so was TMP.”

Why?

122. spark-1701 - April 4, 2009

38. Alan Hsiao – April 4, 2009
LOL! the trailer is just outrageous, hopefully the movie will be better. And to all of you who are fooling yourselves with the alternate timeline element of the movie, face the facts: you are just excusing JJ of destroying whatever vestige of the ST cannon remained after ENT. Move on and let Star Trek live.

lol…..Wow….I think you have some facts to face yourself there

123. The Angry Klingon - April 4, 2009

I think we’ve gotten to the point where we’ll just have to see the movie. On a bright note several things (such as the Khan timeline) REALLY had to be reverse engineered by the writers of the books to fit in. So maybe in THIS timeline when Antonio Banderas shows up as Khan it will be be in a proper timeline context :)
There has been mention before that THIS new timeline is in keeping with the ‘Enterprise’ timeline and that makes some sense. There are a lot of things Im seeing that I like and a lot that I dont so now Im just going to wait until May 8th and hope the pros outweigh the cons.

124. pock speared - April 4, 2009

121. Enc – April 4, 2009
119
“if this film is a reboot, then so was TMP.”

Why?

i mean it from a design point of view. TMP departs massively from the aesthetics of TOS (for all the right reasons; budget, big screen production values, etc.). this film does as well, but aside from one aspect of the narrative (qm time travel), gives us the same characters interacting in the same way in a future that hasn’t arrived yet. one could argue that TMP was MORE of a reboot, as some very warm fuzzy aspects (check the uniforms) are true to TOS than TMP bothered to be.

simply, i don’t see either as a reboot at all, and as long as a guy named nimoy is a vulcan on a ship called enterprise with some guys named kirk and mccoy, i call it “star trek”. far more than the last 5 films that had that name in the title.

thanks for asking.

125. Ryan - April 4, 2009

122. No, what we’re thinking is unless star trek becomes marketable to a wider audience, we’ll never see Trek again.

There’s got to be a compromise somewhere in the middle, because obviously what has happened over the last 10 years hasn’t been working.

Some of you people need to take your head out of the sand, the current market of trekkers is not enough to sustain productions of primetime or block buster movies, there’s simply not enough money there.

Compromises need to be made if we want to continue seeing trek movies in the future.

Pull your collective heads out of the sand.

126. C.S. Lewis - April 4, 2009

Kenny Loggins and “Danger Zone”. Ah the good old days.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

127. cagmar - April 4, 2009

Cool…But still waiting on the intelligent trailer…

128. Galaxy Quest 2 - April 4, 2009

I get where they’re going with New Trek.
Kirk is Luke Skywalker searching for purpose on a father quest.
Elder Spock is afterlife apparition Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Spock and McCoy are dueling Obi-Wans competing for influence over Kirk.

129. Trekee - April 4, 2009

I’m too late to see the pulled trailer but I’m getting to the point I don’t want to see much more now as there will be little left to see at this rate.

I have to agree with Stanky that it’s been fast cuts and a lot of mindlessness so far but I’m trying to ignore it and hope the film isn’t just “faster, more intense” all the way through.

Worst case, the shiny effects look pretty thus far.

130. jas_montreal - April 4, 2009

@ 127. Whats your definition of ”intelligent” ? Because that whole star trek is intelligent thing is getting cliched here by a lot of the trek fans.

131. Sloan47 - April 4, 2009

127: Cagmar, if you don’t have anything nice to say just don’t say anything. That’s just not necessary.

132. jas_montreal - April 4, 2009

@ 114. Exactly. A lot of trailers like to just market the movie to the mainstream as exciting or wtv. This trailer was marketed on MTV. A lot of ”junky”(sorry) teens watch that channel. So a lot of young people will get excited by it. It doesn’t mean the entire movie is a dumb-down movie with just action. A lot of people don’t seem to get that idea !!

133. Andy Patterson - April 4, 2009

“You got it.”

134. Enc - April 4, 2009

124

what gene wanted to do im MTP was update it for the times. not that 60 techno-color. add some tv screens etc instead of backlit grapfics. But at least they gave an on screen explination. the ship was upgraded.

JJ’s trek seems to be doing the same thing. by giving us an alt-universe for that that same pre-TOS/TOS period.

however i dont like the look that dosent seem afected by Neros travels.
but cause its all out of context at this point and I need to wait and see the movie. i still dont like a lot of what ive seen.
im waiting for the other show to drop. that ad that speaks to the the old school trkeker in me.

135. Nikos - April 4, 2009

Ehm…what’s with the rock music in the background? O_o

136. C.S. Lewis - April 4, 2009

100. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) – April 4, 2009

“I’m a furniture guy, not a mechanic!”

Early transmissions = “crash boxes”; Modern (manual) transmissions = synchronized. They make all the difference in the world, those synchronizers.

And now I’m feeling all nostalgy for my undergraduate frat-boy days of the 1980s thinking back on those road trips, beer swilling house parties, co-ed chasing, and those drunken fistfights.

Yes indeed, despite the ugly stylistic choices, this movie could be for nerds what “Top Gun” was for naval aviators. ;-)

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

137. Galaxy Quest 2 - April 4, 2009

The writers addressed the issue of McCoy being displaced (not this thread)on the promo posters by Uhura by stating that McCoy was absent from previous posters.
Yes! That’s true.But it was always a guest star like Ilea ,Cheng or Khan NEVER but a supporting actor like Uhura,Scotty,Chekov etc.
Which indicates She is being elevated at McCoy’s expense.Perhaps it’s in the interest of creating broader appeal for the movie ,but part of Trek’s appeal is the troika or 3 way dynamic between Kirk ,Spock and McCoy.

138. Galaxy Quest 2 - April 4, 2009

…Never By a…

139. tribble farmer - April 4, 2009

I love that they used “Ladies and Gentlemen” by Saliva.

140. Tony Whitehead - April 4, 2009

First impression of the new trailer: cacophony.

But, on second thought, there is a method behind the madness. Though that trailer wouldn’t pull me in, there is a definite audience that this spot will attract and when it comes down to it, it’s about getting people into the seats on opening weekend, isn’t it?

I will admit that I have my fingers crossed that the film isn’t edited like the above trailer. I absolutely hated the way Quantum of Solace was cut together. Guess I’m getting old and set in my ways…

141. Thomas - April 4, 2009

23. Enc

Starfleet Academy was always on the south end of the Golden Gate Bridge, on the grounds of the Presidio. Previous canon has established this.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Starfleet_Academy

142. jas_montreal - April 4, 2009

@ 137. I don’t mind seeing Uhura being ”elevated”. Her character was barely touched upon in TOS or the movies. Star Trek is about equality and i think its great theirs a female character thats getting more attention. Kudo’s to the writers and advertisers !

143. Xai - April 4, 2009

It’s a trailer edited to appeal to a niche market. Period. Read the story.

144. sean - April 4, 2009

#77

Stanky, I’m totally with you in the sense that if the movie is bad I’m not going to see it over and over again simply to ensure Star Trek’s survival as a franchise. I’ve been given a different impression than you based on interviews, footage, etc., but if it’s disappointing I’ll have no reservations about voicing my opinion.

#81

All the problems you listed (and many more) are why those will never be ‘proper’ prequels for me and many others. I have faith that this movie will not sink to that level of stupidity based on what I’ve seen so far.

145. jas_montreal - April 4, 2009

@ 143. THANK YOU Xai !!!!!!!

146. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) - April 4, 2009

I think that one of the things that gets missed in all of this by some of those expressing fears about the action-sequences is that TOS was full of fight-scenes (and even had a “bar-brawl”).

I was rewatching “Court-Martial” not so long ago, for instance, and thinking about how gratuitous the final showdown between Kirk and Finney really is. Circumstances are set up so that Kirk has to go and confront Finney and somehow end up in a bare-knuckle fist-fight.

Same thing with “Space Seed”. Conveniently, Kirk ends up alone with Khan in the engineering section, and has to have it out with a physically superior opponent.

“Day Of The Dove”, “Bread And Circuses”, “The Gamesters Of Triskellion”, “Mirror, Mirror”, “Arena”, “Amok Time”, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” all come to mind as well. Those are but a *few* examples.

All of these stories involve situations where the story at some point leads Kirk into personal combat. “Fistfights” and other instances of personal combat were part of the fabric of Star Trek. Even in “The Cage”, Pike was put into a scenario where he had to fight. While it doesn’t happen in *every* episode, no one could reasonably argue that it doesn’t happen in a pretty significant bit of them.

In many cases, the action not only “serves the story”, but in fact—*is* the story!

We’re not talking about Jean-Luc Picard here. This is James T. Kirk.

I’m somewhat baffled as to the origin of this notion that a young James T. Kirk isn’t an action hero. He most certainly was. The only reason this element is mostly absent from the original films is the age of the actors at the time. Period.

Now I am certainly not suggesting that Kirk is one dimensional. He is quite intelligent, as we are no doubt supposed to see of him in ST09 as well.

The same guy who defeats Khan in single combat uses his words to defeat Nomad, his intellect to subdue the M-5, etc. But sometimes I think some fans tend to forget *who* we’re talking about here, and some of the ‘revisionism’ surrounding fan fears is puzzling.

Star Trek, as I was introduced to it in 1970′s syndication, was sexy and adventurous, humorous, and romantic—-it didn’t just show us an optimistic vision of the future, but it entertained us on different levels from week to week. Some of it was thoughtful, and some of it appealed to our more primal natures.

For me, the Star Trek spinoffs drifted away from being “fun”. ST09 seems to want to return to the roots of what made Star Trek a great show in the first place. I’m all for that. If you show me a $150 million budget two-hour movie about a young Kirk and he *doesn’t* kick an ass or two and “entertain” a pretty lady—-then I think you’ve missed the mark altogether…

147. ShawnP - April 4, 2009

Everyone’s an expert I suppose.

On a related note, I’m about to drive past Riverside, IA. How fun is that? I’ll keep a look out for the Enterprise being built…

148. James Kirk's Unknown Son - April 4, 2009

Good God, what frikkin’ whiners and complainers some of you are. Blah blah blah, canon canon canon;”I hope this movie flops,” etc., etc., etc.

The damn series itself broke canon! The novels broke canon. The Wrath of Khan broke canon. Get off it already! Go watch Battlestar Galactica or Stargate or the Discovery Channel or something. Quit your frikkin’ bitchin’ and quit taking a fantasy entertainment piece so damn seriously.

Drive me nuts.

149. TonyD - April 4, 2009

The one thing about this movie that continues to worry me is Chris Pine’s interpretation of Kirk. When he challenges that cadet to a fight, he sounds like he’s trying to channel Jack Nicholson. That, plus the whole “rebel without a cause” attitude just doesn’t seem all that appealing or particularly original to me. Hopefully it’ll all play out better when I see the finished product on the big screen but I still think it’s one area where change for change’s sake wasn’t an improvement.

Also, I’ve got to say that even though I know this TV spot is aimed at a specific audience and probably isn’t indicative of the finished movie’s tone and content, having that heavy electric guitar in a Star Trek spot along with all that imagery of fast cars, bar fights and people sexing it up just seems sad to me. I know they’re trying to reel as many people in as possible but some of this advertising is really starting to take a juvenile slant to it. Other blockbusters haven’t felt the need to pander like that and I’m a little disappointed that Abrams & Co. feel they need to do that with Trek. That’s not a criticism, BTW, just an observation from a longtime fan who never really expected to see a Trek product try to be so mass market. Oh well, just a sign of the times I guess.

150. pock speared - April 4, 2009

“146. Mindless Boob (aka Closettrekker) – April 4, 2009
I think that one of the things that gets missed in all of this by some of those expressing fears about the action-sequences is that TOS was full of fight-scenes (and even had a “bar-brawl”).”

very well said, mindcloset boobtrekker, and in that sense the new ad recalls some of the basic format of TOS.

somehow, the humanity of (i.e.) mccoy’s thoughtful assessments and the logic of spock’s cold calculation could only really be useful while jim kirk had to go mortal combat (or horny hound dog) with the galaxy’s various bad guys and space babes. it WAS part of the dynamic, this cowboy instinct.

“intellect” never drove the best writing in TOS, it was the juztaposition of animal aggression (kirk) balanced by humanity (mccoy) and intellect (spock). the fun was playing around with those roles (as the best of them usually did).

this is why i really have great hopes for this film, and abhor the shallow objections of those who feel it somehow disrespects it’s origins.

151. Timncc1701 - April 4, 2009

146 I can’t see Shat’s Kirk ever saying something like “go get more guys and it will be a fair fight” I don’t care what age. I don’t know about this. I wonder if the product is diluted to appeal to the masses. Has Star Trek morphed into a Transformers action movie serial with characters whose names coincidentally are the same as some characters in TOS? Don’t get me wrong, I love Transformers, but it ain’t Star Trek. We will find out soon enough.

152. Chris Basken - April 4, 2009

119: “if this film is a reboot, then so was TMP.”

FWIW, Roddenberry considered it a half-reboot.

He also considered TNG a reboot.

153. Magic_Al - April 4, 2009

This movie will represent a lot of change but not all unprecedented.

Each of the TOS movies felt like a reboot to some degree due to changes in behind-the-scenes personnel and big swings in budget from one film to the next. The TNG movies are more consistent and look they’re all from the same well-oiled production team, so it’s been a long while since we’ve seen any big stylistic shifts.

To some degree the TOS films also, unintentionally, rebooted the characters from TOS. The TOS actors had a lot of time away from Star Trek before TMP and had to recreate their characters while adapting them for the big screen. As a child who wasn’t old enough to understand how people change, I could barely accept movie Kirk and TOS Kirk as the same person. I think it took till TSFS, with Nimoy directing, for the old chemistry to completely come back. By comparison, the TNG actors performed their characters on TV over twice as long and had no break before shifting to movies, so they’re mostly the same on film as they were on TV.

154. Thomas - April 4, 2009

102. SChaos1071

I like UFC too, and I don’t like the implication by some here that it’s just dumb jocks whaling on each other. The guys who do MMA are very smart andf train exactly hard to accomplish what they do.

155. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 4, 2009

Nero lures the captain’s over to his ship for some SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET LOVIN!!!!!!

156. James Morgan - April 4, 2009

I love reading the ‘hissy fit ‘ comments and arguements you Trekkies make on these boards every time a new TV spot or Trailer pops up…. keep it up guys its very entertaining…

157. Alf, in pog form - April 4, 2009

Whaaaa!! Whaaaaa!! Mummy, bad Mr.Abrams broke my canon….whaaaa!! (gee there are some sooks about on this board)

158. Quatlo - April 4, 2009

@ # 2: Two words: Refresh icon. Add to that, so what, big deal.

159. Thomas - April 4, 2009

154. That should be “extremely hard”.

160. Kensval - April 4, 2009

Personally, I don’t care if the design of the Enterprise has been changed somewhat, as long as looks basically the same. I don’t care that the bridge is bigger, holds more people, and is lit up like a Xmas tree. I don’t even care that time travel by one of the show’s characters causes the whole new movie to take place in an alternate timeline. What does matter to me is that I can once again look forward to seeing Star Trek in some form.

The characters, and the relationships between them, have always been the heart of Star Trek. Not the shape or spacing of the damned warp nacelles or the secondary hull, and not Jim Kirk’s backstory or even his middle initial (anyone remember James R. Kirk on a headstone? Hmm?).

Would any of you really want to go see a movie that looked and was written just like a 60′s TV show? If you do, then you and all your friends can raise money and see if you can get Paramount to do something official using the sets and crew for the ST: Phase II web series. That’s as close as you’ll ever get here in the 21st century, and good luck to you. You’ll certainly need it.

161. darrksan - April 4, 2009

The feeling from all these trailers reminds me of Moe in The Simpsons EP named “Bart’s Comet” in which every outcome with the Comet hits Moe’s Bar and Moe goes “OH, DEAR GOD NO!!!”
Each time We see new footage from this movie, it is “OH, DEAR GOD NO!!!”
The sick thing is NOT people who yell “OH, DEAR GOD NO!!!”, but is the apologists who make up things to make reasons for the film-makers actions.
I know the apologists will hate me for popping their “dream bubble”, but they have to just think of all the times they have attack someone who has wrote their dislikes of the trailers and so on.
the apologists have to stop calling “someone who has wrote their dislikes” as a “Hater” or as “not a real fan”.

162. NCC-73515 - April 4, 2009

How does the sword work? It looks like the parts fly together and build the blade. But where do they come from and why is the blade stable?

163. Elise - April 4, 2009

92
I think it said that Chekov is 17 in the toy description and some type of protege. It explains the age issue at least.

164. JWM - April 4, 2009

#119: “if this film is a reboot, then so was TMP.”

Simply, and therefore well, stated. They even threw in a hokey “refitting” subplot to try to explain why the ship looked different. :o)

The argument becomes completely redundant after a time, though I enjoy jumping in myself. People need to realize that they are, in fact, trying to bring people in to the theaters who

1. Don’t know where the Enterprise was supposedly built;
2. Don’t like people trying to act like they didn’t age between films;
3. Don’t know the actual scientific theory used to explain how Warp drive would(n’t) be possible;
4. Don’t know the Romulans and Kirk didn’t meet before an episode that aired 40 years ago;
5. Like science fiction but recognize that Star Trek had gotten stale, stale, stale.

As for the ‘canon’ people — to use an example I’ve beaten to death, there was a ton of ‘canon’ from ‘expanded universe’ books that Lucas threw out for the Prequels (Fett’s origin, the nature of the clones, when/how Vader turned, etc.) The hard core SW fans survived; in fact, it made me a hard core fan again because all of the lame crap churned out for a dollar and a cent in paperback sales had driven me away.

165. Ryan - April 4, 2009

#161 – You’re missing the point. We think people have an unreasonable hatred or dislike for the entire movie even though hardly anyone has seen the whole movie yet.

We are not apologists, we are people who simply like to give JJ and company the benefit of the doubt, if there is one. Like I’ve said before, the people making this movie aren’t stupid and they know the people seeing it aren’t.

After you see the movie, feel free to have a negative opinion.

166. fizzben - April 4, 2009

lmao, yeah some folks take it all a little too seriously. To say you couldn’t pull a threading needle out of their anus’s with 4wd is an understatement. I can’t wait for May 8 to arrive, it’s the most exciting thing I’m looking forward to all year!

167. Kirk, James T. - April 4, 2009

22, i seriously hope that you shut the hell up. i don’t care if you have a right to an opinion, i just don’t need to read it, see it, or moan about the wolly’s who think they know Star Trek better than anyone else.

get a life dude, you don’t like this movie, fine, move on with your life and go burry yourself in the last 40 years of Star Trek “canon” because that all fits in place in order of stardate, no one ever broke the rule of the almighty canon back in the day when Roddenberry, Berman and Braga were running the show. (roll eyes)

you people make me sick, you think it’s your god given right to cast your oh so important opinion on this movie you dislike so you voice your opinion but rather than stopping and moving on with your basement dwelling lives you continue to moan and cuss this movie down, well i for one am sick of people voicing their negative opinions – keep it to yourself and go enjoy the B4 sub-plot, the fight for eternal youth, the “Oh My” from Kirk in Generations, the casual racism in “Star Trek 6″ from Kirk and co, the Ego trip that was Final Frontier, the search for “Spock’s Brain”, the Ferengi trying to steal Enterprise, the Borg invading Enterprise, or the Klingons with bumpy foreheads before TOS SHOCK HORROR!!!! where somehow, in your enlightened and oh so intelligent brain, you find what Star Trek was when it was better than this…. yeah right…. give us a break, we all know they’ll be some people who don’t like this movie, but they don’t have to tell us that they don’t like this movie.

You should learn to keep your opinions to yourself.

168. Mr. X - April 4, 2009

LOL, WOW, NO, The Motion Picture was NOT a reboot!

It was a sequel! It didn’t overwrite anything that came before, like a reboot does!

A reboot is (more or less) a prequel that takes the basic idea and starts completely new. Battlestar Galactica 2004, and Batman Begins as best examples. It resets, and starts fresh. That’s a reboot.

Nothing in TMP was reset. It was built upon, not reset. The last 40 years of Trek have never been rebooted. Even Enterprise was not a reboot.

169. brady - April 4, 2009

It occured to me yesterday while watching Nemesis on AMC (dont get me started on what they consider Classic). That the movie was really about Nature vs Nuture. Shinzon was a clone of Picard and the question becomes if someone is identical and lives a different life will things change. The answer was of course Nurture in that movie. The new movie I feel asks the same question with a different answer. Kirk’s father will die and his Nuture will be different, yet his Nature will in the end make him the same man we knew by the end of the movie. Any comments about this are appreciated and I will be pasting this to other threads that maybe are more open to delving into this subject.

170. AdmNaismith - April 4, 2009

The commercial during Sarah Connor Chronicles had the titles: ‘Forget Everything You Know’. Paramount, you’re killing me here. Are you really willing to let me think that ‘Bruno’ is the movie I want to see most this summer?

171. captain_neill - April 4, 2009

I don’t mind the action being played on the trailers, I thin in the case of Star Trek XI just the way it cuts and the way the dialogue sounds just feels more Michael Bay esque, a director I hope to God will never be associated with Trek.

In these spots the dialogue is more corny to me but will probably work in context.

Don’t treat this as negativity as I really am hoping to love this film next month when it hits. I will probabaly enjoy it in a different way than all the previous Treks but I can stil enjoy this.

I have chose to accept the film as non canon and a bona fide reboot because its obvious events are not occuring as indicated. If we treat this as canon then all us hard core Trek fans heads will explode. I am happy to treat the alternate timeline thing like the Terminator analogy I mentioned on an earlier post.

I don’t want to ignore the canon at the same time that I want to embrace this movie. So to me it is best to treat them as separate entities. To treat this as separate from the other Treks can make this film more accepting to the hard core fans who cannot accept this new film.

I still have my concerns and still not happy with the design choices but if a great film and it feels like Star Trek then I will get past the stuff i am not keen on.

I love Casino Royale and Daniel Craig’s Bond but there were modifications in that film and Quantum of Solace that made it more Bourne style and with less humour seemed to miss somethings that previous Bond films had. I still prefer those elements but still love the new films despite the humour and gadgets being omitted, which is something I miss still.

I can like this film but it will feel very diff.

172. Steven - April 4, 2009

Interesting. Spot could do without the guitar-rock there, but oh well.

God bless!

173. Mr. X - April 4, 2009

These promotions feel not any different as the Die Hard 4 trailers. You could tell from the very first trailer that the director didn’t get it right. And from all the interviews, talking about they need to bring it to the 21st century for a new 21st century audience, and the mythology of Die Hard, and the McClane-isms, and blabla.

And then the movie turned out to be the worst Die Hard movie ever. Didn’t have the look nor the sound, nor the wit, nor the feel. And then it was a bad movie.

174. Paulaner - April 4, 2009

#171 “I can like this film but it will feel very diff.”

This is the case. It will surely feel very different, and I am excited about that. I like seeing new things and new takes from time to time. Nothing has to stay eternal, in my humble opinion.

175. Paulaner - April 4, 2009

#173 “And then the movie turned out to be the worst Die Hard movie ever. Didn’t have the look nor the sound, nor the wit, nor the feel. And then it was a bad movie.”

I am a Die Hard hater but I liked DH4. They succeded in getting a new fan :))

176. Trekphobic - April 4, 2009

I see a lot of comments that boil down to, “B-b-b-but they haven’t made a trailer for ME yet! The hardcore Trekkie!”

A-hem..

They don’t need to.

They don’t! Paramount just isn’t going to spend a lot of money appealing to people WHO ARE ALREADY GOING TO SEE THE MOVIE.

Instead, we Trekkies have the actual writers, and actors, and the director telling us – speaking directly to us (hey boborci!) and reassuring us that they respect us, and are making a movie that we are going to like.

So chill out and take their word for it.

177. captain_neill - April 4, 2009

It has taken me time to realise that but no matter the outcome of this film, the Star Trek I grew up with will always be there.

As long as the Michael Bay action style never makes it into Trek. A Michael Bay film were the 4 words which ruined Transformers for me.

178. Hellboy - April 4, 2009

That’s the disrespect for franchises. It’s the “I want to have this name, but I want to do just my own thing.” Len Wiseman’s “I want Die Hard 4, but I don’t want to do it anything like the previous three”, George Lucas’ “I want Indiana Jones 4, but instead of the 30s serials like the last 3, I want this one to be 50s serial with ALIENS!!!”. And now JJ Abrams “I want Star Trek, but I want to make it like Star Wars!”

With actors like Chris Pine saying “I play Kirk, but I don’t even want to know how Shatner did it. Instead I want to do Harrison Ford!”

IF YOU DO STAR TREK, THEN DO STAR TREK!
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DO IT, THEN DO SOMETHING ELSE, GODDAMNIT!!!!

179. captain_neill - April 4, 2009

I meant taken me time to accept this film will be fun.

I hope the kids will watch the other Treks if they like this film.

180. captain_neill - April 4, 2009

178- We reach brother!

181. Paulaner - April 4, 2009

#179 captain_neill

This is the right approach, imo :)

182. Tarkov2008 - April 4, 2009

I don’t care all that much about the debates over canon, alternate time lines, reboot, or whatever…

I want to see an entertaining film whose story doesn’t pander to it’s audience liked every big tent pole movie that comes out… one that upholds the essence of the Treks that have come before, and one that tells an interesting, engaging, and thought provoking NEW story… without needing to cater to the lowest common denominator.

From what plot elements we know of… we’ve seen some variant of this before… the revenging bad guy, time travel, altered history, major planets in jeopardy by some alien doomsday machine…

From the trailers and promos we’ve seen huge action set pieces, space battles, and great looking special effects.

Star Trek at it’s best was always about IDEAS… conveyed through clever storytelling.

I predict a lot of loud noise and running around in this version, a bunch of inside gags and cute references to “Cestus III” with a lot of cool stuff to look at and drool over, but I don’t expect to see much of what Star Trek is (was)…

183. Devon - April 4, 2009

Die Hard 4 IMHO was a good movie. And considering it has an 81% Rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and a 7.6/10 Rating on IMDB, for instance, it would appear that many others enjoyed it too.

184. Paulaner - April 4, 2009

#178 Hellboy

Don’t fall prey to the syndrome that “when I was young the world was a better place.”
BTW, Indy 4 was rubbish, I agree ;)

185. captain_neill - April 4, 2009

just want to say that despite my concerns over the changes that I am not ‘Herbert!’

I am a passionate hard core Trek fan.

186. NCC-73515 - April 4, 2009

Happy First Contact Day, everyone (special greetings to Bozeman)!

187. Andy Patterson - April 4, 2009

178

To quote Pine’s Kirk……”You got it.”

188. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 4, 2009

58. bigby bananaman

I am sure glad you said that first. I blame it on the Screen Cap.
That should have been a more flattering shot.

And also, W.T.H.? No neck pinch?

189. Xai - April 4, 2009

178. Hellboy – April 4, 2009

“IF YOU DO STAR TREK, THEN DO STAR TREK!
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DO IT, THEN DO SOMETHING ELSE, GODDAMNIT!!!!”

Then WAIT and SEE if THEY do STAR TREK in your OPINION, THEN wail and moan… in the meantime, quit your cussing.

190. Dunsel Report - April 4, 2009

Seems like the message of this movie is…even if you mess with the timeline, Kirk and Spock are forever…they’ll keep coming back like Johnny Cash and Waylon Jennings in “The Highwayman.” That seems like a much more honorable tribute to the soul of our heroes than a bunch of continuity-preserving stuff about the Treaty of Axanar or whatnot.

191. Poizen_Prince - April 4, 2009

Another theory about Captain Robau…

As this film involves a fair bit of time-hopping, might Robau still be aboard the Narada when Jim Kirk gets aboard to fight Nero?

If Nero attacked the Kelvin & then immediately skipped forward through time, then the attacks on the Kelvin & Vulcan might only be a few hours apart in his personal timeline…

Thus we could have the obligatory “You look familiar… You’re George’s son! Let’s save the universe together. Ak, I’m dead…” interaction between Kirk & Robau.

192. Brett Campbell - April 4, 2009

So, it appears (key word: “appears”) we are going to learn how our beloved crew got together in an alternate time-line.

I wish they had told the story of how the crew got together in the time-line I grew up with, know, and love: TOS, 1966-69, and Star Trek films I-VI. And I, for one, count V.

193. K. Thatcher - April 4, 2009

The bar fight between Kirk and the Cadets is a scene that’s played out in dozens of other movies. So contrived.

194. K. Thatcher - April 4, 2009

#192 I agree completely – would have made a great movie! But because JJ wasn’t a “true” fan coming into project, he and the writers contrived the timeline-altering macguffin to cover their collective behinds

195. Stargazer25 - April 4, 2009

Star Trek needs to be placed in the hands of the only man who truely knows what to do with it… James Cawley. At least he knows what the ship and bridge look like! Not to mention how the characters would really act! Something JJ missed the boat on.

196. Devon - April 4, 2009

#195 ^^ That’s so silly.

197. Paulaner - April 4, 2009

#190 “Seems like the message of this movie is…even if you mess with the timeline, Kirk and Spock are forever”

Totally agreed, and this is a great Trek message.

198. ChucksterNCC-1701 - April 4, 2009

In the screen shot of the exterior of the bar in Iowa, in the background and to the right, isn’t that the shipyards where the Enterprise is being built?

199. E. wILSON - April 4, 2009

I have been a star trek fan for more than a couple of years. I was there when those TOS eps came out initially in syndication. I played Spock as part of The Trio in my back yard with my pals. What wonderful memories. I have seen every single episode, and MORE than one time over the years. So, I believe I have a decent idea as to what star trek is, what it means, in different ways…and what importance it holds for so many around the world.I love trek. New ones have come along, and I have fallen for several of them in particular..but TOS will be, historicaly, my first love. I say all that, to say this….I don’t recall a film before, as having had such controversy surrounding it…but I do understand why. It’s about a series that means a lot to many people. It is not ‘just a tv show’…or it would not have endured, and spawned the spinoff series, and all the fandom therein. I have debated this newtrek as I call it, in my mind, over the months, and sometimes, gang, I wish they’d just put the film out now, and be done with it! Yes, Paramount wants to get the best numbers they can. Yes, they got bitten by the bad box-office of ”Nemesis” , and they are gunshy. Numbers are their life..and that isn’t entirely a good thing for we fans, because look at the stress and strain that has resulted from all this delay. Would ther be controversy anyway, given the plot?Sure. But it still is of no real benefit to the people who kept this franchise alive for them to reap the profits..am I not right? Sigh. At any rate, I have here and there been pulled in one direction and another over this. I read earlier someone talking about Vulcan being destroyed in the film..and I wince. Will it remain thus? Just an example. I wrestled some bit about how 1701 looks so differnt-and more modern-than the ship I will know so well, and its similarity to the refit in some ways outside. Like so many, I am steeped in ‘the way it is’. Change can be tough. But, one of my fellow fans, captain neill, put it best….I should look at the new film as ‘an alternate timeline’, seperate from the other. Is that a tad tricky?Sure…because it holds so much of ‘that 60′ show’ we love., its core characters, we know like the backs of our hands. I am going to try and do that. I am going to go, because to turn away might well mean I miss something good., because I won’t know unless I do. If Leonard Nimoy can give his blessing-to a film he could easily have turned down-if, as I hear, Eugene Roddenberry is willing to accept the torch of st as passed to this group, then I have to take that under consideration. ..to ”Find the good in it” as one of my favorites Chakotay once said. I don’t know for sure how I will ultimately feel-and, maybe the non-st people who attend have an advantage over us….I will probably ride the emotional coaster up and down until then..but I will be there-albeit in a cheaper matinee!

200. AJ - April 4, 2009

178:

Hellboy:

“IF YOU DO STAR TREK, THEN DO STAR TREK!
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DO IT, THEN DO SOMETHING ELSE, GODDAMNIT!!!!”

Then. let’s discard the spin-off series’ (post TNG) as well. By your definition, they are even worse.

201. Paulaner - April 4, 2009

#199

Nice post, man. Relax and enjoy the movie. If it’s bad we will bash it and we will keep waiting for the next one. Life goes on and Trek is always in our heart.
If the movie is good, well, Trek will be reborn.

202. The Real Stanky McFibberich - April 4, 2009

re: 189. Xai – April 4, 2009

A Xai sighting!
How ya been you old hound dog?

203. LordCheeseCakeBreath - April 4, 2009

I wonder why Spock Prime isn’t in these trailers. Seems like it would be cool.

I have to say the uniforms are really cool. Awesome design The Enterprise uniforms are perfect! Wish they would have done the same with the bridge! The music is also perfect from what I hear. As a musician I can hear the subtle salute to the original. Really cool stuff.

Oh well. I know this will be an awesome story. Even if the bridgee (barcodes, direct blinding lights, etc) is far from perfect to me.

BTW, Im only complaining about the bridge because I like every bridge that came before. From The Cage, to TOS, to TMP, to STXI to TNG, to DS9 defiant, to “Enterprise”. This is the only one that is really awkward to me. Im 32 yrs old. I was 11 when “Encounter at Far Point” first aired. Hardly from the TOS generation. Mr. Scotts guide to the Enterprise had a major impact on me when it explained the logic to the original Enterprise refit. From that point forward, 22 yrs later…I’m a geeky trek fan. From that year 1987 I’ve been one who likes to explain the logic of Trek. Even if I’m an apologist most of the time. Maybe I’ll be an apologist for the new E after I see it.

Man, I really love Star Trek!

204. The Governator - April 4, 2009

I don’t know about everyone else, but here’s what I want:

A damn good movie.

Whether the bridge looks the same, or the actors are the same, or its really something you’d “expect” from Star Trek, I don’t care at this point. Why? Because this is a reboot. Its a new thing. Its just like Batman Begins. Its new and different, and something people will probably love and remember, keeping the franchise alive for years to come. I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m tired of the same old, same old. I want something new and entertaining; something that’s worth spending money to go see. This is it folks. Star Trek. Its new. Its different. Yet, its probably better than anything we’ve ever gotten before.

I like comparing designs and uniforms and nitpicking things and looking at the details, but first and foremost, I want a good movie. If the movie sucks, who the hell is going to care about anything else?

205. Michael - April 4, 2009

Overall, the movie does look neat and fresh and all, and I’m sure it’s going to be interesting, but I definitely don’t get the feeling that it’s going to be as good as BSG. To me that’s the new standard for science fiction. Trek was the old standard. I’m sure this will be interesting, and probably better than the last two movies, but I don’ t think it will dethrone Ron Moore and all the many people that made Battlestar.

I really want Caprica to be good, but my expectations are really high now.

206. The Governator - April 4, 2009

I think I must be in a bad mood.

207. Jefferies Tuber - April 4, 2009

I literally can’t wait to see the green shirt on Kirk.

208. JWM - April 4, 2009

“IF YOU DO STAR TREK, THEN DO STAR TREK!”

I’m sorry, but honestly, Star Trek movies after VI were…well, they stunk on the whole. Even your vaunted First Contact with its…hey, wait a minute! Its CANON VIOLATIONS!!!! How many of you whined then? Or how about Cochrane’s ridiculous dialogue? Data’s ability to turn off his chip when they established in Generations that it had broken and HE COULDN’T?

Ahem.

Overall point — Trek movies without TOS cast stink. Welcome back. The original formula, even with a different chef, will work just fine for me.

209. JWM - April 4, 2009

“but I definitely don’t get the feeling that it’s going to be as good as BSG”

BSG seasons 1 & 2: some of the best sci fi on TV in the last few years.
BSG season 3-forward: Crap.

210. Sadie - April 4, 2009

148: Well said.

22: Are you another 30-something-year-old in your mother’s basement, wearing the Spock ears that came with your halloween costume when you were seven?

211. Elise - April 4, 2009

207 Yes! We need the wrap. :D

212. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 4, 2009

This movie has scenes of Kirk’s birth. I would just as well like to think the bed got kicked and James R. got born instead of James T. Hey he looks different anyway. If the story’s good, I’ll like it. We’ve always had to add our own little backstory to Trek to make it make sense.

And for those who mourn the original cast, if Nero changes the past, then when it rolls around again, he will have no reason to go back again and the original timeline will happen again. (If McCoy went back in time in City on the Edge and destroyed the Enterprise, how did he get to that planet where the Guardian was?)

If anyone does ever go back in time before we were born, we’ll all be immortal. Kind of explains that Deja Vu feeling.

213. Krik Semaj - April 4, 2009

Ughh. Star Trek fans are the biggest problem with Star Trek. Save your philosophical rants for… on second thought just shut up, and bring on the movie.

214. M_E - April 4, 2009

“Im starting to fear that the fact that the Romulans go back in time gives JJ a golden key to re-write cannon because the time line’s been altered. Still, strangely enough even with that they have to stick to Enterprise cannon since that was all before. Still doubt they care.”

Something interesting about the canon and how time travel seems to work in this movie: as seen in First Contact, the Borg time traveled to prevent F.C. but were stopped by the Enterprise-E… which could potentially be completely different in the new timeline… Stretching a “bit”, the Enterprise-E that stops the Borg in the past of the new timeline, while the “same” (now double?) Enterprise-E from Prime Timeline would be returning to a future that is not really theirs… Man, I´m gonna love this… :D

215. Ryan - April 4, 2009

#195 “Star Trek needs to be placed in the hands of the only man who truely knows what to do with it… James Cawley. At least he knows what the ship and bridge look like! Not to mention how the characters would really act! Something JJ missed the boat on.”

Leonard Nimoy being in the movie must not mean anything to you then.

216. Chris Basken - April 4, 2009

204: “I wonder why Spock Prime isn’t in these trailers. Seems like it would be cool.”

It seems that in general, the marketing angle is “this isn’t your parents’ Star Trek.” Showing off Nimoy at this point would run counter to that.

217. Brett Campbell - April 4, 2009

194 – Alas, what could have been.

218. Chris Basken - April 4, 2009

193: “The bar fight between Kirk and the Cadets is a scene that’s played out in dozens of other movies. So contrived.”

Contrived.

Like the Enterprise being the “only ship in range” to intercept V’Ger.

Like Kirk not raising shields not only in defiance of regulation, but even after being specifically reminded of them by Saavik.

Like the Admiralty of Starfleet going all closed-minded and insular and not willing to give Kirk — of all people — some kind of help to go get the body of Spock — of all people — just so we can have a contrived (if fun) “stealing the Enterprise” sequence.

Like the one person in Starfleet who has the knowhow to go back in time to get some whales JUST SO HAPPENS to have been restored to just sufficient levels of education just in time for the whole crisis to happen, and like the person who broke all sorts of Starfleet rules JUST SO HAPPENED to do it in time for the crisis to hit so he can then turn around and save everyone.

Just like the Enterprise being the “only ship in the quadrant” to go to Nimbus III, despite the ship not being in working condition.

And so on…

219. Mark - April 4, 2009

The villian…Nero…gets away in a escape pod ala Vader…Kirk gets frozen in next movie

220. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 4, 2009

I’ve been in a number of bar fights back in the ole bouncing days (once with a drunken off duty cop!!!)

Nothing contrived about it!! Especially a bottle to the back of the head (they don’t break like in the movies girls!!)

Still can’t believe my Nero luring Captains back to his Lair for Sweeeeeeeeeet Lovin joke way back in 155 didn’t knock you all dead!!! Tough crowd lately!!

221. Valar1 - April 4, 2009

205

“Overall, the movie does look neat and fresh and all, and I’m sure it’s going to be interesting, but I definitely don’t get the feeling that it’s going to be as good as BSG. To me that’s the new standard for science fiction.”

BSG was a good show, and it raised lots of provocative philosophical and moral questions, but I have yet to meet someone who says it inspired him/her to be a better person. BSG was like a mirror that reflected back the flaws of humanity, but Trek is like a telescope showing what wonders await us over the horizon. As a priest on Babylon 5 once said- they are like a pair of shoes, you could use only one but you’d get farther if you had both.

222. Beck - April 4, 2009

Looks like something they’d show on Spike. Clearly targeted to the testosterone set.

223. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 4, 2009

“213. Krik Semaj – Ughh. Star Trek fans are the biggest problem with Star Trek. Save your philosophical rants for… on second thought just shut up, and bring on the movie.”
I know I am, Krik, but what are you?
Chris’ comment at 216 is appropriate here too “the marketing angle is “this isn’t your parents’ Star Trek.” ”
I think I’d play the fan base angle down too. Many of us are science dweebs. But I didn’t know if we stopped commenting, we could affect the release date.
edud ouy evol

224. Krik Semaj - April 4, 2009

223.
When I said sut up. I meant you too.

225. Krik Semaj - April 4, 2009

Shut,

226. Krik Semaj - April 4, 2009

My point was that there is way too much whining from the dweebs. Trek is fiction. Forget the Canon crap. Just enjoy it. I have for over 40 years. Many of you people take it WAYYYY too seriously.

227. Sean4000 - April 4, 2009

#190 “Seems like the message of this movie is…even if you mess with the timeline, Kirk and Spock are forever”

Now that’s a good assessment. Agreed 100%

228. Michael - April 4, 2009

209 – I understand why you might think that. The show did change a lot over it’s run. Nothings perfect, but I love that they had the ambition to continuously reinvent it.

229. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 4, 2009

“224. 223. When I said sut up. I meant you too.”

And it didn’t work? You must have forgotten to stamp your feet.

Taking it too serious is half the fun and I think the prople here are enjoying themselves. 227 comments. Pretty good.

I think Anthony likes the comments as long as they don’t get mean spirited. Telling people to shut up. Shame on you.

230. SaphronGirl - April 4, 2009

190.

//Seems like the message of this movie is…even if you mess with the timeline, Kirk and Spock are forever//

That is so romantic. *siiiigh*

231. NexaleX - April 4, 2009

remember that this was going to come out in December? Paramount obviously felt that this movie for maybe just the action sequences would do well against other ACTION movies that it will be competing with (Xmen, Terminator), but about canon and the storyline I have complete confidence in the writers!

232. Al - April 4, 2009

Guys and gals.
Common now. Its a reboot! And a much needed reboot as well. You guys got 10 movies, and over 40 years worth of tv show’s, comics, novels, video games, toys, etc.

Now do you guys want star trek to remain in the main stream or do you just want it to fade off and become forgotten?

Honestly, as much as i love most of the old style trek, its time for a new style. also, not for nothing, but be greatful its not a complete do over, like alot of other reboots. Its still paying tribute to its roots, but making it new at the same time.

I just dont get u guys one bit, i really dont. if its too much like the old school, you’ll whine and moan “We’ve seen this all before” yet if you change it up, its the same old “Oh but its not like the old ones”

Look. Want the old trek? Fine, no one is taking it from you. Im sure its going to be relaunched on tv and home media for years to come.

But give this movie a chance before you all go bashing it! Dont wana see it, dont go see it. But this could be just what trek needs, a brand new perspective.

I’m all for it. I like how they are…excuse the term “De-geeking” it and making it cool and for a much broader crowd.

Cause lets be honest, as great as the old trek was, it did come with a sterotype of dorkness attached to it, and i can honestly see why!

Forget cannon, forget the minor details like kirk first meeting a romulian or this planet got blown up or that planet….etc.. As long as the major story components stay the same, who cares?

And its not like the old trek was strictly 100% cannon too ya know. There were multiple instances of cannon errors.. let it go.

233. Rocket Scientist - April 4, 2009

I have it! Kirk couldn’t drive well in “A Piece Of The Action” because it was a machine built by the Iotians, not an antique Earth vehicle. The Iotian car’s transmission was superficially similar but not exactly like the Earth-built Corvette young JTK is driving.

Therefore, he had trouble driving the Iotian “flivver” even though he knew how to drive the Corvette as a youngster.

Ahh! I feel so much better now!

234. SaphronGirl - April 4, 2009

A taste of Quinto and Pine’s chemistry: http://www.talkaboutit.org/ChrisZach_FirstAid_ForWeb.shtml

235. MC1 Doug - April 4, 2009

#164: “Simply, and therefore well, stated. They even threw in a hokey “refitting” subplot to try to explain why the ship looked different.”

Hokey? The refit made perfect sense.

As a Sailor in the US Navy, I can tell you that numerous vessels such as the USS Arizona, USS Missouri, USS Iowa, USS Wisconsin, USS Enterprise, USS John F Kennedy and countless other vessels had gone through refits during their lifetimes.

Recently, USS KItty Hawk was decommissioned after a 40 year + life. Hundreds of technological changes have been necessary for our modern Navy to compete in an increasingly ever-changing world.

That would not change in Star Fleet’s time.

236. NexaleX - April 4, 2009

231- haha great!
“we’ll make a good team.”
“we’ll see.”

237. Rocket Scientist - April 4, 2009

235.

I hear ya Doug, but such a drastic reconfiguration of the E in TMP was more than a mere refit. I was a Naval officer in the 80s, and while we went into the yards a couple of times, the ship still looked very much the same pulling out as she did coming in.

The TMP E’s facelift was a much more drastic makeover. As Dr. Bashir told Kira in “Life Support”, he could keep on transplanting artificial organs into Vedek Bareil’s body, but at some point would it even be him anymore?

238. the governator - April 4, 2009

234. SaphronGirl

Ha! That was funny! lol.

Its nice to see they have good chemistry, unlike another set of Star Trek actors.

239. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 4, 2009

“233. Rocket Scientist – I have it! Kirk couldn’t drive well in “A Piece Of The Action” because it was a machine built by the Iotians, not an antique Earth vehicle.”

I was thinking it might be the other way around. The Corvette resembles a 20th century car but with no clutch.

In A Piece of the Action, it was the clutch Kirk had the problems with.

240. The Original Spock's Brain - April 4, 2009

195. Stargazer25 – April 4, 2009
‘Star Trek needs to be placed in the hands of the only man who truely knows what to do with it… James Cawley. At least he knows what the ship and bridge look like! Not to mention how the characters would really act! Something JJ missed the boat on.”

Yeah and give Cawley the lead too. Right…

241. The Original Spock's Brain - April 4, 2009

210. Sadie – April 4, 2009
“22: Are you another 30-something-year-old in your mother’s basement, wearing the Spock ears that came with your halloween costume when you were seven?”

LOL!

242. The Original Spock's Brain - April 4, 2009

153. Magic_Al – April 4, 2009

Well put!

243. sans_shatner_1701 - April 4, 2009

Oh Cool! A bar fight scene! How original – can’t wait. Thank you Thank you Thank you. WE haven’t had a good bar fight scene since TTWT. Trek is Western in SPaaaaaace!

244. John from Cincinnati - April 4, 2009

After the red creature is chasing Kirk and gets eaten by the bigger red creature, Kirk turns around and says “there’s always a bigger fish”.

245. Chadwick - April 4, 2009

The second and third ads were good, scotty in the water pipes was “meh”, this fourth ad is the best of tv ads but the the third trailer was epic on a grand scale. I am not going to debate what star trek is and is not, what it should be and should not be. I have all the past star trek series on DVD ( mmm soon to be Bly-ray) so posterity and history is always preserved and unless that is lost, star trek will always be. Fear not Trekkers of the 60′s and 70′s, star trek is safe. I don’t just believe this, I know it, two different things. I am happy with the people the torch has been passed to. This is star trek and I will see it opening day IMAX.

246. Alf, in pog form - April 4, 2009

The new film is canon, and Gene Roddenberry really wrecked TOS and TNG by not anticipating and respecting the canon contained within the new film. And I’m such a stickler for the canon of the new film that I’m now going to throw out all my DVD’s of all the earlier episodes in a childish hissy fit of anger. Because that’s just the kind of pathetic puerile canon kisser that I am…..

247. moauvian moaul - April 4, 2009

Every time Picard opened his mouth it was obvious he wasn’t French. No one seemed to notice.

248. moauvian moaul - April 4, 2009

146 ClosetBob, Well said.

249. Trekee - April 5, 2009

Ah, the trailer is up again. Thanks.

And having watched it in spite of myself, it’s OK – but tonally it’s quite different from what we would normally expect from Trek so of course there has to be some pause from some of us.

As for Leonard Nimoy not being in these trailers… 99% of the audience won’t have seen him in the trailers and even most of the press won’t know about it as they are lazy ande evil.

So the bulk of th audience are going to be totally bliondsided when he appears in the film and I have to envy them for that. I guess we’ll just have to make do with Shatner at the end then… ;-)

I may have missed something about the Nero luring the captrains over to his ship though… is that why he keeps it all softly lit with Luther Vandross playing on loop?

250. Admiral Grand - April 5, 2009

My god. I swear the closer we get to the opening, the more uptight this crowd gets. I’m begining to think that if the people like #22 decide to leave their mothers’ basements and go see the film, their heads will explode like Cmdr. what’s-his-name in that first season episode of TNG.
Chill people. It’s a movie. If you don’t like it you have over 700 hours of “cannon” that you can go cling to. That’s not going away. Hell, it’s comming out on blue-ray.
But I for one am thrilled about this new Star Trek. After Ent, our beloved franchise was dead. This much needed facelift is, well, logical. Recently I purchased a copy of the TMP soundtrack on iTunes. It includes a recording put together by the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself back in the 70′s. At one point Gene states his hope and belief that one day in the future, someone would take these characters and creations and mold them to fit they’re generation. Ladies and gentlemen, that is being done.
J.J. and the rest of the team, from the bottom of this Trekkie’s heart, thank you. I very much look forward to a truely 21st century Star Trek.

251. S. John Ross - April 5, 2009

#74: “Most people don’t go out of their way to seek drastic change, particularly in a playground in which they have been comfortable for a long time.”

But there remains a legitimate question: If you have a new story to tell, and new characters to explore, and a new universe to visit: why not give it its own identity, instead of saddling those elements to an existing universe? If the story is good enough and new enough to stand on its own, why isn’t it being allowed to?

And to be clear: I have no idea if these concerns will be borne out in the film; I’m still holding out hopes that it’s genuinely Trek and genuinely awesome. But the concerns themselves are logical ones. It would hardly be news for Hollywood to punch out a cut-and-paste franchise outing that deviates from its roots to satisfy some fetish of the filmmakers or some wispy marketing theory, yet isn’t strong enough or original enough to stand on its own as anything but a franchise outing. Fortunately, we’ve seen enough exceptions in recent years to offer hope, but on the whole, Hollywood doesn’t have the best track record in this department, and a little gun-shyness when people start making novelty-noises is reasonable.

Here’s hoping, of course, that Star Trek proves to be exceptional, and then some.

252. Slade Brunner - April 5, 2009

#250 Admiral Grand
WOW! you just took the words right out of my mouth. i couldn’t agree more. the 700+ of cannon should please all the basement dwelling st11 nit pickers. i am too thrilled about the new ST and have been waiting for this for 3 years. we all know that Gene would’ve waned it this way. hell, even the the man him self “nimoy” was 100% in.

253. Captain Cameron goes Berserk!! - April 5, 2009

I just got into a fight, if it wasn’t for the strategically placed Flower Pot I woulda been toast.

254. Slade Brunner - April 5, 2009

#253

the adaptation maneuver

255. Tiberius - April 5, 2009

The slavish devotion to Star Trek’s “canon” is kind of sick. Not even the writers who worked on Trek were as devoted to the canon as some fans. Remember “The Wrath of Khan”? When Khan captures Chekov and Terrell on Ceti Alpha V, Khan remarks that he remembers Chekov. However, Walter Koenig hadn’t joined the cast yet, he was added in the second season while Space Seed was a first season episode. Khan really is a superman if he remembers people who joined the Enterprise crew after he left.

256. Tiberiuscan - April 5, 2009

Canon Shmanon. That’s why it’s a “New Beginning.” Any one whose read or watched any serious Science Fiction knows about “the old going back in time to change history ploy” (Think of Peter Sellars as Inspector Clouseau saying that last line :)) Star Trek has done it many times. (City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Star Trek IV the Voyage Home). The Back to the Future seires of movies, the Terminator movies and of course the Time Machine (especially the remake). As was eloquently played in City on the Edge of Forever and in the Time Machine Remake some people are ‘fated to exist or die regardless of the altered time line. The Borg tried altering the past to change the future more than once. The best example is Star Trek: First Contact. “Cannon suggested via Metamorphosis that Zephran Cochrane was a great Scientist and Hero while in First Contact he was a drunken self centered slob. Of course the TNG crew showed him the right path so the pre-destined first meeting with the Vulcans would still happen. Is this interpretation as viable as the one from Metamorphosis? Of Course. If you can accept the existance of an alternate time line which in effect postulates the existance of a parallel universe Marty Mcfly would still marry his sweetheart but without Dr. Browns interference he would have been a failure. Don’t forget the Mirror Mirror universe. The people we know and the Enterprise is still there, but the circumstances are different. In this universe our heros can out Klingon the Klingons.
It is after all only entertainment and Canon is as flexible as the imagination of writers and directors.
We forget this is a Star Trek for a new generation and not the one we grew up with. (Especially us who were teenagers or in college when the original series premiered in 1966). I didn’t balk when James Bond changed his face five times or even when a new Darren was introduced on Bewitched. Yes we all have fond memories of our favorite stars playng their iconic roles in the past. But to keep up with the times we need new blood, new inspiration and new directions. As long as the stories are exciting, and fun, and hopefully thought provoking I’ll be in line for the New Star Trek.

257. Darrksan aka The Watcher - April 5, 2009

165. Ryan – April 4, 2009

#161 – You’re missing the point. We think people have an unreasonable hatred or dislike for the entire movie even though hardly anyone has seen the whole movie yet.

We are not apologists, we are people who simply like to give JJ and company the benefit of the doubt, if there is one. Like I’ve said before, the people making this movie aren’t stupid and they know the people seeing it aren’t.

After you see the movie, feel free to have a negative opinion.
—————————————————————————

There always are two side of a coin.
Both sides are acting the same.
You can’t really say one side is unreasonable.
people have a reasonable hatred or dislike.
Trailers and Ads are made to sell the film and made people go to see it.
If people hate what they are seeing in the Trailers and Ads, then it turns them off from the film. The hate, dislike, sadness and fear becomes stronger when it is some thing they love. Some Trek-fans are turned off by film because of the Ads and also by JJ say things like “This is not for the fans”.
I think some Trek-fans feel kicked out of their trek home by JJ and his “new fans” plan.

After I see the movie and if I have a negative opinion, I do not think I will have more freedom to say it on this site, Seeing that people can’t even judge the Trailers without attack on them like “basement dwelling nit pickers”.
-
Like 252. Slade Brunner Said:
WOW! you just took the words right out of my mouth. i couldn’t agree more. the 700+ of cannon should please all the basement dwelling st11 nit pickers. i am too thrilled about the new ST and have been waiting for this for 3 years.

One should say he is one of people which I think have an unreasonable like for the movie even anyone has seen the whole movie yet…
but, I understand his view, but it is clear he does not understand others.

258. Stargazer25 - April 5, 2009

#215 Ryan,

Give ME enough money and I’d be in the freakin movie too. It doesn’t mean it’s Star Trek, Just because Nimoy is in this film means that they paid him very well. NOT that he thinks that it is the correct version of Trek!

259. Jamie - April 5, 2009

I love this trailer! They are doing an amazing job with promotion of this film, trying to draw in all these different crowds.

It is my hope that there will be a lot of “young Jim Kirks” who like “fighting films” who come along to see this film and will relate to Kirk, and go through the journey with him, and come away from the film having learnt something. Maybe they will see him as a role model and want to better themselves and take some responsibility? And maybe with a new-found appreciation for Trek, and the original spirit of Trek that this film is trying to re-vitalise?

I am really pleased about the way this whole thing is turning out. Pine IS going to be a massive star over the next few years.

260. SB - April 5, 2009

The heavy metal guitar music is abrasive and reinforces my opinion that Abrams is going for the lowest common denominator.

261. Dom - April 5, 2009

A good solid trailer aimed at a particular demographic. Certain people need to get out of their ivory towers and off their high horses about Star Trek! I expect a summer blockbuster to be a thrill-packed adventure yarn, as do most normal, well-adjusted people in the audience (actually the maladjusted freaks in the audience mostly want that too!!!) That’s what summer blockbuster’s tend to be. Deal with it! If that means less yacking on about pseudo-philosophy in a briefing room then good. This is a $150 million movie, not a TNG episode from 1990.

And as for certain remarks about ‘having’ to follow any kind of ‘canon’ then you’re seriously mistaken! The makers of these films can do precisely whatever they like. If they want to make Spock a female nymphomanic, Sulu a transvestite in a tutu and Chekov a serial killer, then they’re perfectly entitled to! Paramount owns Star Trek and can hire whoever they want to make the films!

TNG was happy to revise TOS canon (Rodders himself said that!) and it’s only the fact that a couple of producers remained entrenched on the various spin-off shows and films for 20 years that everything attempted to tie in together.

As it stood, 20 years of Berman Trek drowned in its own self-referentialism (if there is such a term!)

Abrams and his team have given us a reboot that only exists because of past Trek events. Given the huge number of time travel stories in Trek, there’s no reason to assume that Star Trek: Enterprise’s continuity remained intact either! Indeed, we don’t really know how much of ST:E was a holodeck history series based on inaccurate records!

Just accept that old Star Trek is over (and has been for several years) and a new one is about to begin and you’ll be a lot happier. And if you’re not happier, then at least you might achieve some sense of closure!

262. bob - April 5, 2009

How can he just become a cadet in one day?

263. Ralph - April 5, 2009

This movie is a mess.

264. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 5, 2009

No, SB (260), the lowest common denominator would have been an American Idol tie-in. What scared me was the cartoon ad that aired during the ST – Remastered series showing over the weekend.

Hopefully these ads are just to get people in the seats and when they get there, they’ll see a Star Trek movie.

TMP was a reboot in my opinion. The new movie appears to “look” more like the original series than TMP did.

265. Dr. Image - April 5, 2009

Danger Will Robinson!
The Gushers are out in force labeling anyone who may dare to think critically as “The Haters” and are in full spin control mode!
I’m staying the hell out of THIS reboot debate.

266. jj_roddenberry - April 5, 2009

Ugh…. they keep doing things that could be kewl but just aren’t. The ‘so get more guys’ line would sound great if it were delivered in a cocky Shatner sense, but no – he wants to be Tom Cruise and has to mumble it out like a cocksucker.

Ditch this shit.

267. Hellboy - April 5, 2009

LOL, what the hell happened? Now TMP is the reboot while this movie is not?! What the heck are you guys smoking?

268. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 5, 2009

“261. Dom – And as for certain remarks about ‘having’ to follow any kind of ‘canon’ then you’re seriously mistaken! The makers of these films can do precisely whatever they like.”

I’d say they have to follow canon because that’s what they said they were doing. I’d hate to think they were lying or mis-leading the loyal fans. And it takes more to make a blockbuster movie than endless action scenes. I hate a movie that’s all “shoot, shoot, shoot, explosion, explosion, shoot, shoot, shoot. And then this happened and then that. A beam falls. They better jump. Shoot, shoot, shoot.” There have been alot of bombs following that formula.

What makes a film work is the story and having charactors you care about.

269. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 5, 2009

“267. Hellboy – LOL, what the hell happened? Now TMP is the reboot while this movie is not?!”

Sure TMP was a reboot. The shiny Enterprise with the 2X4 nacells, the 2001/Star Wars uniforms, the bumpy headed, funny talking Klingons, retelling a TOS story.

Luckily it had charactors we cared about.

270. Chris J - April 5, 2009

I’m no hater, so don’t even think about saying that I am; in fact I cannot wait for this movie to come out.

But I’m afraid that the music for this new TV Spot… well, it was pretty shite.

The soaring choirs and thundering drums of the two trailers have been replaced by horrible “heavy metal guitar” work. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t sound very good. The music during the third trailer, which I was fortunate enough to see before Watchmen; dear lord, it had the hairs on the back of my hair standing to attention. It created a real… “epic”… atmosphere to the film.

This one just makes me want to cover my ears.

Oh and the bridge is too shiny. Just thought I’d say that as well.

271. Chris J - April 5, 2009

I knew there was something wrong. That should have been “hairs on the back of my neck”.

I do apologise.

272. Dom - April 5, 2009

268. The Dog-Faced Boy: ‘I’d say they have to follow canon because that’s what they said they were doing. I’d hate to think they were lying or mis-leading the loyal fans.’

Oh for God’s sake ‘lying or mis-leading the loyal fans’ indeed! What is this? The bloody Spanish Inquisition? The House of Un-American Activities?

They’re spinning a line! The audience is supposed to be made up of new viewers, casual viewers and old-school fans who don’t mind seeing a reboot! Hollywood’s about smoke and mirrors, in this case making a clapped-out old franchise seem shiny and new, even if at the core, it’s the same old thing.

TOS was an embellishment on the core concept. So was TAS. TMP stripped Trek back to the core concept and gave it funky new embellishments. TWOK actually did as well. TNG stripped off the TOS and movie details and added new bells and whistles. Voyager and Enterprise didn’t strip off the TNG details and embellished on the embellishments and ultimately died.

This is a reboot, with Trek rebranded as a thrilling sci-fi action adventure franchise with a heart . . . much as TOS was. The makers have been nice enough to supply a comic for the tiny minority of whiners who want a ‘canon’! This number of years down the line, the majority of us couldn’t care less about silly old canon! I doubt most of the audience remembers Unification. I haven’t seen it in over a decade and I have no need to see it!

‘And it takes more to make a blockbuster movie than endless action scenes. I hate a movie that’s all “shoot, shoot, shoot, explosion, explosion, shoot, shoot, shoot. And then this happened and then that. A beam falls. They better jump. Shoot, shoot, shoot.” There have been alot of bombs following that formula.’

And a lot of successes! I didn’t say any of the above so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth! ;) If you have an axe to grind say it yourself! I said we wanted an action-packed thrill-ride for a summer blockbuster, which it looks like we’re getting!

‘What makes a film work is the story and having charactors you care about.’

Yeah, but I’d add that a summer blockbuster also requires spectacle, sex and some lashings of violence! Again, what ST09 seems to be giving us!

273. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 5, 2009

272. Dom – I didn’t mean to imply by the quotation marks that the “Shoot, shoot, shoot” was a quote. I meant it to serve as a title for the formula. I think we both hope that the movie has the correct mix of elements.

I personally am not that worried a reboot anyway. I can’t believe they have released as much info about the movie and the plot as they have. I would be surprised if there has not been a lot of mis-information put out.

274. sean - April 5, 2009

#149

“Other blockbusters haven’t felt the need to pander like that and I’m a little disappointed that Abrams & Co. feel they need to do that with Trek”

Right, because JJ invented ‘marketing demographics’. Oi vey! If you don’t think every blockbuster out there doesn’t take a similar tack with their advertising, I’m not sure what to tell you. Other than you may not have seen them because you aren’t the target audience. But they exist, trust me.

275. sean - April 5, 2009

#266

“Ugh…. they keep doing things that could be kewl but just aren’t. The ’so get more guys’ line would sound great if it were delivered in a cocky Shatner sense, but no – he wants to be Tom Cruise and has to mumble it out like a cocksucker.”

HA! Tom Cruise could never deliver that line convincingly, in this or any alternate universe. Pine sounds nothing like Cruise in that spot.

276. Mr. Bob Dobalina - April 5, 2009

146- “If you show me a $150 million budget two-hour movie about a young Kirk and he *doesn’t* kick an ass or two and “entertain” a pretty lady—-then I think you’ve missed the mark altogether…”

Amen to that.

277. Kensval - April 5, 2009

@ 255:

Chekov wasn’t SEEN in the first season. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t on the ship. There were over 400 crew members on Constitution Class vessels, and not all command-class officers served on the bridge, obviously. I mean, the bridge is only so big.

So, it was possible that Kahn saw him on the Enterprise, even if we didn’t.

278. Mr. Bob Dobalina - April 5, 2009

#160 “Would any of you really want to go see a movie that looked and was written just like a 60’s TV show?”

If it was written by Rod Serling, you bet I would.

279. Jefferies Tuber - April 5, 2009

I was really expecting some more hilarious bitching and moaning, but people are surprisingly calm.

Amazing how chunky nacelles and bar code scanners can elicit words like “hate,” but this trailer, which is like Mickey Thompson’s Offroad Monster Monster MONSTER Trek just gets thoughtful differences of opinion.

280. Kensval - April 5, 2009

@ 278:

Fair enough. I guess I would, too.

Rod’s dead, though, right? (I don’t keep track, but he’s gotta be by now)

281. Kensval - April 5, 2009

He’s dead, Jim.

June 28, 1975

282. The Real Stanky McFibberich - April 5, 2009

re:#160
“Would any of you really want to go see a movie that looked and was written just like a 60’s TV show?”

More than I want to see this.

re:146- “If you show me a $150 million budget two-hour movie about a young Kirk and he *doesn’t* kick an ass or two and “entertain” a pretty lady—-then I think you’ve missed the mark altogether…”

I don’t want to see a movie about a young Kirk or a young anyone. The backstory (especially one that doesn’t fit the characters as they appeared in the real show) interests me not.

“Then why do you come here, Stanky?”

Because I am morbidly amused.

283. The Governator - April 5, 2009

For anyone who is bashing Abrams because of the trailer(s), I think its Paramount who has the final say-so in how things are marketed for the film. Its their movie, and their the one’s promoting it, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they are solely responsible for a lot of this stuff.

284. Xai - April 5, 2009

This “stuff” is just a movie trailer. This one in particular is aimed at a certain niche. It’s marketing, not brain surgery.

285. Kensval - April 5, 2009

@ 282:

Okay, the side of me that remembers arcane facts about TOS (not to mention the original BSG, or Space: 1999), saw Star Wars 27 times the week it came out, went to see “Get Smart” and “Bewitched” in the theatre instead of waiting for the DVD, and that actually owns and has WORN a “Revenge of the Nerds” pocket protector would also go to see such a movie, but very few others would. Certainly no one not already steeped in the damned “canon”.

… and then the franchise would die a quiet, albeit briefly media-panned, final death.

What about this don’t you understand?

No one in their right mind would spend two dollars trying to make a movie solely for the existing fans of Star Trek, especially rabid ones like yourself that could not tolerate one iota of change aimed at making the show actually look like it might be set in the future. No, no… let’s make the bridge set out of black Formica and paint reddish orange accents on it! Looked cool on the Batmobile, didn’t it? Controls? Ah, let’s just glue some coloured plastic baubles to the Formica and then back-light ‘em. We’ll make some cheesy sound effects when an actor touches them, even though they won’t really move or change colour or anything. No one will care, after all, we’re in space!

I’m sure Paramount will sorely miss your $12.

Oh, by the way, I can hear your Mom yelling at you from here. You could hear her, too, if you’d only open the door to the basement so she could yell down at you.

286. Pickster - April 5, 2009

Picky peev of mine:

Cannon = weapon

Canon = body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding

287. galaxypest - April 5, 2009

I just caught the trailer….
I hope it gets better,because of what i have seen,Pine is
an alien not kirk.perhaps we will get som explanation why
we got the “Mirror” Kirk. First of all Kirk would never stand up
to a fight. Stick his chest out and say “bring it”. He would say
“You are right, I am over matched.” Then when your back
is turned through a “sucker punck”, hit you with a “karate chop”
(my favorite)then do some sort of running kick. That is the
Jim Kirk I know and love.

288. Mr. X - April 5, 2009

Dog-Faced Boy, maybe you should look up the definition of a reboot.

The Motion Picture was a proper sequel, it was a continuation of the original. Storywise it was never a reboot, and visually, while it looked differently, it wasn’t a reboot either, it was an advancement that could be explained in the story:

The ship was refitted in the fictional time between TOS and TMP, which is why it looked differently, Starfleet introduced new uniforms in that time, which is why those looked differently, the characters have aged and Klingons have built new ship classes and in this movie we meet a part of the Klingon race that hasn’t been seen before.

The canon was still the same, the story was still the same. I repeat, The Motion Picture was a pure continuation of TOS, it was not a reboot. It took place years after TOS, the cast was the same, the characters were the same, and they simply moved on, like in a sequel.

That the story is similar to a TV episode doesn’t matter. Is Return of the Jedi a reboot of Star Wars, because it’s basically a rehash of Star Wars?

Do you think Wrath of Khan is yet another reboot, just because the uniforms changed? Oh well, if you think so…

Batman Begins, Battlestar Galactica, these are reboots. They start from the beginning and ditch the entire canon and have no relation to what came before other than the name.

Then there are hybrids like Casino Royale and Superman Returns. Superman Returns would in fact be the kind of reboot to compare to this new Star Trek 2009.

But the Motion Picture is not a reboot. There has not been any reboot in the Trek franchise. And regarding the spinoffs: The Next Generation was a sequel. Deep Space Nine was a sequel. Voyager was a sequel. Enterprise was a prequel. And while they sometimes screwed up the story canon at some points, it was never done intentionally. So these are NOT reboots.

289. S. John Ross - April 5, 2009

#286: I think you’ll find that the canonical spelling is “peeve” :)

290. Selor - April 5, 2009

Sometimes I still wonder why I even wonder why the Franchise is nearly dead, when I see some comments here…

291. Ryan - April 5, 2009

Everybody listen to Xai. It’s marketing 101. The commercial was not meant for regular fans so get over it.

292. Patrick - April 5, 2009

Ok, there’s a _lot_ of confusion about the whole reboot or not reboot thingy.

The things is that the question “is it a reboot?” DOES NOT MAKE SENSE in a “many worlds” interpretation setting. Neither does the concept of canon, really, since the answer to every question of type “did x happen or did it not?” is always “both!”, although with different probabilities.

The very definition of a reboot is based on the assumption that there is a single timeline, and that anything that introduces a historical contradiction must be resolved by either accepting the new “history” or rejecting it in favor of the new one.

With this movie, they’re just saying “But this is star trek, and we can have the cake and eat it. Everyhing you know IS still ‘true’, and from now on we’ll be exploring an alternative course of events that are just as ‘real’ as those we’ve been following so far.”

293. Patrick - April 5, 2009

….oh – and assuming that we buy the many worlds thing, that means that _everything_ that can happen does, in at least one of these multiverses.

That implies, by neccesity, that there is a very large number of universes in which the events of this movie are followed by the exact same events that are depicted in TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the movies – and there’s a pretty good chance that any future movies or series will be taking place in one of those :)

294. The Original Spock's Brain - April 5, 2009

243. sans_shatner_1701 – April 4, 2009
“Oh Cool! A bar fight scene! How original – can’t wait. Thank you Thank you Thank you. WE haven’t had a good bar fight scene since TTWT. Trek is Western in SPaaaaaace!”

I’ve been in several bar fights. You’re a borderline p*ssy if you haven’t been in at least one.

295. galaxypest - April 5, 2009

what is the record for post’s,its going to take me all day to read this
but, its very intertaining, nevertheless

296. M_E - April 5, 2009

“The Motion Picture was a proper sequel, it was a continuation of the original. Storywise it was never a reboot, and visually, while it looked differently, it wasn’t a reboot either, it was an advancement that could be explained in the story:”

If I´m not wong, they even have a picture of the unreffited Enterprise on display… :)

297. M_E - April 5, 2009

“what is the record for post’s,its going to take me all day to read this
but, its very intertaining, nevertheless”

Depending on subject/news covered, I remember the post count reaching the 500s easily…

298. galaxypest - April 5, 2009

Like this site, it’s exciting!!!

fast forward 2010, most quoted line in ST09

299. Elise - April 5, 2009

291
AND it’s showing during UFC. Do people really expect a plot with that?

This is all from the 20 minute preview that they gave, right? I don’t see why I should get worked up over something I’ve seen five times already.

They are rearranging the same clips and we expect to learn something new?

If you want an idea about the intelligence and heart of the story, they have given us something better than a trailer: comics! The countdown comics should be enough for any trekker trying to decide if this movie is for them.

300. Neal - April 5, 2009

Anyone ID that rock soundtrack?

301. The Original Spock's Brain - April 5, 2009

260. SB – April 5, 2009
“The heavy metal guitar music is abrasive and reinforces my opinion that Abrams is going for the lowest common denominator.”

“Abrasive” to you. My 13-year-old nephew now taking electric guitar lessons because he discovered Metallica on Guitar Hero. He’s a Star Wars fan because the second trilogy came out during his early years. I’ve introduced him to Trek and he appreciates it because he’s smart enough to see how it combines good elements of story-telling such as character development and adventure.

I was a teenage Trek fan when TMP premiered. To this day I can recall my disappointment at how plodding and self-important the plot payed out on screen. As an adult, I’ve learned to appreciate it on various levels.

Star Trek was never high-art; it was social commentary bracketed by adventure, humor, and sexiness. I don’t want it to flop now that it has a new lease on life.

The new Trek must be be able to speak to my 13-year old nephew in his own language: that of the Internet, X-Box, iPods, etc…

Thank you Bob, Alex, J.J. and Damon for bringing Trek back.

302. Trekkie1975 - April 5, 2009

So after May 8, which starship Enterprise 1701 will we have to recognize as the official first one?

J.J. Abrams ship? http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/11/enterprise579_l.jpg

Or the one by Matt Jefferies from the 60′s? http://squaremodels.netfirms.com/images/ef16.jpg

303. Mr. X - April 5, 2009

Matt Jefferies’ one. That’s the one. Without it, there wouldn’t even be a new one.

304. Tiberius - April 5, 2009

Shatner, Nimoy & Co should always be on the book covers and other general merchandising, too.

305. captain_neill - April 5, 2009

302 – Matt Jeffries one all the way

Don’t mess with perfection

306. CarlG - April 5, 2009

@302: “Have to”? Why would we “have to” to make such a choice?

But since you asked, I choose both, on the grounds that they’re both equally fictional.

Wasn’t impressed by this trailer, but then, it’s not really targeted to my demographic — if they had all been like this one, I’d be worried.

Out of the interests of equality, are they going to have a “chick-flick” Trek trailer as well? ;)

307. spock - April 5, 2009

They have showed both this commercial and the previous “forget everything” one during the NASCAR race today.

308. Jim Smith - April 5, 2009

301 -”"Star Trek was never high-art; it was social commentary bracketed by adventure, humor, and sexiness”"

Right on, brother.

309. Jim Smith - April 5, 2009

105 – The people who make that magazine (I’ve known some of them and have written for it myself at times) have been wanting people to make that mistake since the first issue. It’s kinda their MO!

310. FS9 - April 5, 2009

307. spock – April 5, 2009
They have showed both this commercial and the previous “forget everything” one during the NASCAR race today.

I saw that. Good to see that commercial air during such a widely viewed program.

311. The Dog-Faced Boy - April 5, 2009

I googled “reboot definition”.

Reboot – to shut down and then restart (a computer system), bring up resuscitate, revive – cause to regain consciousness; “The doctors revived the comatose man”.

I’m not sure where everyone’s getting their definition but I can’t find anywhere where it says anything specific enough that indicates the new Star Trek is a reboot and TMP wasn’t.

Changing a charactor from male to female is obviously a reboot but would just recasting all new actors be a reboot? If that were so, we wouldn’t be asking the question. Can you reboot it using the same actors? I would think so.

What are the motivations? For the new ship design and the uniforms, it’s to update the esthetics to reflect the current style not to be more representative of the time period represented, i.e. in TMP however many years later. The Klingon appearance was changed, if I remember right, because they had the budget to do what they couldn’t do with the TV budget. No explaination was given at the time. It was like switching Darrens.

I just know after seeing TMP my friends and I thought they had changed Star Trek for no good reason and in bad judgement. It didn’t help the movie spent so much time flying through Veja.

Do your own joke about the comatose man.

312. The Original Spock's Brain - April 5, 2009

311. The Dog-Faced Boy – April 5, 2009
“in TMP however many years later. The Klingon appearance was changed, if I remember right, because they had the budget to do what they couldn’t do with the TV budget. No explaination was given at the time. It was like switching Darrens.”

I never got over switching Darrens…

313. Dunsel Report - April 5, 2009

TMP was a reboot according to Gene Roddenberry’s description in the opening pages of his “Motion Picture” novel, which heavily suggested that the TV show had been a wildly exaggerated version of the true, staid and ultra-serious adventures of James T. Kirk that we were about to see play out.

314. Sarah - April 5, 2009

313. Dunsel Report – April 5, 2009 –…“Motion Picture” novel, which heavily suggested that the TV show had been a wildly exaggerated version of the true, staid and ultra-serious adventures of James T. Kirk that we were about to see play out…–

Yeah, I’d say “exagerated “had to begin at Greek gods and togas.

315. RD - April 5, 2009

#260

Trust me SB, Abrams had NOTHING to do with that promo. That is ALL Paramount marketing. There will be no abrasive guitar music in the movie.

Also, I doubt Abrams is going for the lowest common denominator. He’s too smart for that . But he is making the Star Trek he would have liked as a kid and that’s not saying much for the fans who liked it just the way it was.

Paramount on the other hand will take the low-road almost any chance they get if it will ensure paid butts-in-seats.

316. choiland - April 5, 2009

I was excited, but the more I see, the less I like. This looks bad. The water pipe scene looks dumb, but the worst part is what they’ve done to Kirk. They’ve turned him into an unlikeable prick, jock, dumbass horrible person. If this is an alternative timeline, the Kirk that evolves from it is not the Kirk that we know and love. He does not appear to be thoughtful and possesses no leadership qualities. This sucks. I’m really sorry to say that after anticipating this film for so long. It’s going to be like the most recent Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies. Terrible.

317. commander K, - April 5, 2009

why do the romulans look like big fat brutes? Or are they not romulans? :-S

318. Mr. X - April 5, 2009

My head hurts.

30 years later, people start considering TMP a reboot, when it clearly was a sequel. There’s even no splitting hairs involved, it’s perfectly obvious that TMP was neither a remake, nor a reimagination nor a reboot.

TMP was never “shut down and restart.”
It was “pause, save the game and continue on a better system.”

319. Chris Basken - April 5, 2009

318: “30 years later, people start considering TMP a reboot, when it clearly was a sequel. There’s even no splitting hairs involved, it’s perfectly obvious that TMP was neither a remake, nor a reimagination nor a reboot.”

Not 30 years later. Roddenberry considered it something of a “soft reboot” while they were making it. He meant that it was a sequel, but that we shouldn’t get too caught up in the changes of the details from the TV series to the movie.

For example, the uniforms in TMP are the same ones they wore during the original five year mission. That they looked different isn’t an issue. Likewise, Klingons always had bumpy heads.

Granted, later incarnations of Trek didn’t follow that line of reasoning and we’re saddled with silliness like a military’s uniform changing radically every 5 years or so, but that’s neither here nor there.

320. Jarod - April 5, 2009

Would have been better if this movie used the TMP style. That new bridge looks horrible.

321. Greenstar - April 5, 2009

Its not the same thing. TMP is different time period, and it clearly was a sequel.
Enterprise is different in TMP, because its refitted version.
And uniforms are not the same ones from TOS.
TOS ( 2265-2270 ), TMP ( 2277 ).
TMP take place seven years after TOS.

322. A. .S.F.33 - April 5, 2009

275.”HA! Pine sounds nothing like Cruise in that spot.”

Right Pine sounds nothing like Tom Cruise…He sounds like Clint Eastwood. Unfortunately, what he doesn’t sound like is James T Kirk.

323. Mike W. - April 5, 2009

anybody have a downloadable link to the spot?

324. The Angry Klingon - April 5, 2009

167
Maybe you should take your own advice (and vitriol) and YOUR own opinions and likewise be quiet. Last time I looked YOUR opinion didnt hold any more weight then anybody else’s and the hypocrisy of your post is laughable. When you use terms like ‘makes me sick’ I think YOURE the one that needs to get a life if you cant handle other people’s opinions in a forum without blowing a gasket.
This board is NOT a JJ Abrams love fest…it is a forum for people to express their VARIED opinions on this project (which they are entitled to do) and if YOU dont like it why dont YOU go elsewhere. Last time I looked this wasnt your board it was OUR board as a community and insults and borderline trolling such as yours is FAR more unwelcome then a difference of opinions.

325. The Angry Klingon - April 5, 2009

319
The uniforms in TMP were never intended to have been the same as in the series nor was it ever stated that they were. They were new uniforms. Mr Roddenberry however DID say at one point that the bumpy headed Klingons were always how he wanted them to look but that was also revisionist history as the original Klingon (John Colicos) helped devise his own look literally while in the chair. Gene rodenberry had very little to do with the creation of the KLINGONS.
As to your observation about military uniforms not constantly changing you have clearly never been in the military lol, During my own time in the Army I went from the Olive OG107 slant pocket to the first issue BDU to the revised BDU to the ACU and finally to the digital. On the Class A side we went from Khakis to the Aqua colored shirt NEW Class A and then added the commando sweater. Later versions included reinforced class B shirts for wearing your awards on the shirt. Then there was the issuing of black berets to all the leg (non airborne qualified) soldiers after taking them away from the Ranger Battalions and replacing them with a sand colored beret.
This is the tip of the iceberg and doesnt even go in to the myriad changes made to equipment. As long as there are contractors there will be excuses to constantly upgrade or replace uniforms and equipment.
In TOS we saw the Cage/WNMHGB uniforms EVOLVE in to the SERIES uniforms. Then we saw the TMP uniforms.
TWOK took place 15 years after TMP so we have no idea how long the TMP uniforms were used. The TWOK uniform however had some serious longevity as we know both Ensign Picard and Jack Crusher were STILL wearing them some 50+ years later. If anything the Trek universe is more restrained then the real military…at least until TNG where we went from collarless jumpsuit to two piece collared, to reversing the color scheme to the final grey yolked tops. I think that was all done for marketing but that WAS a little silly. Youd think with threats like the Borg, Klingons, Cardassians etc theyd have enough on their plates without changing uniforms every two years.
I have no problems with the new uniforms, I think they are a more then acceptable upgrade to the originals.

326. BK613 - April 5, 2009

297
1000 has been broken on several occasions

325
“TWOK took place 15 years after TMP so we have no idea how long the TMP uniforms were used.”

Most of the cadet uniforms in TWOK are redyed, slightly reworked TMP uniforms

327. BK613 - April 5, 2009

321
“TMP take place seven years after TOS.”
Nope 2 1/2 years, as given by the dialog in the film.

“My experience…five years out there, dealing with unknowns like this…”
“Two and half years as Chief of Starfleet Operations…”
“You haven’t log a star hour in two and half years…”

328. pock speared - April 5, 2009

“angry klingon” an “kirk, james t.” are seriously cracking me up.

“go for it guys!”

“hit ‘em! bite his frikken ear off, jimmy tee!”

“rip his ball sack, AK!”

oh yes, you guys ARE the reason this ad is so good. you behave like wrestlers and deserve an ass-kicking star trek trailer.
please, fight some more!!!

329. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - April 5, 2009

You all play nice or Nero will lure you over to his lair for some unwanted sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet lovin as well

330. Jordan - April 5, 2009

uuuuggggghhhhh I really hate that alpha-male action-oriented tv spot.

331. Patrick Sauriol - April 6, 2009

I will give 50 quatloos to Roberto Orci if he comes on here and owns up that one of those academy cadets standing behind the bald cadet with the goatee is this timeline’s version of Gary Mitchell, payable at this year’s San Diego Comic Con.

332. colin - April 6, 2009

210. Sadie – April 4, 2009
“22: Are you another 30-something-year-old in your mother’s basement, wearing the Spock ears that came with your halloween costume when you were seven?”

LOL. But hey, I’m a 33-year-old living with my parents (not in the basement, although if we had one, I’m sure I’d be there). I’m also a fan. And I CANNOT WAIT to see this movie!

So go easy on the Failure-To-Launch fans, okay? :-) Some of us are optimists.

333. colin - April 6, 2009

329 : I’m kinda hoping Nero lures me over…

334. Craig - April 6, 2009

FOOD FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

335. Greenstar - April 6, 2009

#327
“TMP take place seven years after TOS.”
Nope 2 1/2 years, as given by the dialog in the film.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
Nope :)
Based on information from VOY: “Q2″, which stated that Kirk’s first five-year mission ended in 2270, and information within the film that Kirk had not “logged a single star hour in two-and-a-half years, the earliest the film could take place is 2277.
Kirk had a second five-year mission after TOS. ( 2270. )

336. J. Rabbitte - April 6, 2009

#335 Greenstar

Hang on there! In fact, the second five-year mission took place between TMP and TWOK. J.M. Dillard’s “The Lost Years,” which is a fantastic book, details the two-and-a-half year span, including Spock’s movement towards Kohlinar and Kirk’s promotion to admiral, leading directly into the very beginning of TMP. The best is a moment where Kirk regards his new uniform, saying the togs look “oddly like pajamas.” It’s a nice bit for long-time fans, because I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone speak complimentary about the TMP uniforms.

The “second five-year mission” is in continuity, more or less, and I think there are some novels detailing that. It would have been 2273-2278, and probably covering the distance that “Star Trek: Phase II” would have covered had it gone into production.

337. Daoud - April 6, 2009

Greenstar. You’re in error.

If Kirk had a second five-year mission, it was after TMP, not before. The timeline, Chronology, and Pocket Novels Chronology all agree on that.

Most have TMP late in 2272. (taking the real 5YM as from 2265-2270, with WNMHGB in 2265, Season 1-3 in Sep 2266 – Jul 2269, exactly 300 years later from the airings.)

The Future Begins seems to happen before 2265, perhaps 2262 or 2263. Time for a rebuild, and a reconstitution [pun intended] and relaunch under full, not brevet, Captain James T. Kirk in 2265.

Putting TMP any later than 2273 causes serious problems with placing TWOK in 2283.

338. captain_neill - April 6, 2009

Motion Picture is set in 2271 and Wrath of Khan is 2285

That is what they are down as on the Star Trek Timeline

The Enterprise was launched in 2245 under the command of Robert April. Pike had a five year mission in the 2250′s, The Cage would be set in 2254.

The Five year mission has also been down to 2264-2269 in the timeline I read, I say late 2269 to early 2270 to accomadate the “Q2″ line

339. Grady Christie - April 6, 2009

Looking good! Can’t wait for release date!

340. Greenstar - April 6, 2009

#338

”Motion Picture is set in 2271 and Wrath of Khan is 2285”
…………………………………………………..
”Kirk had not logged a single star hour in two-and-a-half years”
”First five year mission ended in 2270.”

341. captain_neill - April 6, 2009

340 I am going by the time line I have

this timeline is probably not relevant to the new film since it’s alternate

342. Samuel - April 7, 2009

Perhaps they should have made Spock a woman. :-)

343. Mike - May 8, 2009

Many fans will be pissed. The threw out everything that came before.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.