New Star Trek ‘Critics’ TV Spot w/ New Shot of Enterprise Interior | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

New Star Trek ‘Critics’ TV Spot w/ New Shot of Enterprise Interior May 4, 2009

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

Seems like a day doesn’t go by without a new Star Trek commerical, and today is no different. Paramount has just officially released video for five of their recent spots, four of which we have already covered here, but there is one new one for us to chew on…see below.

 

 

TV Spot "Thrilling Review"
Another spot touting the new reviews for Star Trek, with a few new things (most notably a shot from the bowels of the Enterprise).

Screencaps & analysis
[SPOILERS]

Click images to enlarge


Kirk on Delta Vega


Sulu, Kirk, Spock, and Pike on way to shuttle bay – before orbital skydive over Vulcan scene


Kirk and Spock after Pike puts Spock in command

TV Commercial: Break the rules
Also if you missed the other recently released critics commercial, here it is again.

 

 

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

NOTE: numbering updated to match official Paramount scheme

Comments

1. Phil - May 5, 2009

First looks mint!

2. The Spirit of Truth - May 5, 2009

Two more finals then on to May 8th!!!!! Make it SO!!!

3. Allenburch - May 5, 2009

Thanks for all the great work AP.

4. Ted - May 5, 2009

Star Trek is going to kick Wolverines ass all over the planet Wolverine sucked

5. Chris Rod - May 5, 2009

I just got my New Star Trek Uniform shirt in the mail from intergalactictradingpost.com !!!

i am going to love this movie!

i had a nightmare i didnt get to watch it in hollywood at 1201a MAY 8TH!!

WOOO HOOO!!!

6. Sxottlan - May 5, 2009

Ty Burr at the Boston Globe gave the film four stars.

7. Phil 123 - May 5, 2009

Love the yellow pipes!!

8. AJ - May 5, 2009

Anthony:

I can’t find a link to the ‘Rolling Stone’ review. Could you link us to it, please?

9. Millennium Vulcan - May 5, 2009

They were airing this ad during Voyager on Spike TV (2AM). I have Trek induced insomnia.

10. marvin - May 5, 2009

@8 its review from peter travers, and it will be online in a couple of days. just google him

11. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

…looks like more of the brewery… Yay! [sarcasm] =(

12. Millennium Vulcan - May 5, 2009

6

The Boston Globe critic you mentioned gave Star Trek the best review of the 36 (or so) films currently on his page at their site.

13. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

…just saw JJ on Colbert Report! Romulan Kh’ol’ber’t was pretty cool! =)

…had a nice little TOS clip up front re: empathy…

14. penguin44 - May 5, 2009

That looks like a Street Lamp in the engineering shot.

15. DJT - May 5, 2009

boborci – > “Buenasuerte”!

Can’t wait to see this flick, dude!

16. megaomegatron - May 5, 2009

so.. is 3pm too early to show up for a 7pm thurs show? ha ha, figured i’d just window shop til a line forms. more accurately, until they let me form one. i didnt wait this long to not have one of the best seats in the house (tukwila imax). tick tock, here we go.

17. Aussie Adam - May 5, 2009

Anthony, you’re a bloody legend. I absolutely love this site.

Only 2 more sleeps until I see Star Trek at the IMAX.

BTW, I picked up a copy of the JJ edited Wired Magazine. I’m sure that some out there might say it’s a “fascinating” read. :)

Anthony – just wondering if you may be able to shed some light on something for me. I have been trying to pre-order a copy of the soundtrack, however it appears that none of the retailers have it listed nor have any foreknowledge of it being released in Australia which seems a little strange. Other than ordering the CD and having it shipped from overseas myself, do you have any information or would you be able to find out if the soundtrack will be released in Australia?

18. Valar1 - May 5, 2009

Wow, that so called “brewery” shot- where Pike is leading the three to the shuttle bay, it really conveys a sense of immensity to the Enterprise. Those tubes or giant pipes or whatever that seem to go up for a few stories, it finally conveys that sense of scale that hasn’t been seen since waaaay back in TMP with the shuttle bay sequence.

19. raffie - May 5, 2009

Maybe a bit off-topic but I just watched this: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

TOO funny :D

20. afterace - May 5, 2009

#19 This Onion clip is, as always, totaly great !! :D

21. Capt Alex - May 5, 2009

9. Millennium Vulcan

That’s where I saw it too, though I didn’t watch it at 2am! (Comcast DVR) Anyway awesome trailer, just 2 more days till Imax!

22. Capt Alex - May 5, 2009

Looks like there’s a trailer Paramount has kept a secret about. There are 2 Star Trek trailers (not inclu. Burger King) in Voyager. One is “Break The Rules, and the other is a TV spot that I haven’t seen here or on startrekmovie.com. There’s a shot of *spoilers* Kirk hanging on the the edge of the Romulan Drill and a shot of a Romulan being thrown off the Drill.*/spoilers*.

23. Bren - May 5, 2009

Anthony, I don’t know if you caught this, I’ve been avoiding spoilering articles… But this looks relevant to this article:

Star Trek DAC Trailer contains new(?) Movie footage!
Gametrailers HD:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/48685.html

Gametrailers SD:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/48686.html

Apologies if it’s already been spotted.

24. Sovak - May 5, 2009

I think this movie will open an all new door to the world of trek! I personaly and glad that they casted such a talented group pf young actors to play these parts. Chris pine is unbelievablely talented and Zach Quintos has Spock down to the letter!

25. strangelove - May 5, 2009

did anyone see the last family guy episode?
it hase a nice scene from the wrath of khan:-)

26. Crewman Darnell - May 5, 2009

Re: 25

Caught it.

Loved it.

27. Crewman Darnell - May 5, 2009

Much to my relief, the “brewery” looks much more believable, at least in that shot above. I hope it holds up the same and/or better in the movie.

28. strangelove - May 5, 2009

@ 26
even the music was the same, a really nice homage to TWOK:-)

29. Pragmaticus - May 5, 2009

The soundtrack is now available on iTunes!!!

30. Capt Krunch - May 5, 2009

Just keeps getting better and better….this will be the longest 48 hrs + of my life!!!
\V/ LL&P…
Khaaaaaaaaaannnn!!!

31. JJ_roddenberry - May 5, 2009

I guess a slightly more objective viewpoint wouldn’t make for a good TV spot.

32. CSM - May 5, 2009

I am very excited about seeing the new movie – I think it will be great. That having been said……I don’t like this alternate timeline business at all! A story could have been written that did not totally throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, I know this new reality depends on the original, I know they were respectful, yadda, yadda, yadda….I just think this approach is solely to shut up the fan base and say, “See – ‘Your’ Trek still exists, this is just ‘our’ Trek. That way they can do whatever they want to in the future without being bound by anything that has gone before. Fans would have never bought a total reboot or reimagining or whatever, so this approach was the only option IF you want to start rewritting these characters. I like J.J., I love Lost, so I am hopeful, but comments like, (paraphrase) “If your not going to come with an open mind, then stay home, we don’t want you” – Doesn’t sit well with me.

Like I said, I am exited about this project, I am going on opening day and keeping an open mind and expect to enjoy the film. I hope the ending will provide something that “corrects” some of these abberations in the timeline. (Like appearantly – Vulcan being destroyed.)

33. fizzben - May 5, 2009

I’m going fri afternoon. It’s like waiting for Santa!

34. Andy Patterson - May 5, 2009

Ok…now I see what people are talking about the engine room. Wow…talk about “Irwin Allen’s Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea”.

35. USS TRINOMA NCC-0278 - May 5, 2009

The scene of the “brewery” looks very TOS like. I like it!

36. Star Trackie - May 5, 2009

#23 Bren- thans for the heads up, some really nice footage of the new Enterprise there. And l love the look of the “brewerey”. All those colorful pipes look very TOS-ish.

Getting closer!

37. captain_neill - May 5, 2009

this is going to be great

However, I am not happy that the Shuttle bay seems to have steel pipes as well.

Its one thing I am not keen about engineering as well, to me Engineering should be the second coolest location on the bridge. The ship should be consistent as it has always been

Despite this I am still looking forward to the film.

38. paustin - May 5, 2009

man those bar code scanners just jump out at me now

39. Raphael Salgado - May 5, 2009

I just hope my wife loves it as much as I know I will. ;)

40. Chingatchkook - May 5, 2009

I can’t ever remember another movie that had as many different TV spots as this Trek movie does. I’m not sure how many will make it to the DVD eventually, but I’m hoping that the second full length trailer will just because of the amazing music, courtesy of Two Steps from Hell.

I’ve got my tickets, I’m ready to go…Bring it on!

41. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

39. I paid a lot for my IMAX tickets, and my girlfriend has been hearing about this for like a year now. I hope she likes it too…

42. 750 Mang - May 5, 2009

Nice.

Just got my ST glasses from Burger King. Coolest movie ty-in since…. well since I was a kid.

Had to get two of them. Unfortunately you have to buy a value meal to get to buy a glass, I’m gonna need a diet by the time that fourth glass is released.

43. jeffery wright - May 5, 2009

Has anyone seen this yet?

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As ‘Fun, Watchable’

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

Ha ha!

44. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

42. Which one was available? I am going to BK (UGH!) after work just for that.

45. FAB - May 5, 2009

Is anyone in Gainesville, FL planning to go to the 7:00 thursday showing? I had a friend back out on me :( Let me know, I’ll sell the ticket for face value.

46. NimoyDog - May 5, 2009

Why are we all so interested in the bowels? People?? I’m not going to this movie to critique the colon of the Starship Enterprise. So full of $hit.

47. Locke for President - May 5, 2009

So far there are 23 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, all positive.

The first reviewer to rate the film rotten (to ruin the 100% rating ) is going to rue the day they were born. I think the comments after their review will be intense.

Here is the comment by the last reviewer that was posted on there:

“A sublime space adventure that flies as confidently and triumphantly as Trek ever has before. It’s not only a victorious series highlight, but perhaps one of the best pictures of the year…120 minutes of unrelenting goose bumps.”

Hey, what a great idea . . . how about a page on TrekMovie.com about all the positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes?

48. Locke for President - May 5, 2009

Oh, here is the link to the Star Trek page on Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/?name_order=asc

Enjoy.

49. Joshuanotaclevername - May 5, 2009

I got to see a screening last night, it was AMAZING. Though at the end of it I felt like only about 20 minutes went by.

50. Peter - May 5, 2009

I just saw a clip where Uhura was asking “Are you sure you know what you’re doing?”

I only hope she wasn’t talking to Kirk. If she was, they should make Uhura Captain, making this ST Captain the most pussy whopped in the galaxy.

51. NightWatcher - May 5, 2009

I will be at The IMAX in San Antonio Thus, May 7th at 7p.m. (Oh the happiness)

52. Jtrekker - May 5, 2009

19. – Thanks for that. You gave a great start to my morning!

25. – The Family Guy reference just again proves the point that McFarlane seriously needs to do a ST:II spoof like they did for Star Wars. On that note, I think this was also one of Family Guy’s best homages to Star Trek where it not only fit in with the story line but was simply hilarious!

47. – Am I the only one who is still in disbelief that the Rotten Tomatoes meter is still at 100%? I know I’m just being a typical fan, but I am just waiting for that same-old, same-old movie review from the cynical critic who bashes Star Trek just simply for the fact that someone had the ignorance to produce another movie for a dying franchise. I’m just overwhelmed by the response this movie is getting. I think this is the first time in a long time that I can remember looking forward to going to a Star Trek movie and actually be able to walk out of the theater without shaking my head.

The weirdest part is, we actually are looking forward to seeing a movie that other people want to see! What is up with this? We’ve been so busy debating alternative universes, I think we may have all been swept into one where Star Trek is no longer “just for nerds”!

53. Robert Gillis - May 5, 2009

Boston Globe published this FOUR STAR review this morning!

MOVIE REVIEW – The Boston Globe
Star Trek – **** (four stars!)

A fresh frontier: In the best prequel ever, ‘Star Trek’ reboots the franchise and reminds us why we love it
By Ty Burr, Globe Staff | May 5, 2009
About two-thirds of the way into the ridiculously satisfying new “Star Trek” movie, opening Thursday, there comes a brief shot of the crew on the bridge of the Federation Starship Enterprise. The film has been picking up familiar names as it goes, but you suddenly realize with a jolt that everyone, at last, is here: young, hopeful versions of Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and pilot Sulu (John Cho), Bones (Karl Urban) and Chekhov (Anton Yelchin) and Scotty (Simon Pegg).
It’s a throwaway image, yet you feel the final pieces of the puzzle snap into place with a witty and intensely fond reverence. I just about wept with joy, and I’m not even a Trekkie.
Neither, apparently, is director J.J. Abrams, and that may have made the difference. “Star Trek” – a.k.a. “Star Trek XI,” a.k.a. “Star Trek the Franchise Reboot” – approaches the late Gene Roddenberry’s original science fiction world not on bended knee but with fresh eyes, a spring in its step, and the understanding that we know these people better than they know themselves. Indeed, much of the vast pleasure of this movie comes from characters suddenly discovering things about each other that we learned watching TV four decades ago. There are flaws to pick at in terms of story line and other matters, but that can wait until the glow has faded. In the pop high it delivers, this is the greatest prequel ever made.
“Star Trek” isn’t all fun and games. The universe has to be saved (again), and Spock has to undergo a personality crisis severe even by the standards of his half-human/half-Vulcan nature. A renegade Romulan named Captain Nero (played by Eric Bana with facial tattoos and a taste for waterboarding) has dropped in from decades into the future, and he’s very, very angry about something the older Spock has done, or will do. Nero’s first order of business is to attack a starship, in the process killing Kirk’s father (Chris Hemsworth) just as Mother Kirk (Jennifer Morrison) is giving birth to our hero in an escape shuttle.
Conceptually, this is a genius move: It establishes the entire movie as an alternate, parallel “Star Trek” universe in which Abrams and his screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman can do as they wish, fanboys and the canon be damned. Kirk can grow up a rebellious hothead, only learning about his father through the paternal Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Kirk and Spock can meet not on the bridge of the Enterprise but as clashing cadets in training school. (“Who was that pointy-eared bastard?,” Kirk mutters.) Spock can even have a simmering relationship with Uhura that occasionally involves long, steamy kisses. Heresy!
But it works. As the characters scramble to deal with the Romulan threat – the baddies want to destroy the Federation’s planets one by one, and they have the future tech to do it – their initial enmity is forged into camaraderie under heavy fire, and Abrams has a blast letting them get to know each other. Sulu and Kirk first connect while free-falling through space on their way to dismantling a Romulan megaweapon, and the ensuing fight with the enemy is outrageously choreographed, a ballet of high-impact fencing and brute force.
At the same time, Abrams respects the campy verities of the original show enough to include a third Enterprise crewmember on this mission – the guy I and my roommates used to call “Lunchmeat.” Remember him? The extra you’d never seen before who beamed down with the leads solely because someone needed to bite it? The script calls him “Olson” (Greg Ellis), but, trust me, he’s Lunchmeat, and the movie’s the better for his brief appearance and spectacular demise.
The editing, cinematography, and special effects work are state-of-the-art, as you’d expect – extra praise goes to an astonishingly detailed sound mix – but so are the same aspects of “Wolverine,” and that film’s a joyless bore by comparison. What lifts the Abrams film into the ether is the rightness of its casting and playing, from Saldana’s Uhuru, finally a major character after all these years, to Urban’s loyal, dyspeptic McCoy, to Simon Pegg’s grandly comic Scotty, the movie’s most radical reimagining of a “Star Trek” regular.
That said, the appearance of Winona Ryder as Spock’s human mother comes as a jolt, and in no known universe can I imagine Tyler Perry as a Federation elder. (Abrams is a fan, I guess.) Still, the movie’s center holds. The classic lines get trotted out – “Ah’m givin’ it all she’s goot, Cap’n,” “Dammit, man, I’m a doctor, not a physicist” – but the players bring an affection and depth to their parts that’s bigger than mere nostalgia; when they color outside the lines, it’s on purpose. And when Pine sits down in the captain’s chair with the exact macho sprawl William Shatner employed in the original series, you almost want to applaud.
Do you have to be a hard-core fan to enjoy the movie? Not at all. “Star Trek” has been knocking around for so long that the basics have seeped into the culture by osmosis. The director indulges himself with a monster that resembles his “Cloverfield” beastie, and there are in-jokes for followers of “Lost” and other Abrams projects, but he has made sure to tap into the longstanding emotion that surrounds the “Trek” mythos.
Above all, he understands the potency and pleasure of the Kirk/Spock relationship. There are certain pop duos that have become cultural institutions and about whom it’s endlessly enjoyable to speculate. Who wouldn’t want to have been there when Holmes met Watson or Butch met Sundance? (Or Oscar met Felix, or Jack Aubrey met Stephen Maturin; you could play this game forever.) Pine makes a fine, brash boy Kirk, but Quinto’s Spock is something special – an eerily calm figure freighted with a heavier sadness than Roddenberry’s original. The two ground each other and point toward all the stories yet to come.
Then, at a certain point, the movie’s curtains part and Leonard Nimoy appears, playing an older, wiser, more fragile Spock. You’re grateful for the continuity – his appearance carries much more emotion than you’d expect – and also thankful that this “Star Trek” stops there. One strutting ham of a Captain Kirk is enough, thanks.
The movie’s not perfect. The final battle feels awfully “Star Wars” – later “Star Wars” – as does Scotty’s sidekick, an Ewok knock-off in a lousy mask. Character, not plotting, is the film’s strong suit, yet plotting takes over in the final half hour. Emotionally, though, “Star Trek” hits every one of its marks, functioning as a family reunion that extends across decades, entertainment mediums, even blurring the line between audience and show. Trading on affections sustained over 40 years of popular culture, “Star Trek” does what a franchise reboot rarely does. It reminds us why we loved these characters in the first place.

54. frederick - May 5, 2009

Sounds like they ran out of money for a great Engineering Deck set and just went the B-movie cheap route and filmed in a factory. Strange, in a movie this big!

Maybe we’ll get a proper, super-impressive Engineering in the next one.

55. Robert Gillis - May 5, 2009

The Boston Globe has NEVER EVER given such high praise to a Trek film! this is going to be IN-CRED-IBLE

56. Steve T in NY - May 5, 2009

Loving the reviews so far.. but I do agree that Engineering is horrible. To spend 100+ million on a movie, and have the engineering section be filmed in a poorly disguised brewery or factory is just crap. Hopefully the next films engineering section will be a bit more futuristic.. i mean PVC pipes and manual valves on a Starship?? LOL

57. charliebob - May 5, 2009

I just bought my ticket for 0000h GMT tomorrow! its going to be awesome. 32 hours to go!!!

58. Spectrum of the Spock - May 5, 2009

i thought i saw a Burger Klingon hiding behind the pipes…

59. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

Thats “KINGON” to you buddy!

60. ShatPine - May 5, 2009

You know I want this movie to do well, but is it normal to feel like the “star trek” I knew ( I am only 30) so I grew up with the movies and TNG even though i love TOS more..

Anyway is it normal to feel like the Trek I knew is dying :( I want the film to succeed but I echo alot of comments on the other websites about how it feels like Trek will now go another direction from hear on out and the Trek of old will be forgotten.

61. Star Trackie - May 5, 2009

#60 “Anyway is it normal to feel like the Trek I knew is dying :( I want the film to succeed but I echo alot of comments on the other websites about how it feels like Trek will now go another direction from hear on out and the Trek of old will be forgotten.”

Try to look at it this way…the TOS that you so enjoy is about to bust out into new exciting adventures, the likes of which, were never seen on the Trek you grew up with. Save a place for TNG,etc, in your heart, but don’t be afraid to jump on board and blaze new trails with an exciting throwback to the days of the original series. Is it different from the 24th century style of Trek that was on the air for the last 20 years? Very much so…but so was the original series.

So the more important question is, is JJ’s Trek similar to TOS? Apparently, the answer to that is a great big collective YES!.

THAT is something to embrace and get excited about!!

62. frederick - May 5, 2009

#60…

I’m hoping this will lead to a resurgence of interest in the original source material, not being forgotten, but fodly remembered and enjoyed. If it was a new crew and ship, I would share the feeling, but this is bringing back TOS to the minds of many who had thought it was gone.

63. Daoud - May 5, 2009

#56 Did you watch TOS? PVC pipes and manual valves were all over the Enterprise, and in most corridors there were fire hydrant plug covers stuck to the walls and other foam objects. Ever notice stuff in the Jeffries tubes?

Just consider their choice of using the brewery for the Enterprise and the manufacutring plant for the Kelvin to be a “salute” to the original TOS, and all the great fan films that make similar choices. In 1980 when we made our And So Shall Ye Reap fan film, we used a ballroom to stand in for a regal throne room, and used an old indoor rifle range for a long corridor. It’s not as bad as it looks, and as we often joke around here, “real fancy Engineering isn’t due to be installed until next Tuesday.”

I just wished they’d screenprinted GNDN on a few of the pipes as a further salute to TOS.

64. Star Trackie - May 5, 2009

#56 “To spend 100+ million on a movie, and have the engineering section be filmed in a poorly disguised brewery or factory is just crap”

How is it poorly disguised? If the look JJ wanted for the bowels of the ship was pipes then, yes, he could have spent a ton of money and built pipes in a studio. But why do that when you can effectively re-dress pipes that already exist?

65. sean - May 5, 2009

#31

So they should find all the negative reviews and put them in a preview trailer? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. What jerks they are to hand-pick the good reviews! After all, they account for roughly 95% of all existing reviews. How dare they not spend the time scouring the internets for grousing!

66. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

63. Excellent point! I think Engineering is a homage to the pipes and such on the original series (I know this ship like the back of my KABONG!!!)

67. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

65. you are correct sir! it is called MARKETING and is what will make this film ultimately financially successful.

68. captain_neill - May 5, 2009

64
I guess the pipes being yellow is homage to TOS but seriously in TOS Engineering did not look like a power plant

69. sebimeyer - May 5, 2009

I think the next movie should be released exclusively in trailer form. Just 30 clips that fry your brain because they are moving so fast.

No seriously, cool promos that should put quite a number of asses into seats. Oh and fans too. ;)

70. SaphronGirl - May 5, 2009

Look at these numbers from Fandango:
http://www.itnewsonline.com/showprnstory.php?storyid=44699

WHOAH.

71. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

I am going to this movie just to see Karl Urban play McCoy.

72. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

70. I like to do speculative opening money based on that, but there is not enough info! Just have to wait i suppose.

73. Dr. Image - May 5, 2009

Anthony- I’ve said it before, but I’m saying it again- CONGRATULATIONS on all the hard work by you and your team on this site!

As we sit on the brink of history, I can’t help but think back to the early days- maybe you should re-post some of the early first topics as a “retrospective celebration” of how it all started.

74. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

I still do not see the film until Thursday, but I am really confused as to the size of the Enterprise. I don’t see how the new Enterprise can be the same size as the Classic Enterprise when so many of the interiors are so cavernous. Does anyone who has seen the film mind spoiling me on some technical details? Is the ship supposed to be larger- is it mentioned in any way? Do they give crew counts? It seems that if engineering and the bridge are that much larger, either other interiors have to go or the exterior has to be larger.

75. Commander K - May 5, 2009

After watching this movie at the premiere a few weeks ago, all I can say is it is great to watch, however you will all need a second viewing to really get a hold of it. One sitting is just not enough. Unless you’re Commander Data, it’s very hard to process it all in one sitting!

76. pock speared - May 5, 2009

ya know, the “ipod bridge bashing” is old, but i can see why some have a problem with it. i happen to love it.

however, the engine room complaints have started to sound like some kind of “swift boating” empty bullshit. those who are hard pressed to find ANYTHING wrong with the film are using it to point and scream “j’accuse” and run with bashing it (brewery!) without considering it’s conception.

there’s nothing “brewery” about the set, no more than there is “library” about starfleet command, or any other film set.
i ask no one to agree with me, but please, if you have trouble with the engineering set, could you at least consider the following? please?

one last time: the design of the engine room, for me, is brilliant. it creates a visual motif of mechanical “support” to the sci fi that flows with other aspects of the film (the ‘vette, kirks’s bike, the construction site) while also creating a framework for the dimensions of a real, functioning starship where the brains (bridge) are clean and bright and the bowels are darker and more tactile. the key word here being ‘real’, and also giving a sense of the past compared to TNG forward.

i feel it is a bold and thoughtful part of the design that impresses and delights me.

77. pinky - May 5, 2009

I read a really uplifting review on Rotten Tomatoes (5/10) from a viewer who said he paid for an action thrill ride and ended up being disappointed by how slow and character-based the film turned out to be through the middle. Yay!

But Star Trek really is about issues and about thinking and exploring. That’s why it’s a Trek and not a War. I really don’t mind this team updating the effects and action, but it needs to hang onto that thoughtfulness. I know Roddenberry didn’t have the most perfect physical health as a child, and neither did I. You could actually take Star Trek away from some by making it focus too much on action and adventure. You can take it away by not having it stand up for those that take comfort in its world. There are people with disabilities, gays, different races or whatever, that are empowered by the strong, smart characters of ST defending and validating them – not through violence or action, but through words and sound logic. Yeah, you could love Gene with his disabilities because he could beat your face in — but it means more if you love him because you understand, and you accept and value who and what he is.

I’m not sure exactly how to explain it… but fans value ST because it values them. Don’t take it away from some of us. There ARE some who will never walk, let alone jump across a reactor room. So it can’t be just about that. No more than the entire cast could be white, middle-aged males.

78. charliebob - May 5, 2009

How is tubes and such not from the Enterprise anyway:
Ok this is from TAS but still- http://www.danhausertrek.com/AnimatedSeries/Engineering_Big.jpg

Seems kinda similar to what we’ve seen in the movie.

79. Elrond L - May 5, 2009

65: LOL! Exactly.

Wow, great Boston Globe review. Only two days away!! I can’t believe we’re finally here. Got our tix for 7 p.m. Thursday in Salinas, CA (Monterey County’s biggest screen) and then again Friday. Thanks for getting us through the wait, Anthony!

80. charliebob - May 5, 2009

very similar to prev post, and again from animated series, but the centre picture is bigger, and lots of pipes :P http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/tas_engineering.jpg

81. ix9000 (alternate timline version) - May 5, 2009

Hey this is off topic but has anyone who got the Original series blu-ray’s have trouble with thier disc 7 constantly coming loose? I’m thinking I just got a bad case though. (bought through Amazon.ca)

82. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

74. How much of the original ship did we actually see? I posit there are a lot of locations other than the 10 or 15 we saw in the original series.

83. Mr. Atomic - May 5, 2009

Off topic, but The Onion has weighed in:

“Trekkies bash new Star Trek film as ‘Fun, Watchable'”

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section

84. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Blueprints#Sheet_1

Not the actual blueprints, but descriptions of all the locations we NEVER saw.

85. Capt. of the USS Anduril - May 5, 2009

#68: Engineering didn’t look like a power plant in TOS, that’s true. You just said the magic words. The engine room is a POWER PLANT. All those “pipes” are plasma energy transfer conduits. The new engineering looks like a power plant.

86. T'Cal - May 5, 2009

*****Saw it last night courtesy of a local radio station and will see it again tonight in IMAX with tickets from another station having won a pair of tickets from each in Chicago. *******

My non-spoiler review: a solid three star movie and likely to be a big hit with general audiences and well liked by most fans. The acting and writing were very, very good. My 18 year-old son and I had the same impression: like Batman Begins, Star Trek is a very good movies that sets things up for a for a great sequel. Enjoy!

87. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

And how does this not fit…

http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tew14bk.jpg

88. T'Cal - May 5, 2009

Also, I’m expecting many reviewers to give it at least three stars as it is a really good adventure that’s fun, humorous, and exciting – a great summer flick. The humor is among the best written and acted in a Trek movie. As big a fan as I am for TNG, when it went to the big screen the attempts at humor often failed.

89. Turbolift - May 5, 2009

68.

Actually, I always thought the TOS engineering area was pretty small for such a large ship. I think JJ was going after a scale that is more appropriate for a 3000 foot ship. It’s funny that folks complain that the bridge is too sterile and engineering is too ghetto….perhaps sick bay is “jussst right”…lol

90. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

88- is that confirmed? The new Enterprise is three times larger than the classic?

91. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

The questions is. has the size of the enterprise EVER been confirmed in CANON. If not then there is no argument.

92. Jorg Sacul - May 5, 2009

3000 feet? not hardly. I think it’s still around the size of a modern aircraft carrier, which is not small. And has plenty of pipes in it, too..

93. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

91. Jorg Sacul. Lets not forget, an Aircraft carrier has barracks for 4000 sailors… thats a lot more than the 400, but the Enterprise (maybe not in canon, but in books) has the capacity for much more than that in an emergency evacuation situation.

94. Chain of Command - May 5, 2009

Anthony, you need to see if you can post this, or at least send it to the writers and producers of the new film. It’s hilarious and kind of hits the nail on the head when it comes to all the negative fan stuff.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

It may be hard for some fans to really find the humor in this clip, but I laughed like crazy because it’s so true.

Look forward to Thursday night! Knew this film was going to be good when Leonard Nimoy signed on two years ago. ST is in good hands!

95. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

92- yes, but if you compare the structures of the two vessles, a modern aircraft carrier has a lot more volume than the Starship. As far as canon goes, though we have not received a canonical number for the length of any of the Enterprises, the visual evidence in all the series is fairly consistent with what appears in the tech manuals of the shows- often written by the people who designed the ships for the shows! These numbers can be cross checked by comparing window sizes interior vs. exterior, and known sizes like the shuttlecraft compared to shuttlebay doors. I think the “around 300m” size for the TOS and TMP Enterprise proves pretty accurate.

96. Captain Hackett - May 5, 2009

I do not know if it is already posted in this site but I am going to do it anyways.

From Reuters

“Star Trek” aims to stun fans

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE5443BU20090505

Enjoy!

97. RD - May 5, 2009

Explain something to me. Why are there so many people on this site trying to justify JJ’s take on engineering and persuade others to accept it? Of all the glowing reviews of this movie out there, this subject alone unifies them as a topic of criticism. There seems to be a general consensus that Abrams missed the mark with engineering among professional reviewers and fans alike. So either the fans of this site are really JJ Abrams cultists, or they are on the Paramount payroll. Either way, give it a rest. Fans of Trek are not going to not see the film just because engineering doesn’t measure up. But lets get real. Engineering has always been a major aspect of the series and films. How it is presented is extremely important, as it is the heart of the Enterprise. Personally, the best set ever designed was TMP set and that is what JJ should have used as his starting point. Perhaps more than anything else, his retro, quasi-Titanic approach shows his penchant for the dirty Star Wars universe he revered as a kid. It is not appropriate for Trek and I think underscores his cavalier attitude towards it.

And please, while I understand this is a movie and why he chose to use such an expansive space, one must compare it to a submarine or even a battleship as a model. If one goes onto a modern atomic-powered navy vessel, the thing will ergonomically designed and be so clean you could eat off the floor without fear of Swine flu. In stark contrast the Enterprise with its even more delicate anti-matter drives looks like a 50 year-old poorly maintained garbage scow – and the Enterprise is supposed to be brand new. Also, JJ was evidently not paying attention – the engine room of the Titanic was clean and shiny, because it was brand-new. The only dirty part was the boiler room where they shoveled coal into the furnaces. So unless the Enterprise is coal powered in this alternate universe, a military vessel’s engine room should look nothing like what JJ depicted. And the Enterprise’s engine room should be far more iconic than a generic factory full of rusty pipes and valves.

That said, to all you folks insisting this is all perfectly normal, despite the reviewers problems with it and obviousness of its inappropriateness, DON’T WORRY. People are not going to avoid the movie because of it. Whatever is good about the film will ensure its success and the future of the franchise. BUT THIS ENGINE ROOM IS JUST WRONG.

98. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

Weerd1. That is a good point if it were consistant. Ex-Astris-Scientia has a plethora of examples where there were scaling issues in most of the shows besides TOS (space scenes were very primitive and didnt often give a sense of scale).

My favorite one is teh GIANT bird of prey that is exactly identical to the BOP in ST IV except for its size.

99. Trek Lives On! - May 5, 2009

“Cap’n, I canna give you warp for two hours…”

“Mr. Scott, you have one hour. Kirk out.”

(sighs) “Now to find which pipe to repair…”

I’m a TOS fan from the 1960s. I don’t have hangups about various changes (ship exterior, costumes, casting) but every time I see an image from the E’s lower levels, whether this new shot with Pike, Sulu, Kirk and Spock, or the Nickelodeon preview with Kirk and Scotty, I kept thinking STAR TREK V… (and Scotty banging his head on the piping). I have mixed feelings about so many pipes being exposed. I’ve been on aircraft carriers. Piping is exposed. But this looks like a mismash of pipes, like the E is some Rube Goldberg invention.

I still think Orci and Kurtzman slipped a lot of nods to previous productions whether they’ll acknowledge it or not.

100. Greg Warden - May 5, 2009

Just for info that would like to know, the Onion did a clip on Star Trek titled: “Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as “Fun, Watchable.” I laughed; and I hope others find it as amusing as I did. Only 3 days left and I can’t wait

101. Jeff Bond - May 5, 2009

I think the point is, WHO CARES if engineering looks wrong. Seriously, THIS is the pivotal issue that people desperate to find something wrong with the movie are clinging to? A few minutes of footage in engineering? Believe me, if you are dead-set to find problems with the movie you’ll be able to find much bigger issues than that. I urge people to watch the Onion clip because it is a deadly accurate view of how fans have helped make Star Trek boring for so many years. In other words, “I don’t care how bad the movie is, just please, for GOD’S SAKE, GET ENGINEERING RIGHT!”

102. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

Greg, so many people have mentioned it, its making me crazy not being able to watch it at work for a good laugh!

103. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

78. charliebob: “How is tubes and such not from the Enterprise anyway: Ok this is from TAS but still-”
http://www.danhausertrek.com/AnimatedSeries/Engineering_Big.jpg

I would be VERY happy if that’s what Engineering looked like!! =D

“Seems kinda similar to what we’ve seen in the movie.” NOT IMHO

104. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

97- indeed- but I am not talking about the Bird of Prey, I am talking about the Starship Enterprise. TMP shows us people walking on the hull, as well as giving us an excruciatingly long scene of Kirk drooling over the (then) new Enterprise in dock. The Enterprises have been generally consistent enough to draw a conclusion, despite things like how the 1701D seems to fit the spacedoors of spacedock like the 1701 does. Aberration in the occasional episode does not disprove the consistent norm. Those are those little canon issues we’re supposed to ignore, right?

105. Randy H. - May 5, 2009

#92 and 94: Yes, there is a canon reference for the size of the Enterprise. In “The Enterprise Incident” the schematics and relative size of the Enterprise and a Klingon cruiser are shown on screen. A scale is included. The drawing is reproduced in “The Making of Star Trek” and both on screen and in the drawing the ship is about 1000 feet long. (Other, non-screen, drawings shown it to be 947 feet – close enough.)

106. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

104- Randy, you’re my hero.

107. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

Rotten tomatoes is up to 25 reviews, still at 100%…. How long will this last . Wolverine only lasted at 100% for 5 reviews…

108. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

I agree with some people that Engineering looks like a disaster, however I am not going to let that ruin the movie for me, I think the movie is going to be very very good. With that said, the one thing that could ruin this movie for me would be a goofy slapstick comedic scene, like having one of the major characters get swept up through the water pipes (a 23rd century starship with water pipes?) like a scene from Star wars of C3PO getting shuttled around a driod factory. If it didn’t work for kiddy oriented Star Wars it aint gonna work here. In the history of the original series they did one, ONE comedic episode “The Trouble with Tribbles”. The fact is Star Trek is a serious science fiction fantasy that has humor, not a comedy that has science fiction. What I fear is that this movie will lose it’s credibility with this silly scene, and become perceived more as a comedic franchise. People say when they look back on TOS from 40 years ago how dated it looks, what I fear is people will look back on this movie 10 years from now and say “what were they thinking?” (with that water pipe scene).

109. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

100. Jeff Bond: …“I don’t care how bad the movie is, just please, for GOD’S SAKE, GET ENGINEERING RIGHT!”

With all due respect, I think you are bashing (and misrepresenting) the brewery detractors much more than they “are dead-set to find problems with the movie”.

I want to love it all, but there ARE things that I’m having problems with.
But I’m still going on May 8th, VERY OPTIMISTICALLY! =D

110. jay - May 5, 2009

What’s with the girls in short skirts? Does anyone really believe a woman would go into outerspace in a uniform that exposes her arms and legs to the elements? Not to mention having to walk over grill work, and past vents. Are they serious? And are all the Star Trek fans teenage boys who think women really just live to tell Captain Kirk how wonderful he is?

111. Randy H. - May 5, 2009

#100 – An entertaining film is preferable to a boring film. A film that is believable is preferable to a film that is not believable. The *best* film is one that is both entertaining and believable. That’s what people are objecting to with engineering – that it could have been done better and more believable. Seems to me a reasonable statement to make, and I don’t understand why people should jump up and down and mock folks who say it.

For myself, I prefer to see the set in the context of the film to see whether it works or doesn’t. If done right (and by that I mean in a way that doesn’t throw me out of my willing suspension of disbelief) I’ll sign onto and support the vision. If not, I’ll lobby for a refit. But please don’t insult me for having the opinion one way or the other.

112. Loran Alan Davis - May 5, 2009

I’m up in the air with the engineering thing. Sure, there are pipes and conduits in the 23rd century, but we are talking about matter/anti-matter here! Where is the high-tech?

Off topic: Just read on CNN.com that Dom DeLuise has died.

113. The Happy Klingon - May 5, 2009

96.
Agreed.
This was a great movie but it wasnt a ‘perfect movie’. The quick camera movement gives you no time to ‘orient’ yourself on these very confusing sets. The camera is never still. Somebody did make a good point on another board that this is the Engineering deck but NOT Engineering itself. This is ‘supposedly’ the water reclamation portion of the ship which is ON the ‘engineering decks’. I can accept that because it certainly doesnt work as THE Engineering room. The Bridge was equally disorienting with the exception of the command chair and helm. Part of it is the standing glass ‘padds’/control surfaces…it was difficult to find my bearings on this new bridge.
For all the folks that keep defending JJ’s choices on design work its really no different then the so called ‘canonistas’ that you disparage. Different folks enjoy different aspects of Trek just like everyone has their favorite characters.
Some folks are more Tech oriented and a big part of their Trek enjoyment is the ships, tech and props. Those folks arent real happy with those aspects of this new movie. people whose sole focus is they characters…well, they seem to be very happy.
Im in the middle. Im a propbuilder/collector. I LOVE the TrekTech I just didnt care for this incarnation of it however I found the story and characters to be a whole lotta fun. I didnt care for the tech of TMP either and WOK used off the shelf props, radically different uniforms and 20th century Exit signs, no smoking signs and fire extinguishers. I also hated the TMP sterile all white bridge (which I flashed back to in this movie). for the future incarnations Id like to see it ‘toned down a bit but thats just my preference.
The fact is that you can enjoy this movie without having to like (or excuse) every thing about it much like we have had to do with OTHER Trek. There some things in the movie I dont care for but they are outweighed by the things I like.
I think overall JJ and gang have done a bang up job and this bodes well for Trek’s future and Im going to see it AGAIN this weekend and then the following week in IMAX.

114. ShatPine - May 5, 2009

111..I like him in Haunted Honeymoon

115. OR Coast Trekkie - May 5, 2009

I just want to know why there WOULDN’T be pipes in the 23rd century?

116. captain_neill - May 5, 2009

81

My disc 7 comes loose as well, I thought it was just me.

I can’t explain it as it snaps into place. It seems to bounce out when I open it hard

117. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

I have to see Engineering for myself- I don’t buy the description, but I didn’t buy a counselor on the bridge either, and still loved TNG.

118. PJ - May 5, 2009

Someone should really post the Star Trek II spoof clip from Sunday night’s family guy. Lauren Conrad and Brian doing Carol Marcus and Kirk in the Genisis cave (exact quotes from the movie)…freakin hilarious!

oh and P.S. this movie is gonna rock, a perfect end of finals gift for me. Thanks JJ!

119. Donn - May 5, 2009

I rather agree that if JJ’s take on how engineering looks is the last bastion of criticism for the film, then Star Trek is in good shape, and folks might want to relax a little in the finding fault for fault’s sake department.

IMO, the TOS engineering was crap. I far preferred the standard set by the films and continued in the later series: the intermix shaft. It was a great convention to tell the viewer, here is the heart of the engine, this is how a starship works.

Yet, it doesn’t bother me that what we’ve seen from these brief glimpses is “a bunch of pipes.” Surely there’s an awful lot more to the engineering section of the Enterprise than the intermix shaft area. And we may never see something like that in JJ’s vision of Star Trek. That’s okay with me, because my enjoyment of the franchise doesn’t hinge on what engineering looks like, nor what the bridge looks like.

120. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

114- because the Enterprise doesn’t run on steam? ;)

121. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

Pipes are not the problem, the brewery is.

122. captain_neill - May 5, 2009

I don’t agree with the design of engineering as I feel it is inconsistent with the Starfleet look. I agree with a friend that Engineering should be the second coolest location of the ship behind the Bridge.

But the look of Engineering is not going to put me off seeing this film. I want to see this movie. I know I have been critical about the changes but I was always going to see this film. I love Star Trek.

I know this will be better than Nemesis. In the early days I was worried about canon being messed with but it is an alternative timeline which means this exists separately from the timeline we know and love.

It seems JJ has got it right about Trek ideals so hopefully when I see it on Thurs I will be praiing JJ Abrams for honouring and bringingTrek back big time, rather than being vocal against his changes.

Now I will be honest and say that I am not as keen on the new Enterprise as I am on the original but as it should be a great film and in a different timeline I can accept it.

I can accept this film now and I apologise for being vocal in the past.

I cannot wait for Thurs night.

123. 'Jean-Luc' - May 5, 2009

I have just seen the movie today at a special press screening.

There’s more than just one product placement in the movie!

Let me give you a hint: Francisco Tarrega – Gran Vals

124. Loran Alan Davis - May 5, 2009

#122 – What did you think of the film?

125. Mac - May 5, 2009

Did anyone else see J. J. Abrams being interviewed on the Charlie Rose show? I was changing the channels this morning, and I saw the last part of the segment where Charlie Rose was interviewing Mr. Abrams, and they showed several clips from the new Star Trek movie.

126. Donn - May 5, 2009

107. What, do you suppose they just beam the water around the ship, instead of piping it? Consider that apart from drinking/food prep/waste disposal, that engine components or other machinery might require water for cooling. Water is a major, perhaps the major component of a nuclear generator.

As for what you call “slapstick,” it worked in Star Wars just fine (considering that SW is meant as a child’s fantasy, though that’s an argument for a different board). It didn’t work as well for pretty much all of ST V, but I chalk that up to the director. I am confident that JJ is savvy enough to pull it off.

127. captain_neill - May 5, 2009

122
We are not talking James Bond heavy with Product Placement?

No probs with Bud or Nokia, as long as Kirk is not scoffing a whopper I think we can get past the product placement.

128. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

Slush deuterium pipes?

129. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#100—-“Seriously, THIS is the pivotal issue that people desperate to find something wrong with the movie are clinging to? A few minutes of footage in engineering? Believe me, if you are dead-set to find problems with the movie you’ll be able to find much bigger issues than that. I urge people to watch the Onion clip because it is a deadly accurate view of how fans have helped make Star Trek boring for so many years. In other words, “I don’t care how bad the movie is, just please, for GOD’S SAKE, GET ENGINEERING RIGHT!”

Exactly.

The comments of fans cited in that Onion clip are precisely the kind of things that make Star Trek fans as a whole the butt of so many jokes. And I shudder to think what they would do with a debate on TM over whether JJ Abrams ruined the film with the placement of pipes in engineering.

I am a character and story guy. I draw the line at “pipes” and nacelle caps.

:)

130. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#124—-I saw that too. I liked the interview.

131. Paulaner - May 5, 2009

That tubes in engineering looks fine to me. I don’t see any problem.

132. Star Trackie - May 5, 2009

#107 “If it didn’t work for kiddy oriented Star Wars it aint gonna work here. In the history of the original series they did one, ONE comedic episode “The Trouble with Tribbles”. ”

Uhhmm…you might want to add I, MUdd and A Piece of the Action to that exclusive list. TOS was no stranger to comedy and thebeauty of it was, they really were good at it. Shatner’s comedic timing is great and this movie looks to be just as adept at comedy as it’s namesake.

133. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

Tubes aren’t my issue (and to be fair, I haven’t seen it yet, I may not have an issue) but the bits I have seen show the set as huge, like shuttlebay sized. I think in one of the commercials you see someone rappeling from the roof in the Kelvin. That seems extreme, but that could all be cleared up if the Enterprise is just bigger. Poof- no technical inconistency!

134. Peter W - May 5, 2009

>I am a character and story guy.

Then Closetrekker you are going to really enjoy this film as it is GOOD film. Again the only people I am REALLY hearing agaisnt this film are the literalists who keep whining about all the elimination and changing to the TOS background. YES I admit that most of the episodes of the series such as Where no Man has gone before, Obsession and Menagerie are removed with but we knew going in that this was a reboot/alternate reality from the get go.

And it is THAT precise new character development and storyline exploration is what makes THIS movie a GOOD FILM to appreciate for itself

135. 'Jean-Luc' - May 5, 2009

#123 – Mixed feelings, to tell you the truth. In general, I liked the movie. I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the Kelvin opening. So dramatic, so emotional. However, at some points in the movies the gags were just piling up, there were too much of them, it seemed to clash with the mood of the opening. Also, Chekov’s accent became old and annoying after 4 sentences.

What I particularly didn’t like was the “in-warp beaming” as exhibited in the clip where wet Scotty is questioned by Spock. We know full well that transporter range is limited and this was PIVOTAL in many stories (at least in TNG/VOY). I liked the idea of a “semi-reboot”, ie. you change the characters and their development because of an altered timeline. However, you shouldn’t change the “laws of physics” in this case, and that’s precisely what’s been done. If Kurtzman and Orci decided to alter “laws of physics” as well then it’s a “CLASSIC REBOOT”, not just an altered timeline. I sincerely doubt that Nero’s coming back into 23rd century improved the transporters (via butterfly effect).

Yeah, that’s nerdy nitpicking here, but that could have been sooo easily taken care of in the script while keeping the “laws” intact.

Also, the phasers fire now in Star Wars style (that can be seen in the trailers) – but I didn’t even notice that until my friend pointed it out.

Also, didn’t care much for the “rusty pipes” engineering. I hope it will get an upgrade in ST XII. There was something different about the warp core too, but the action is so fast-paced that I couldn’t even focus on it!

Anyway, the movie felt like Star Trek, and at the same time it didn’t. Maybe I’m not used to the characters yet; I absolutely need to watch this again, and I reckon many fans will have to watch it at least twice to get a solid opinion. Right now I’m simply torn.

136. Daoud - May 5, 2009

#134 What laws of physics? This is fisics (fictional physics), not physics. And ship-to-ship warp beaming can be done, we did see it happen in TOS, it’s just dangerous. The sequence makes more sense after you see the *whole* movie. Think ‘transparent aluminum’ in the meantime.

And when did Star Wars get phasers?

#132 A problem since TOS that the Enterprise is much larger than it was portrayed, something we always knew based on the window sizes on the models. The famous “Blueprints” really messed things up. The bridge is much smaller than it seemed. Some cutaways of the Enterprise made it about as big as a Dodge Caravan.

After all, the lower section was called the “Engineering Section”… at least 15 more decks of Engineering. I’m sure one of those less-travelled decks has all the plumbing…

Some people in some of these comments really scare me. No water? Dang, what do they do, beam the crap out of you on the Enterprise? What do you do with all the piss? On the ISS, we reprocess it… I hope the Enterprise does the same. The best coolant known to science is good ol’ H2O. Nuclear power plants have water, yanno. Even fusion reactors are cooled by water running through copper pipes.

But, as some picture-linkers have shown… there were pipes all over TOS Enterprise. Saw them in the background of engineering in the matte painting behind the screens. Saw them along Jeffries “tubes”. Saw tube junctions all over the place.

137. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

Thanks Jean-Luc, nice opinion without spoiling anything.

Re: phasers: Is it more of a particle weapon than a beam weapon?

138. sean - May 5, 2009

#96, #112

Since you reference so many people ‘defending’ these choices, there clearly is no consensus. Maybe some are defending these choices because, oh I don’t know, THEY ACTUALLY LIKE THEM. You don’t like them, fair enough. But just because someone defends them doesn’t mean they’re blindly accepting everything presented to them. No more so than disliking these elements makes someone a ‘canonista’.

139. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

135. Daoud: “And when did Star Wars get phasers?”

God I love semantics…

140. Peter W - May 5, 2009

>What I particularly didn’t like was the “in-warp beaming” as exhibited in the clip where wet Scotty is questioned by Spock. We know full well that transporter range is limited and this was PIVOTAL in many stories (at least in TNG/VOY).

That was precisely the good development of the characters with this reboot/alternate reality version. Without spoiling anything for those who have not seen the film yet, THIS Scotty is NOT the miracle worker because he a great engineer who pads his time of accomplishment. THIS Scotty is a mad scientitst who is willing to throw safeguards off to do what others consider impossible because of overconstaining safety concerns which is one of reason for him being where he was rather than the lauded master engineer of several ships of TOS. Here there is no doubt he is a engineering genuis though we need to he NEEDS a keeper.

The same with Spock. The whole denial emotional conflict and progressive personality development was thrown out with him accepting himself from the Vulcan Science Academy scene which to me was one of the emotional highpoints of the film. It is in that moment Spock CLEARLY accepts himself as he is and not what others would expect of him nor implied in the original TOS.

Again this film as a film delivers VERY well on its character development and storyline which are the most important things for making it a film to stand on its own rather than a mere indulgence of what went on before

141. Locke for President - May 5, 2009

I didn’t realize until watching Letterman last night that Chris Pine’s dad played Sarge on C.H.I.P.S. I looked him up online and then re-realized that he also was a guest on a couple of Star Trek episodes. Cool.

Regarding set design on the new movie: It’s just a movie, go and enjoy it. Life is too short to get upset over pipes in a movie. Some fans really are being made fun of in that Onion video clip. It is hitting the nail on the head.

142. James Kirk's Unknown Son - May 5, 2009

Just purchased two online tickets for the 7PM showing Thursday night. This 40+ year fan is really excited to see this movie. Judging from all the reviews, I am guessing that it is not going to disappoint me.

I will give my honest assessment here (without any spoilers) after I have seen it.

143. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

Re: “in-warp beaming”: Doesn’t Future Spock give Scotty some future tech info to make this possible?

144. GaryS - May 5, 2009

Speaking of critics,
I went to the At The Movies website to see their Early Review of Star Trek,
and no matter what review i click on ,
I get the review of Ghosts of Girlfriends past !
Anybody know where I can get a video clip of their review?

145. 'Jean-Luc' - May 5, 2009

#136:

> And ship-to-ship warp beaming can be done

Who said anything about “ship-to-ship”? Certainly I didn’t…

I don’t want to give out any plot details, you’ll see what I’m talking about soon enough.

> What laws of physics?

I specifically used quotes around “laws of physics”

146. 'Jean-Luc' - May 5, 2009

#143

> Re: “in-warp beaming”: Doesn’t Future Spock give Scotty some future tech info to make this possible?

Correct. But the beaming itself is not the issue. The distance between beam points is.

147. Duncan MacLeod - May 5, 2009

143. yes i believe that is where Scotty got the idea from, remember Spock from over 100 years in the future (POST NEMESIS TECH CANONISTAS!!) is down on Delta Vega and meets Kirk (and presumably scotty)

148. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

136. Daoud: “No water? Dang, what do they do, beam the crap out of you on the Enterprise? What do you do with all the piss? On the ISS, we reprocess it… I hope the Enterprise does the same.”

Not beam it out of you, but yes, dematerialize it.

“The best coolant known to science is good ol’ H2O. Nuclear power plants have water, yanno. Even fusion reactors are cooled by water running through copper pipes.”

20th century thinking / technology does not apply. Warp cores use plasma coolant.

149. Capt. of the USS Anduril - May 5, 2009

Scotty throwing safety considerations out the window isn’t unheard of. How else do you think he’s able to pull off these crazily short repair times? He also knew what the impulse engine thingamabobs could handle in “Relics”.

150. SHCone - May 5, 2009

32-

I suppose you wanted them to just go back to the same old trough.

You know, the one that resulted in an abysmal box office for NEMESIS. The one that shut ENTERPRISE down after 4 seasons.

That one was a winner. Let’s go back there!

151. Thomas - May 5, 2009

125. Mac

I saw Charlie Rose too. They showed the Bar scene with Pike and Kirk, and the extended trailer. I thought it was a very insightful interview, and Abrams was clearly enjoying being there.
He did mention how the used the extra 6 months from the delayed release to greatly improve the sound mix, so although the film was technically ready for December, he did take the time to make some improvements .

152. Artrek - May 5, 2009

I saw it Saturday morning at a press screening in Boston MA.
Most of all loved it, but, also had several problems with it. Mostly how the starships (including the enterprise) had more of a STAR WARS look and feel about them. Alot of the interiors are not TREK at all, dirt and grime and industrial complex feel that has never been a part of TREK before. But the characters were TREK all the way (with the possible exception of scotty’s EWOK). The people I went to the screen with all felt the same way and we hope that this is adjusted at least a little bit for the sequel that we are clammering for now!

153. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

140. Peter W: “…with Spock. The whole denial emotional conflict and progressive personality development was thrown out with him accepting himself from the Vulcan Science Academy scene which to me was one of the emotional highpoints of the film. It is in that moment Spock CLEARLY accepts himself as he is and not what others would expect of him nor implied in the original TOS.”

Let’s remember that Vulcans DO HAVE emotions; they just work VERY HARD to repress them. Sometimes their emotions DO surface.

154. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

EWOK??? NNOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

155. The future begins...May 7/8th - May 5, 2009

ummm why doeseveryone think its ‘in-warp beaming’? i got the impression it was stationary target-to-warp-travelling vessel beaming…such would make sense if Nimoy-Spock gave the tech to Scotty

156. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

How about that Boston Globe review?

“Ridiculously satisfying”

“The best prequel ever made”

And my favorite part:

“..you feel the final pieces of the puzzle snap into place with a witty and intensely fond reverence. I just about wept with joy, and I’m not even a Trekkie.”

157. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

…bodes well, but I’m more interested in the reviews from a TREKKER perspective ;-)

158. Toben - May 5, 2009

The ship looks like a disaster, the bridge looks like a disaster, engineering looks like a disaster… it’s not like we’re just picking on ONE issue in this movie. It’s full of stuff that’s gone totally wrong. Unfortunately, it’s stuff that the general audience doesn’t care about, yet the filmmakers decided to insult the fans anyway. WHY is it so hard to make the warp nacelles red/orange like in the original? WHY did it have to be changed? WHY does the bridge need to look like an apple store? Just look at the Kelvin bridge or the Simulator bridge… THAT’S how it needed to look. So they did get it right, but not for the Enterprise. Why is that? Why that deliberate decision to piss fans off?
Just look at the Enterprise. Almost everything is right about her, but then it seems someone said “No, it’s not yet pissing the nerds off, so we need to move the main hull forward, so that it looks like it had an accident.”

WHY? Those are changes that have no effect on anything. Red bussard collectors won’t affect the box office any more than blue ones. Yet they decided to ditch it. And that has an effect on some fans, and they know that. Why?

When you have the choice: “New fans don’t care, old fans will like it.” vs. “New fans don’t care, old fans will be pissed off.”, why do you choose the latter? Why?

159. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

As long as they show the crush-y stomp-y things, and the flames… I’m “good” with the pipes.

LOL

160. Kirk's girdle - May 5, 2009

Starship Enterprise vs Aircraft Carrier Enterprise

http://www.cloudster.com/sets&vehicles/STEnterprise/eplan03.JPG

161. Toben - May 5, 2009

Why does a brewery engine room make this movie more successful than the traditional TMP style engine room?

It doesn’t. So why would you decide to ditch what has been there for 30 years and has no positive or negative effect on the financial business? It does have an effect on the fanbase. So why do you decide to shake the fanbase although the new audience doesn’t care about how the engine room looks?

They would have made a lot more people happy with a TMP style engine room. The hard core fans would love it, the non hardcore fans would say “okay”, and the new audience wouldn’t care as long as the movie is good.

So why do you piss off the hardcore fans?

162. Kirk's girdle - May 5, 2009

I always liked the old forced perspective engineering set.

163. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

@161

I think that’s answered with two words from the person hired to make the movie…

“Nacelles Monthly”

164. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

I think the decision to use the brewery was a financial one, ore possibly they were running out of time. Both poor excuses IMHO.

A “green screen” Engineering would have been a better choice IMHO.

165. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

Besides, it sets things up for the next movie…

“Kirk v Alien”

166. James Johnson - May 5, 2009

Please JJ – rework Engineering and the lower decks in the next movie so they look like they belong on a STARSHIP! NOT A FACTORY!

I feel better now.

And please redo the new Enterpise to more closely match how it looked originally – i.e. a bigger engineering section, rounder nacelles.

167. Toben - May 5, 2009

163. Trekker chick. So the decision was “We know there are the hardcore geeks who pick on anything, so we should really do everything to upset them.”?

168. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

Just a question of logic:

Since the original timeline is called the ‘Prime’ timeline and ‘original’ timeline, that acknowledges it as the main and important timeline.

Then why do I care what happens in this new alternate timeline? I mean, the entire Federation could get desrtoyed in the next movie but who cares? I know everything continues in the original universe.

169. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#158—“Why that deliberate decision to piss fans off?”

Well, for one thing, it doesn’t piss off all the fans by any means. Obviously, there are plenty of fans who are not bothered by it at all.

But even if you properly amend your assertion to ” deliberate decision to piss (some) fans off”, I still don’t see where you get that it was “deliberate”.

Just like the production design of anything else, the producers and production designers went with what *they* felt looked good. It is absurd to suggest that JJ Abrams thinks that you are personally so important that he should spend $150 million just to piss you off!

I mean….seriously. Stop for a minute and think about how absurd that is.

The only thing about your post that really makes any sense is where you communicate your own opinion as to how things should have looked. But the problem is that you present it as an absolute and presume to speak for me and the many other fans who either like it or could not care less about where the main hull is relative to something else.

When I look at that ship, all that I see is a 2008-2009 take on the NCC-1701. It is the USS Enterprise—the vehicle which gets my favorite characters from point A to point B.

I am an “old fan”. I’ve been a fan of original Star Trek since the mid-70’s. And you cannot speak for me…so don’t try.

Say that *you* don’t like it. But don’t say that *we* don’t like it. Star Trek fans are far too diverse for you to be so presumptuous.

170. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

165. Trekker chick: “Besides, it sets things up for the next movie… “Kirk v Alien”

HEH! Good one! But that should take place in the Kelvin’s “heavy industry fab shop” Engineering section. (Also a poor choice IMHO)

171. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

@164

Well… when Paramount asks us to cough-up the initial $150 million for films of a subject WE own, with no financial guarantee of not losing our shirts, and a group of fans who I guarantee won’t like the decision made by others…

172. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#164—“I think the decision to use the brewery was a financial one, ore possibly they were running out of time.Both poor excuses IMHO. ”

According to Abrams, it was a matter of finding something they could shoot that was already available, since they did not have the financial resources to build it. But he doesn’t present it as an excuse (which would imply that he is somehow apologetic). He actually feels good about it.

“A “green screen” Engineering would have been a better choice IMHO.”

That may have been a choice, but if so, it would be one contrary to Abrams doctrinal approach to ST09. He really strove to limit the amount of greenscreen work on the film, and I think that the brewery shots offered him the type of functionality and realism he was after with engineering.

I’ll give him this right off the bat. As pretty as TOS engineering was, it didn’t look the least bit functional.

173. Toben - May 5, 2009

169. Closettrekker, you obviously didn’t read my whole post. I said that there are the hardcore fans who care, the fans who don’t (like you), and the new audience who doesn’t care either.

So I didn’t speak for you. Obviously you seem to think that everybody speaks for you. That might be your problem then. ;-)

174. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

How would you know what is functional for a 23rd century starship? I say, we don’t, but we do know through 5 tv series and 10 movies what it’s supposed to look like in the Trek universe and this Engineering section doesn’t fit any of those. Me personally, I never liked the verical warp core from TMP on. I liked the wide open Engineering of the original series. I guess because if someone asked me to imagine an Engineering section of a 23rd century starship, the TOS version is the closest to what I would’ve come up with myself.

175. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

172- “I’ll give him this right off the bat. As pretty as TOS engineering was, it didn’t look the least bit functional.”

And though we all think we have an answer to this question; what does a functional warp drive engine room look like?

176. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#168—“…why do I care what happens in this new alternate timeline? I mean, the entire Federation could get desrtoyed in the next movie but who cares? I know everything continues in the original universe.”

That presumes that A) you accept Orci’s proposed MWI of QM (which are not canonically part of the story), as opposed to more traditional sci-fi approaches to time travel; and B) you won’t be convinced to care about the people in this timeline on their own merits. Surely that is their goal, and you either will or you won’t.

177. Toben - May 5, 2009

Come on, somebody in the production would have said at some point “But weren’t these red in the original?” And then there you have the moment were you make that decision. It was red in the original, it has been red in 40 years of Star Trek, and red or blue won’t change anything to your box office success, so why do you change it to blue?

178. sean - May 5, 2009

#172

TOS engineering deck was also full of pipes, conduits and even wrenches (very convenient should you need to knock out a baddie who’s taken over your ship)!

179. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#174—“How would you know what is functional for a 23rd century starship?”

I don’t. But neither do you, nor did the production designers involved with TOS and the 6 original films. They don’t actually exist, nor have they ever.

“we do know through 5 tv series and 10 movies what it’s supposed to look like in the Trek universe and this Engineering section doesn’t fit any of those.”

I disagree that we already know what it is supposed to look like. We know what it looked like from the perspectives of different production people in different decades, but in the end, this is not an historical piece. Abrams and co. are attempting to suggest what a 23rd Century warp drive engine room might look like—-but from a perspective originated with them….and of course, in 2007-08, as opposed to 1966.

180. Toben - May 5, 2009

I guess somebody needs to define what “full of pipes” actually means. Oil rig with HUNDREDS of pipes forming a maze everywhere, like in the new movie, or just a few pipes here and there along the walls, like in TOS.

181. sean - May 5, 2009

#177

Because you like blue?

Honestly, aren’t you sort of answering your own questions? If it breaks down to “the hardcore fans who care, the fans who don’t (like you), and the new audience who doesn’t care either”, why NOT change it if you want to?

182. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

176.

“A) you accept Orci’s proposed MWI of QM (which are not canonically part of the story), as opposed to more traditional sci-fi approaches to time travel;”

So we have Bob Orci and Leonard Nimoy telling us this is a new alternate timeline and you’re saying this is not the case?

183. Shatner_Fan_Prime - May 5, 2009

Haven’t you people learned by now? You don’t argue with Captain Canon (aka Closet)!!!

184. Toben - May 5, 2009

He’s not Captain Canon, he’s Captain I don’t give damn.

185. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

172. Closettrekker: “…and I think that the brewery shots offered him the type of functionality and realism he was after with engineering.”

“I’ll give him this right off the bat. As pretty as TOS engineering was, it didn’t look the least bit functional.”

MAJOR DISAGREEMENT: TOS Engineering looks FAR more real and functional for a starship than a brewery does ANY DAY. WE haven’t even seen a warp core in the brewery yet!

JJ “feeling good about it” is SPIN.

186. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

@167

No. They may simply not care that some hardcore Trek fans are going to get their knickers in a twist.

I recall (dating myself) a story from when TWOK was released and “those b***tards at Paramount let them kill off Spock.” There was a widely circulating story around the LA fan community about a fan who decided to protest by repeatedly going to the movie – and pointedly walking out at the point in the movie right after the character dies in the reactor.

Boy. That REALLY was going to show THOSE suits – wasn’t it!

The same person: buying ticket after ticket after ticket after ticket (ad nauseum)

Maybe I’ve gotten philosophical with time, but, as someone who (not that I’m unique in this respect)
has been around Trekdom to have written for a William Shatner autographed photo while the TOS was in production, and who went to the 1975 Equicon in LA, was a member of S.T.A.R. while in college, and was enough of a Trek-geek as to take the Franz Joseph designs from the then-new “Tech Manual” and the Blueprints to make poster-sized version side views of the Scout/Destroyer, Tug and Dreadnaught-class ships for my bedroom (in high school), to write a letter of righteous indignation to the production offices when Starlog reported that something as seemingly stupid as internal transporters for moving needed equipment – since CANON had established the problems of intra-ship beaming – for the pending ST:TMP.

(Hangs head in shame)

I can’t get tweaked-up about filming what may well have been an un-seen part of “the inner works” of the ship – in a. brewery. I mean, as long as they didn’t leave signs reading “Anhauser-Busch” in plain sight, so fraking what? I mean, even with an engineering degree – what would I know what the heck a FTL starship would look like in it’s plumbing closets?

Besides.. Hasn’t it long been said that the Big E is a vehicle for The Story?

187. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

Okay so the copout response to loyal fans that have questions about the new movie is “just shut up and enjoy the movie. Everything done in Hollywood is just symoblic.” I say no, the Enterprise is as big a character as Kirk and Spock. Changing the look, slightly to update is one thing, but to change things so dramatically is akin to re-casting Kirk in TOS second season with Sydney Poitier. Are fans not supposed to notice the difference? Are we not supposed to ask, how did Kirk go from Caucasian to African-American overnight? Poitier being a great actor is not the point. A franchise needs to remain consistent for it’s own credibility.

188. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

186- dammit Trekker Chick- where were you when I was in High School?

189. Toben - May 5, 2009

I’m perfectly fine with character’s dying and stuff like Vulcan getting destroyed. That’s great stuff. But why they can’t get something as little as a red bussard collector on the warp nacelle right, is beyond me. On a production like this, everything is the result of a conscious decision. And they kept the silly cheesy 60s uniforms, they added all those tiny details of the TMP Enterprise to the new model, but something so little as the red color of the warp nacelles is changed. I cannot understand that.

190. LoyalStarTrekFan - May 5, 2009

37, I completely agree. In the future, engine rooms should be cleaner than engine rooms of today. Engine rooms of today, while still not the cleanest places in the world, are a lot cleaner than engine rooms of, say, Titanic’s day. Further, in STAR TREK, starships use nuclear fusion (to put into contest we don’t know how to do that yet, nuclear powered naval vessels use nuclear fission not nuclear fusion) and matter/anti-matter. I can’t see how these tings would be dirty to run or maintain. Despite that you could make it look more industrial without using a factory. For example, in the game “Star Trek Deep Space Nine: The Fallen” an impulse engine room that was never seen on the show was introduced. It was more industrial than the main engine room, where the warp core is housed, but still fairly clean. I wish they had used a similar approach in this new movie. I also think the shuttlebay should be a fairly wide open area and not very industrial. However, it is possible that directly below things like the turntable (as seen in TOS which may not be in the new film) and various elevators and ramps may be more industrial but not to the extreme as seen in the preview.

That said, it’s not a make or break kind of thing and most likely won’t take away from the enjoyment of the film.

191. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

179. Closettrekker: “…nor did the production designers involved with TOS and the 6 original films [know what is functional for a 23rd century starship]. They don’t actually exist, nor have they ever.”

Yes they DID know, and yes they DID exist. They DESIGNED them, and they BUILT them.

“Abrams and co. are attempting to suggest what a 23rd Century warp drive engine room might look like—-but from a perspective originated with them….”

BALONEY. They are attempting to save time / money. They think that a starship engine room looks like a brewery?? GIMME A BREAK.

192. Toben - May 5, 2009

And the engine room is NOT a little change. It’s a big one. And it looks ugly. So then again, my bitching is not about canon but about style.

193. sean - May 5, 2009

#185

Why must it be spin? Can it not be that *gasp* JJ actually thinks his idea was a good one, whether you think it was or not?

#187

The Enterprise is indeed important, but to me its primary function is to bring together our heroes. That’s the value of the ship. So where the buttons are or if engineering has pipes or the bridge has a viewscreen or a window is pretty incidental.

Another way you could view it is that since this is an alternate timeline, this is an alternate Enterprise. It is not constructed in the same location or in the same way.

194. Toben - May 5, 2009

Is a nuclear power plant a dirty environment, or the early experimental fusion reactors? No. It’s as clean as it gets. And matter/antimatter reaction is a much more sophisticated technology. So it would be clean, it would be tidy. I suppose you could eat off the floor.

195. sean - May 5, 2009

#194

As I understand it, that factory/brewery is actually incredibly clean.

196. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

193.

Exactly. This is supposed to be an alternate universe. Like Mirror, Mirror things in that episode were different than what we came to expect. The Enterprise was slightly different, the characters were greatly different, the universe they inhabited was different,

I can totally live with this is a new alternate universe. What I can’t accept is this is the same universe and they just simply went back in time. That means 40 years of creative efforts down the tubes.

197. Toben - May 5, 2009

195. And I said tidy. ;-)

198. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

Nimoy: Well the alternative timeline gives them license to escape from canon concerns. I can’t see people saying ‘they shouldn’t do that because…’ or ‘that doesn’t tie in to such and such’ because it is a different time and place.

Just the words ‘Alternate timeline’ infer that there are multiple timelines and multiple universes or else Nimoy would’ve said, they’ve gone back in time. Notice he said time and PLACE, also inferring a totally different place of existence as opposed to being in the same universe at simply a different time.

199. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

@188

Aviation High School, Redondo Beach USD, Redondo Beach, CA, Class of ’76.

(Don’t ask about building models of the Pan Am “Orion” shuttle from 2001, the Enterprise, or my copies – dutifully purchased as soon as each one came out – of the “Star Trek Poster Books”)

LOL

200. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

199- I had the Moon Bus! Built the model and then played with it until it fell apart. And remember PhotoNovels? Or disc firing phasers? Or having mom iron on Starfleet emblems on red sweatshirts?

Oddly enough, I didn’t write a letter to Paramount when Spock died- but I did when they blew up the Enterprise… Hmmm. Shows MY priorities, and explains why I keep asking for tech specs!

201. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

@187

You’re right. People would have noticed..like they got worked up about the change in “Darren Stevens” midway through “Bewitched”.

Don’t get me wrong. There are still things I would have preferred that are different from what appears to have been done. But…given what I’ve said as being a recovering canonista

(Hi! My name is Kris L., and I’m a friend of Gene R. … Hi, Kris! Welcome to the group!)

… I’m looking forward to the movie.

202. Peter W - May 5, 2009

196. John from Cincinnati
>I can totally live with this is a new alternate universe. What I can’t accept is this is the same universe and they just simply went back in time. That means 40 years of creative efforts down the tubes.

Well then for you it is still good as this IS an alternate reality. It is NOT a wipe away of TNG, Voyager etc.

203. sean - May 5, 2009

#195

Main Entry:
1ti·dy
Pronunciation:
\ˈtī-dē\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
ti·di·er; ti·di·est
Etymology:
Middle English, timely, in good condition, from tide time
Date:
13th century

neat and orderly in appearance or habits : well ordered and cared for

I don’t see anything in this new engineering set that prevents it being identified as such. :)

204. sean - May 5, 2009

#196

Oh, I think it’s been made abundantly clear the timeline’s been altered. In fact, I believe Bob Orci made reference to a scene that was eventually cut in which Spock alludes to the fact that events are beginning to line up with the way he remembered them, and that the timeline was mending itself.

205. dep1701 - May 5, 2009

I personally can’t believe the hand-wringing over the Engineering set here. I can’t believe that no one has yet brought up the re-use of the NCC-1701-D engineering set in TUC, which was DEFINITELY done to save money. It bugged me a little, as did other little changes to sets. For example; since when did The Enterprise have a galley for prepping crew meals, or bunk beds, or doors that slid up into the ceiling, or an alarm that goes off when you fire a phaser, or a fireman’s pole in the torpedo room, or in TFF a shuttlebay about as big as a two car garage- with safety nets no less, or more than 53 “levels”, or in TVH a completely different bridge in the Klingon bird of prey from TSFS ? Since money and director’s dramatic whims demanded it , that’s when. Inconsistency with the established past did not originate with this movie, and it will likely not end here.

Seriously, I’m not crazy about the redesign of the Enterprise exterior, but I’ll get over it ( and it’s starting to look better in the clips i’ve seen of it in motion ) and I won’t let it ruin my enjoyment of the movie.

If the movie’s good I’ll let it slide , as I did with TUC ( of course, if the movie as a whole sucks, it will just add to the list of faults i find with the movie ( as with TFF )

Relax… it’s a movie.

206. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

…anyway, tidy does not equal clean…

God I love semantics

207. Peter W - May 5, 2009

153.I am not Herbert

Yes but again without spoiling it when you see the Vulcan Science Academy scene the way that Spock is remade here is much more powerful as there is NO disambiguation about who THIS Spock really is. Though most are going on about the scenes between him and Uhura….

Nope I am NOT going to spoil it though many are screaming “Heresy!” and QUITE loudl even though they already know this is NOT meant to be a continuation of the 1960s series and its successors.

208. MH - May 5, 2009

11.

“Eh a fat sarcastic Star Trek fan!” To quote the Simpsons.

209. Trekker chick - May 5, 2009

@200

Yes. I remember the PhotoNovels, and the ViewMaster reels of “The Omega Glory”, and the “Engineering” insignia that I sewed onto my bookbag my freshman year at Cal Poly, and the Star Trektennial commemorative coin from Lincoln Enterprises – as well as copies of TOS scripts…sad, but true!!

210. Toben - May 5, 2009

dep1701, I see your point, but in addition, the new engine room looks just lousy. A 23rd century engine room of a spaceship looking like a brewery run by computers, that’s ridiculous.

211. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

Well, if we have an outwardly emotional Spock, it will be heresy!!

212. weerd1 - May 5, 2009

I’ve gone off on this rant before, but this seems an appropriate time to do it again. I am not trying to defend JJ, or bash him for that matter. There are Trek fans who didn’t like TWOK because it was different. There are Trek fans who think TOS is outdated and irredeemable because they grew up on TNG. I remember the old days though. I remember flipping through Trek magazine and reading essays and articles which spelled out inconsistencies in Trek- and then went out of their way to come up with an explanation. We have such rich “fanon” today as a result of our using our love of those 79 silly little episodes (and 22 animated) to explain away the little problems, or learning when to look the other way (UESPA anyone?). We did it because we loved it; we loved it because of the heart Trek showed. Do I wish the neck wasn’t so squashy on the new E? Yeah. Do I wish engineering, pipes or no pipes, was starkly clean? Yes. Do I wish I was seeing the Kirk who lived through Tarsus and the Republic? Yeah. But despite all of that, if the heart is there, I’ll find ways to explain the rest. That’s what we do for things we love- we accept them.

I will also say, all those details could be dead on with TOS and my interpretation thereof- if the heart is wrong, the characters wrong, the bright future wrong, then it’s not Star Trek, no matter what size the nacelles are.

Two days- then I will know.

213. sean - May 5, 2009

#206

Haha. Can we at least agree that tidy *implies* clean?

214. Peter W - May 5, 2009

205. dep1701 – May 5, 2009

> I personally can’t believe the hand-wringing over the Engineering set here.

Oh that is trival in plot and execution of the film other than the mad techno Scotty doing what he does best. Shout out to Ompa-lompahs!

I think most of the hard core literal continual demandings fans of the TOS are going to forget about those things when the film gets into general release as there are so many fundamental changes to the background of the mythos that the die hards are already screaming about .

215. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

208. MH: “Eh a fat sarcastic Star Trek fan!” To quote the Simpsons.

Fat, no… and normally not sarcastic, but the brewery brings it out of me ;-)

WORST… ENGINEERING… SECTION… EVER. (To quote the Simpsons)

216. Peter W - May 5, 2009

204. sean

>Oh, I think it’s been made abundantly clear the timeline’s been altered. In fact, I believe Bob Orci made reference to a scene that was eventually cut in which Spock alludes to the fact that events are beginning to line up with the way he remembered them, and that the timeline was mending itself.

No the maintimeline does not. Again without spoiling anything in the original timeline — did Kirk go the Farragut or the Enterprise as his first ship? Does he ever serve with Pike actively. This movies’ already released previews clearly shows which ship Kirk he goes to.
This movie wipes out TOS Obsession and Menargie from this timeline.

Don’t ask about Pike. I am NOT spoiling.

217. sean - May 5, 2009

#216

I believe they were referring to general life directions, not specifics like ship assignments. So nothing that happens here prevents Kirk from encountering Kahn again, or visiting Stratos, etc.

218. Peter W - May 5, 2009

211. I am not Herbert – May 5, 2009

>Well, if we have an outwardly emotional Spock, it will be heresy!!

Yeah like when Nimoy’s Spock is shown openly smiling and arguing with Hunter’s Pike…

Like I said before THIS Spock is comfortable in his nature and NOT trying to live up to the stereotypical attitude that Vulcans are always in control of themselves and operate by truth speak i.e, translated as logical. Ooops thatmay be too much reveal. Again when you see the Vulcan Science Academy scene you SEE the real basis of THIS Spock in dealing with himself and his dual nature and how well it really works for this interpretation of the character and allows for the other scene such as his now well shown attack on Pine’s Kirk.

219. Peter W - May 5, 2009

217. sean

>I believe they were referring to general life directions, not specifics like ship assignments. So nothing that happens here prevents Kirk from encountering Kahn again, or visiting Stratos, etc.

NO Kahn in the original timeline is WAY later than this.

This film is Kirk at the academy and just after. Again what does Shatner’s Kirk say about his dealing with Hunter’s/Sean Kenney’s Pike
“I met him briefly when I took over the Enterprise.”

There was almost no interaction between Shatner’s Kirk and Hunter’s/Kenney’s Pike.

In this timeline, as shown repeatedly Pine’s Kirk SERVES with Pike and not just merely fighting the Romulan renegades. In what capacity and how long Pine’s Kirk serves with Pike I am NOT saying you will see in the movie those answers.

220. TrekTwenty - May 5, 2009

@110

It’s called sex appeal. It generally doesn’t make sense. In fact, most forms of appeal (bandwagon, etc) generally DON’T make much sense. I, for one, will not complain one bit about the mini-skirts though.

221. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

Ok, so does this movie exist in the same universe as TOS and is simply in the past? Or is it an alternate universe as described by Bob Orci and Leonard Nimoy? Does the movie establish which?

222. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

An illogical Spock?? Equally heretical!!

223. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

From what Bob Orci described, as soon as Nero goes to the past and fires on the Kelvin, a new parallel universe is created. Everything we knew is in the old universe. in the new universe Pike and Kirk can meet before Menagerie. Kirk was never on Tarsus IV. Kirk never served on the Farragut. However, from what Orci explained; the original universe continues on uninterrupted as we know it. This new universe starts things over and continues it’s own existence.

224. John from Cincinnati - May 5, 2009

I sure wish Bob was here to set things clear.

225. Peter W - May 5, 2009

221. John from Cincinnati – May 5, 2009

> Ok, so does this movie exist in the same universe as TOS and is simply in the past?

Hunh? What you are asking is not clear.

This movie happens at the time of Kirk’s earliest days as a young man in his mid 20s. He is NOT around 35 as in the case of Shatner’s Kirk.

>Or is it an alternate universe as described by Bob Orci and Leonard Nimoy?

It is an alternate timeline, as shown Pin’e Kirk serves with Pike actively does not merely met him one time.

Pine’s Kirk serves on board the Enterprise UNLIKE Shatner’s Kirk s who serves on the Farrgut.

and several other changes –Do you think that Ben FInney and Gary Mitchell are squeezed in here? — which are explicitly stated in the film which CLEARLY demark this film from the original series and earlier films.

>Does the movie establish which?
The Pine Kirk serving Pike clearly shows which.

226. Peter W - May 5, 2009

223. John from Cincinnati – May 5, 2009

> From what Bob Orci described, as soon as Nero goes to the past and fires on the Kelvin, a new parallel universe is created. Everything we knew is in the old universe. in the new universe Pike and Kirk can meet before Menagerie. Kirk was never on Tarsus IV. Kirk never served on the Farragut. However, from what Orci explained; the original universe continues on uninterrupted as we know it. This new universe starts things over and continues it’s own existence.

Exactly. This is a new reality that is seperate from the original.

227. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

I can see “causing” a new timeline, but “creating” a NEW UNIVERSE?!?

I can see parallel universes, but creating new ones is hard to swallow…

…although that EXPLAINS a lot… xP

228. The Governator - May 5, 2009

Well, there’s obviously some real fiery hatred here for the new engineering. Lets put things into perspective, shall we?

OK. Step 1. As part of J.J.’s plan to show an expansive Enterprise, he wanted to include all different aspects of the ship. The bridge, the corridors, sickbay, transporter room, quarters, and engineering. The best assumption is that J.J. and Scott Chambliss dismissed the idea of a TOS engineering, because, whether you would like to admit it to yourself, it doesn’t look functional. How can it, considering the budget that they had for the show? So they ask themselves, What would an engine room look like? Likely answers: it would be big, it would have big, better yet massive, machinery, and it would be based in functionality rather than design appeal because it would simply be unnecessary to do otherwise. So, they design an engine room, only soon to discover, Whoops!, this is going to cost a ridiculous amount of money! Solution? Find a real world industrial location that looks like it could be an engine room. And so came the brewery in all its glory.

Fan problem: “Its a brewery. Why the f*ck would a brewery stand in for the Enterprise.” I’ll admit, it sounds pretty stupid and insulting. HOWEVER, what if the brewery actually looked like an engine room? Well, then what? Well, then maybe its not such a bad idea after all.

Fan reaction to above statement: “Well, I don’t care where it was filmed, its just ugly.” Now ask yourself, is that really the problem? What if this was built as a set, and looked exactly as it does now? Or better yet (gasp!!!!!), what if this were the design used on the original 1960s Enterprise!!!! Then you respond with, “NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE THAT.” Well, what if they had? Would you still have ill feelings toward it?

Fan reaction to above statement: Yes, because you can’t admit being wrong, because your the all-knowing super fan. Plus, how could anyone care more than you?

Then again, I suppose it is theoretically possible not to like the design for what it is, but that’s beside the point. I imagine that doesn’t apply here, right?

229. Unbel1ever - May 5, 2009

I agree with Abrams, that the engineering department should look it’s power. However, I look at those pipes and they strike me as uninspired and boring. You can see stuff like that any day – in real life. For me a part of the fun in SciFi shows and movies always has been to see stuff, I couldn’t see in real life. Something cool, to stir your imagination. There is a lot of this stuff still in the new movie, however engineering is not part of that. This is a hugely expensive movie. Three times as expensive as Nemesis. Couldn’t they have come up with an set on their own ? You can say that TOS looked cheap, because the sets were cardboard. Well, this looks even cheaper, since there aren’t even sets !
I really like the story and the way the characters are portrayed. I would have loved it even more, if the production design had kept up.

230. Peter W - May 5, 2009

227. I am not Herbert

>I can see “causing” a new timeline, but “creating” a NEW UNIVERSE?!?

That IS the basis of quantum mechanics. You and every other action creates an entire universe everytime a divergent choice is presented.

Forked road

do you go right or left?

By making a specific choice of the two presented solutions — I am NOT going into divergent alternatives such as backtracking and not choicing either road even though those choice are ALSO resulting in creating new realities as that complicates the issue too much — you create a seperate reality to the opposite one you selected though BOTH exist and continue on.

You went left, you created your counterpart’s universe where he went right.

You went right, you created your counterpart’s universe where he went left.

But both realities happen.

>I can see parallel universes, but creating new ones is hard to swallow…

That is quantum mechanics.

>…although that EXPLAINS a lot… xP

Again nothing new as this was stated to be the basis of the film.

I think the confusion happened as some were hoping for a CLEAN reboot and decanon/wipe away/elimination of TNG, Voyager etc. Again this film does NOT say Shatner’s Kirk history never happened. This is a different reality and is seperate from that one.

231. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#191—“They think that a starship engine room looks like a brewery?? GIMME A BREAK”

It doesn’t look like a brewery. They just happened to shoot some scenes in one. I was on a tour in a brewery a few months ago, and if I had not been told that some of the scenes had been shot in one, I wouldn’t have recognized it as such.

And it will make no more difference to me than it did when I learned that Dr. McCoy’s medical scanner was a salt shaker. What difference does it make?

“Yes they DID know, and yes they DID exist. They DESIGNED them, and they BUILT them.”

Um…no.

They made a visual interpretation of what they thought (from a 1960’s perspective) one might look like, hindered, of course, by having to acknowledge the limitations of what was feasible to depict. Then they erected some props, showed off (at the behest of the network) the new invention of color tv by painting with bright colors, and attempted to convince 1960’s television viewers that it could be the engineering section of a space vessel capable of faster-than-light travel.

The 1979 and 1982 visual interpretations of the same thing were vastly different, highlighting the presence of different mindsets and perspectives.

This is no different.

Once again, ST09 is not an historical piece. Production designers (especially when given the directive to “re-imagine”) should not ignore 4 decades of perspective altering time passage in anttempting to convince audiences to buy that this is a 23rd Century starship (unless they wish to be laughed at by the masses).

TOS= 1965-69 interpretation of a 23rd Century starship.

ST09= 2007-08 interpretation of a 23rd Century starship.

232. pock speared - May 5, 2009

#158
lose the “we” fans, buddy. don’t speak for me, period.
if hyperfools who can’t think past a set design for the sake of a piece of fiction get left behind crying “why?!”, great. please rent some old movies and watch them in garage with the car running.

or just stop trolling. either will do.

233. MH - May 5, 2009

Let’s take a tally here.

This week it’s the Engineering set.
Last week it was the look of the new Bridge…and lens flares?
The week before last it was the fact that Kirk was being portrayed as a rebel.
The week before, the week before that TILL NOW and BEYOND, it is the look of the new Enterprise…

What will you idiots complain about next week?!

I know, let’s start bitching about the look of the new hand Phasers…

2XX. random-fat-ass-trekker says:

OH MY GOD!!! I CAN’T BELIEVE THEY ARE SILVER!!! WHY DOES THEIR EMITTER FLIP?!!! THAT’S STUPID!!!

2XY. never-been-laid says:

I’M NEVER LEAVING MY PARENT’S BASEMENT TO SEE ANOTHER TREK MOVIE!!!

2XYZ. shatner-did-it-breast

WHY ISN’T SHATNER IN THIS???

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on your constant complaining.

234. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

231. Closettrekker: “It doesn’t look like a brewery.”

It sure looks like a brewery to me.

“…they erected some props, …with bright colors, and attempted to convince 1960’s television viewers that it could be the engineering section of a space vessel capable of faster-than-light travel.”

They DID NOT just slap something together; A LOT of thought when into those designs and their function.

“The 1979 and 1982 visual interpretations of the same thing were vastly different, highlighting the presence of different mindsets and perspectives.”

They were not vastly different, they all share the same basic configuration, and evolved from one to the next.

“This is no different.”

This is hugely different. JJ just slapped some set dressing on a brewery.

“Production designers (especially when given the directive to “re-imagine”) should not ignore 4 decades of perspective altering time passage in [attempting] to convince audiences to buy that this is a 23rd Century starship (unless they wish to be laughed at by the masses).”

I agree with you here (if I understand you). However this is exactly what happened. There was no “design”… they just redressed an existing brewery.

235. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#234—“They DID NOT just slap something together; A LOT of thought when into those designs…”

I never suggested that there was any absence of thought behind it—–just that the thought behind it was influenced by the time period in which it was produced.

“They were not vastly different”

We’ll just have to agree to disagree there. I see very little similarity between the engine room depicted in the early original movie era and the one seen in TOS. If I were to remove it from the context of “it’s just a movie made many years later with a different aesthetic take”, I would have had a hard time believing that it was just a refitted version of the same ship. But I was far more interested in the story than anything like that—-as I will be on Friday.

“JJ just slapped some set dressing on a brewery”

And by doing so, apparently got the shots he wanted. I honestly don’t see the difference between that and dressing up and adding sound effects to a salt shaker in TOS. It is absolutely the same principle.

236. sean - May 5, 2009

#219

Peter, we’re on the same page but I think you’re misinterpreting me. Bob Orci said in an interview on this very site that there was a sequence where Spock realizes that several things are lining up much as they did in the original timeline, and he makes reference to the timeline repairing or mending itself. In fact, part of the plot here is that these same people in wildly different circumstances still manage to come together despite the odds against that happening. Bob & Alex even said the events of this film DO NOT preclude many of the same events in the original timeline from taking place all over again. But they also might take place in a completely different way. It’s a wide open field.

237. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

230. Peter W: “[Creating NEW UNIVERSES] IS the basis of quantum mechanics. You and every other action creates an entire universe everytime a divergent choice is presented. Forked road do you go right or left?”

I’m not sure I buy this. Yes, the Multiverse is basic to quantum mechanics, but I don’t know about the “infinitely branching universes”…

“By making a specific choice of the two presented solutions — I am NOT going into divergent alternatives such as backtracking and not choicing either road even though those choice are ALSO resulting in creating new realities as that complicates the issue too much — you create a seperate reality to the opposite one you selected though BOTH exist and continue on. You went left, you created your counterpart’s universe where he went right. You went right, you created your counterpart’s universe where he went left. But both realities happen.”

I have even more trouble buying that infinite CHOICES create infinite universes.

238. sean - May 5, 2009

#234

“They were not vastly different, they all share the same basic configuration, and evolved from one to the next.”

Herbert, could you point out the warp core in TOS, then? Because I don’t see one (and there’s never any reference to one). I just see a long corridor with pipes and a grate that resembles the guts of the Red October. The warp core presented in TMP & TWOK is radically different. As is the one presented in Star Trek VI (mostly because it was just a redress of the TNG set).

239. RD - May 5, 2009

Closet, you make my point here. I could care less what engineering looks like from a Trek canon/history perspective. Heck, when TMP came out, I was in awe over what they came up. IT WAS SO MUCH BETTER THAN TOS.

Now I’ve already said my peace above (#97), but in summary, my objection is NOT THAT IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE SOMETHING THAT CAME BEFORE.

MY OBJECTION IS THAT IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE WHAT SOMEONE in 2007-2008 would reasonably imagine a 23rd Century engineering section to look like. Now, as you astutely pointed out earlier, no one knows what a warp capable starship’s engineering section will look like, but heck, Abram’s doesn’t even look like a nuclear fission submarine/aircraft carrier’s engine room in the 21st century … which by the way, I would have found much more realistic than their ultimate choice.

AND WE KNOW WHY IT LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES – JJ Abrams is on record about this: HE HAD A HARD ON FOR THE WAY TITANIC’S ENGINE ROOM LOOKED. END OF MYSTERY.

IT DOESN’T WORK. Not from a Trek fan perspective, not from a casual observer’s perspective, and not from a realistic expectation perspective.

Suspend your disbelief, no matter what they throw at you, is it?

240. The Governator - May 5, 2009

Jeez. OK, so some people don’t like the engineering and some people do. If you don’t like it, there will be sequels where this can be changed. The movie has been made. Why don’t we just try and enjoy what’s been provided instead of complaining about it?

241. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

Just saw the new clip shown during Fringe.

Looks great. The casting of this film is amazing from what I have seen.

Fahran Tahir (sp?) is very believable as a Starfleet captain. Well done.

242. GaryS - May 5, 2009

239 .
How would you know what I would imagine a 23rd engineering room would look like?

243. Closettrekker - May 5, 2009

#239—“JJ Abrams is on record about this: HE HAD A HARD ON FOR THE WAY TITANIC’S ENGINE ROOM LOOKED. END OF MYSTERY.”

I doubt he is “on record” saying any such thing.

What he is on record as saying (as recently as last week on Jimmy Kimmel) is that there wasn’t enough money left to build engineering, but after touring the Budwesier brewery, he found that he would be able to convey his interpretation of what it should look like. I find that quite creative.

“MY OBJECTION IS THAT IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE WHAT SOMEONE in 2007-2008 would reasonably imagine a 23rd Century engineering section to look like.”

You mean that it looks nothing like what *you* imagine a 23rd Century engineering section would look like. You’re hardly qualified to say anything more than that.

I find it believable (and having served aboard the USS Trenton, USS Tortuga, and USS Guam—-I have seen a variety of engine rooms).

“Suspend your disbelief, no matter what they throw at you, is it?”

Certainly not, but let’s put that into perspective, shall we?

You obviously are willing to suspend disbelief, or you wouldn’t be a Star Trek fan at all. Are the limited scenes from engineering more unbelievable than transporters? Warp drive? Slingshotting around the Sun to travel back in time? Alien women in go-go boots? The notion that at least half of the alien species in the Alpha Quadrant look no different than humans? The notion that the Federation, from the late-23rd Century on, operates without any form of currency?

Give me a break.

244. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - May 5, 2009

John From Cincinnati:

I noted you skipped right over where someone corrected your mistake about Star Trek comedies. I would like to add The Voyage Home to that list. And many of the episodes had very comedic moments. In fact the episode generally considered the best of all The City on the Edge of Forever had great comedy moments to balance the heavy dramatics.

The fact is as Chris Pine noted, Shatner injected quite a bit of humor into Kirk, to add to the mix of the things that make Kirk great. And he and Leonard and De had incredible chemistry and timing. I would hate for that to get slighted.

245. Christine - May 5, 2009

Aaaaahhhh, I’m going nuts with anticipation!

Okay, I admit. Engineering bugs me. But, ya know, I can deal with it, because that’s like .5% of the movie. The other 99.5% that I’ve seen concerning sets so far through previews has been excellent.

And #243 :: Agreed! It was quite creative of Abrams. And, as we all know, Trek only thrives fully on creativity.

246. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

238. sean: “Herbert, could you point out the warp core in TOS, then? Because I don’t see one (and there’s never any reference to one). I just see a long corridor with pipes and a grate that resembles the guts of the Red October. The warp core presented in TMP & TWOK is radically different. As is the one presented in Star Trek VI (mostly because it was just a redress of the TNG set).”

It is the triangular “tunnel” behind the grating on the wall in engineering, it is oriented horizontally, as it was on the NX-class.

When the Enterprise had it’s refit, the warp core was re-oriented vertically; subsequent versions retained the vertical orientation.

The details become more complex but the basic core is the same: a matter/antimatter reaction chamber.

247. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

239. RD: “Suspend your disbelief, no matter what they throw at you, is it?”

That’s what I’m going to TRY (hard) to do.. ;-)

248. snoopytrek - May 5, 2009

Instead of “this year’s ‘ironman'”…why can’t it be “this year’s ‘the dark knight'”…i didn’t like ironman…i know, not gonna start THAT debate again

249. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

235. Closettrekker: “I never suggested that there was any absence of thought behind it—–just that the thought behind it was influenced by the time period in which it was produced.”

Closettrekker: “As pretty as TOS engineering was, it didn’t look the least bit functional.”

Closettrekker: “…they erected some props, …with bright colors, and attempted to convince 1960’s television viewers that it could be the engineering section of a space vessel capable of faster-than-light travel.”

Closettrekker: “…[JJ] apparently got the shots he wanted [by just slapping some set dressing on a brewery].”

Maybe so, but they still look like a brewery…

Closettrekker: “I honestly don’t see the difference between that and dressing up and adding sound effects to a salt shaker in TOS. It is absolutely the same principle.”

No, it’s not. The medical scanner *might* have been made from a salt shaker… but a salt shaker, it was not. I’m sure a lot of work went into making it. It was very believable as a scanner. What I have seen of the set dressing on a brewery is NOT believable as Engineering. Comparing the medical scanner to Engineering, in itself is ridiculous.

250. RD - May 5, 2009

Closet … please. I never quoted Abrams, and I’m not going to now. What he said was something along the lines of, I was inspired by the Titanic’s engine room and wanted to make E’s have that feel. Infer what you will, none of us is in Abram’s mind.

Also, you put waaaaaay to much energy into dissecting what I write here. Suspending one’s disbelief has more to do with watching a movie or play than simply ignoring that the contrivances of a story are mere fantasy and not based in anything remotely real or believable. It also has to do with continuity and acting and dialogue. ANY NUMBER OF THINGS CAN TAKE YOU OUT OF THE MOVIE, the least of which is a reference to bending space time.

In particular what I am referring to is the kind of thing where you are watching a play and the backdrop falls revealing the stage underpinnings and rafters and actors standing around awaiting their cues in various stages of undress. In this case not a LITERAL gaff, but a complete and total visceral change that screams notice me, this is wrong. That’s what setting a film in a super-futuristic atmosphere does, then you open a door expecting one thing and they deliver the boiler room of the Titanic. It throws the mind for a loop. This is just as bad as if you could see the boom man standing on the edge of a scene. You’re mind says, wait a minute … what? Oh, OK I see … and by then you’ve missed a few moments of the film because you were taken out of it.

If you get down to the root of this problem I would call it bad filmmaking. Abrams made a decision that might take you out of the film.

It’s like watching “Star Trek” and suddenly switching the channels to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y39gHihP74

Either way, as for your experiences with naval engine rooms, were those the WWII era namesakes? Either way, there is only on of those ships built since 1970 and would argue that the nuclear power centers on any vessel built since 1980 would look VASTLY DIFFERENT than the engine rooms of any conventional naval vessel, especially one over half a century old.

I don’t like the engine room. Nor do MANY others, including some major reviewers, for any number of defensible reasons, the least of which is “it doesn’t look like Star Trek”. It won’t ruin the movie for me. I’m done with this thread.

251. Peter W - May 5, 2009

236. sean

> Peter, we’re on the same page but I think you’re misinterpreting me. Bob Orci said in an interview on this very site that there was a sequence where Spock realizes that several things are lining up much as they did in the original timeline, and he makes reference to the timeline repairing or mending itself

Yeah in certain overarching stretches such as in the Pine Kirk’s universe Kirk well without spoiling it does not have starfleet in his life and then the reason he is still in a black shirt of a cadet and everyone else is in a commissioned tunic Don’t peek let the movie surprise you.

> In fact, part of the plot here is that these same people in wildly different circumstances still manage to come together despite the odds against that happening.

The reason is not that they end up together but they accept that they are good together as a team and that they realize it. Again this Spock is a solid command officer and Pike believes that when Pike leaves Spock in command. But is that where he REALLY should focus his efforts? We see that decision when he again trusts HIS EMOTIONS rather than tries to do the repression denial technique.

>Bob & Alex even said the events of this film DO NOT preclude many of the same events in the original timeline from taking place all over again.

In a GENRAL OVERVIEW concept. As related earlier, Shatner’s Kirk is OLDER than Pine’s Kirk. So YES it is possible that SOME elements and SOME stories from Shatner’s Kirk could happen to Pine’s Kirk such as Kahn and time travelling City of Edge of Forever as these stories do NOT need the background of the original storyline from the original series.

But EARLIER stories that are based on this time frame such Ben Finney and Gary Mitchell formation and bonding stories and serving on the Farragut thus the cloud creature obsession episode etc and the obvious structure of Menagerie — THOSE stories can NOT happen in the Pine Kirk reality as this time frame is completely differnt from the Shatner Kirk reality..

>But they also might take place in a completely different way. It’s a wide open field.

Yeah those stories that are completely independent of backstory such as Kahn can still happen. Kirk meets undesribed space ship and goes on as in the Shatner reality. Doomsday Machine as it was as it depends on Shatner Kirk met and befriended Commodore Decker years earlier HIGHLY unlikely as Pine Kirk as low appreciation of higher officers and Pine Kirk’s specific background.

252. James Kirk's Unknown Son - May 5, 2009

What I’ve seen of engineering looks cool to me.

I have no problem with it.

Is it different? Of course.

But different is not necessarily bad.

My trekkie pedigree stretches back to 1966.

253. Captainfirst - May 5, 2009

Just wanted to let everyone know that Whitney Mathison over at USA Today’s “Pop Candy” Blog has seen an advance screening of the film and has nothing but good things to say about it. Me, I have my ticket for a 2 p.m. showing on Friday and can not wait- I haven’t been this excited about a Trek film since “Wrath Of Khan” came out in 1982.

254. cd - May 5, 2009

Once I got that this movie was an alternate universe, not just an alternate timeline, it was much easier to accept. I still don’t like the design choices I have seen and heard about: the bridge and engineering specifically.
But this is Star Trek: Elseworlds or Ultimate Star Trek or Star Trek of Universe AOK or Star Trek Zero (Orci called it that) or whatever, so if you don’t like it we still have Star Trek Prime or whatever you want to call it.

Wait 20 years and there will be another version.

>;>}

255. sean - May 5, 2009

#246

“It is the triangular “tunnel” behind the grating on the wall in engineering, it is oriented horizontally, as it was on the NX-class.”

That’s entirely possible, and what I referred to when I said “a long corridor with pipes and a grate that resembles the guts of the Red October”. There could be a warp engine under all that horizontal piping. However, a ‘warp core’ is never mentioned in TOS (and I don’t recall seeing anyone behind the grating working on the engines).

“When the Enterprise had it’s refit, the warp core was re-oriented vertically; subsequent versions retained the vertical orientation.”

Possible, but essentially fanon as it was never referenced on screen.

“The details become more complex but the basic core is the same: a matter/antimatter reaction chamber.”

Sorry, but this:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/8/8d/Constitution_original_engineering2.jpg

does not look anything like this:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e6/Constitution_class_refit_engineering.jpg

nor anything like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_keqD2V33Ro0/SOYQvrdijCI/AAAAAAAAAGY/8MOvUDFbrWs/s400/tngwarpcore01.jpg

256. I am not Herbert - May 5, 2009

Man! You are quickly becoming the next Closettrekker! ;-)

Here’s a little bit for you, then I’m hittin’ the sack…

From Memory Alpha:

Overview

Engineering’s primary purpose is to be the central point for control of all engineering systems aboard a starship, especially those related to propulsion and power generation. The matter/antimatter reaction chamber (also known as the warp core) is located in engineering.

Engineering can also be used as a command and control center, overriding primary centers such as the bridge or auxiliary control.

NX class starships of the 22nd century were the first Human vehicles to carry a warp reactor capable of speeds up to warp 5. (ENT: “Broken Bow”) Aboard an NX class ship, a section of engineering was situated on E Deck. (ENT: “Zero Hour”)

23rd century design

On the original Constitution-class starships, engineering was a two-deck-tall room that housed the main dilithium reactor and the engineering core as well as a large transparent grill that overlooked power conduits. The room was extensively refitted on Constitution-class starships in the late 2260s to include additional computers, offices, and rooms around the main area. (TOS: “The Corbomite Maneuver”, “The Naked Time”, “The Conscience of the King”, “The Ultimate Computer”, “Mirror, Mirror”, “Day of the Dove”)

Towards the end of the 23rd century, the engineering department on refit Constitution-class was drastically changed, spanning multiple decks. The uppermost level served as the structural support strong back of the ship, and was the anchoring framework for the connecting dorsal and the warp nacelle pylons.

On the forward end of this level was the engineering computer monitoring room, which encircled the intermix shaft and opened, to the rear, into the engineering computer bay. The rear bulkhead of the computer bay contained an emergency section door which lowered to the deck below, and separated the warp engine room from the extended horizontal intermix area; the door dropped automatically in the event of a radiation leak or pressure loss.

On the Constitution-class ship, a narrow corridor bypassed the computer bay on the port side and led aft, down the center of the level. On either side of this passageway were mounted the four maneuvering thrusters which rested beneath the upper hull of the secondary hull strong back.

These thrusters were used for vessel course control when within close proximity of drydock facilities.

The lower engineering deck typically housed the engineering department. Located in the center of the room, and extending for many levels both above and below the deck, was the vertical linear intermix chamber.

This complex, a radically new design in intermix technology, provided operational power for the impulse drive system and furnished enough additional energy to power all other shipboard systems. Both matter and antimatter for this chamber were contained in a series of magnetic bottles, which were normally housed in pods at the base of the intermix shaft.

These pods could be ejected from the ship in case of an extreme emergency via two large blow-away panels in the outer hull. (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)

24th century design

24th century starships featured a more modern approach to the engineering facility. Aboard the Galaxy-class starship, engineering was an open-plan facility, directly accessible from the corridor. Consisting of two primary levels, it housed the starship’s warp core and primary engineering support systems.

The corridor bulkhead housed the master systems display. Inside the main section, the master systems display was the operational focus of the room.

Beyond this, heading towards the warp core, the chief engineer’s office and several support consoles were located on the left, and the assistant chief engineer’s console on the right. These formed part of the bulkhead protecting the main part of engineering from the warp core.

Access to the upper level, a circular area surrounding the warp core, could be found by a ladder on the left of the core or an elevator on the right. (TNG: “Encounter at Farpoint”)

257. 'Jean-Luc' - May 5, 2009

#136 btw. daoud I urge you to read with comprehension, I saw the ENTIRE MOVIE yesterday, not just a clip, and that scene contradicts the “”””laws of physics”””” (see the quotes now?) in Star Trek that we used to know

258. star trackie - May 6, 2009

#249 “Closettrekker: “I honestly don’t see the difference between that and dressing up and adding sound effects to a salt shaker in TOS. It is absolutely the same principle.”

No, it’s not. The medical scanner *might* have been made from a salt shaker… but a salt shaker, it was not. I’m sure a lot of work went into making it. It was very believable as a scanner.”

Actually the salt shakers were some of his “scalpels” that we saw , on occasion, sitting on a tray beside where he was working. They were not dressed up in any way. His hand scanner was built from scratch.

Not to say that JJ’s vision of engineering had to be built from scratch. If he likes pipes for the look, then he did the most cost effective thing. I have no problem with that.

259. I am Kurok! - May 6, 2009

251. Peter W

One can only hope that Pine/Kirk’s ‘character arc’ continues in the sequels. We are much different people in our 30’s and 40’s than when we were in our 20’s.

Even in the ‘real’ world, being thrust into a command with tremendous responsibility is a life-changing event. . .

260. Sebi - May 6, 2009

My 2 cents:

The main engenieering in the new movie looks more like TOS that TMP did. Look at the TOS set! Pipes everywhere and no real warp core. I think we are just so used to seeing a warp core that we forgot that TOS didn’t even have on in it.

261. sean - May 6, 2009

#256

I’m not sure why you quoted an entire Memory Alpha article. Shall we bust out Sternbach’s TNG Tech Manual and Scotty’s Guide To The Enterprise while we’re at it? As for being Closettrekker, Jr. – thanks for the compliment!

We’re talking about appearances, period. Not how fans or writers have decided the fictional engines work over the years (and trust me, I am familiar with the explanations and minutiae of engine operation – sad as that might be!). You said these engine rooms were not vastly different in appearance and shared the same configuration, and as I pointed out via pictures, that’s simply not true. Other than they are all rooms with walls. If we’re going that basic, then yes, they’re all the same ;)

262. Spockish - May 6, 2009

I use to think I knew allot of details about the Enterprise, but things brought up here make me look like a newbie to the seen. We may still be just entering the path to a future in space. and the rockets of the 60’s were no more that pins trust by rubber bands. And the Space shuttle is no more than a mouse trap powered car that was a high school science project.

And our next thought of attempt the Venture Star, which was staring to look like a real spaceship, that got canceled by the company my brother works for because there was to many untested new items to be tried. This spaceship looked more like a fly wheel powered match box car on scale to All versions of the Enterprise.

What will real spaceships look like when we get to that complexity of a spaceship. I bet many will want to model those ships after what was created back when we were flinging pins with humans tapped to them by rubber bands in the 60’s.

They may not be in size of the Thesaurus but the simplicity of physics say sphere are the best structured and best thing engineering has to offer. Other shapes are only meant to please humans emotionally.

So who here wants to design future star ships that will really work. Until those times arrive the current dreams of spaceships are just as valid as any others. And any fighting over them has no importance, currently any idea is valid with as many or as few flaw as they come with.

It’s just those that believe, believe so based on their education levels. So you are better off fighting over who has a better built brain that which is a better spaceship

263. John from Cincinnati - May 6, 2009

244.

I love how you skim over the most important words of a post to suit your argument. I never said Star Trek wasn’t funny or didn’t have humor. Humor is part of the heart of Star Trek, but to say Star Trek is a comedy series would make you incorrect. Star Trek picked it’s places to be funny, and did so intelligently like McCoy and Spock’s bantering back and forth. If every episode was slapstick, it would embody the type of show as seen in Galaxy Quest. My fear is the humor in this movie is so trivial, poorly done and frequent, that it becomes a parody of itself.

264. Closettrekker - May 6, 2009

#258—-“The medical scanner *might* have been made from a salt shaker… but a salt shaker, it was not. I’m sure a lot of work went into making it. It was very believable as a scanner.”

As I am sure that alot of work went into framing the shots in the brewery to present the illusion that the background is part of the bowels of the Enterprise.

“If he likes pipes for the look, then he did the most cost effective thing. I have no problem with that.”

Agreed.

265. Closettrekker - May 6, 2009

The first quote above is from #249, not #258.

Sorry, Star Trackie. That was directed at “I Am Not Herbert”.

266. Closettrekker - May 6, 2009

#250—“What he said was something along the lines of, I was inspired by the Titanic’s engine room and wanted to make E’s have that feel. Infer what you will, none of us is in Abram’s mind”

I found it fairly easy to comprehend—–by “having that feel”, he probably means the look of functionality and contrast between her beautiful exterior and the not-so-pretty area where the ship is actually driven.

“…the nuclear power centers on any vessel built since 1980 would look VASTLY DIFFERENT than the engine rooms of any conventional naval vessel, especially one over half a century old.”

Fair enough, but the Enterprise engine room shots don’t convey an exact feel of either. The point was to contrast the look and feel of the bridge with the look and feel of the ship’s bowels—-as if to convey that there is some real ‘sweat’ behind the engines. I haven’t seen it in anything more than a brief shot, but nothing I have seen yet has convinced me that it was ineffective.

267. Closettrekker - May 6, 2009

And Sean is, and has always been, his own man. Just because he happens to share some of my opinions (but certainly not all of them), doesn’t mean he is somehow striving to be like me. Sean comes to conclusions very much on his own.

268. Donn - May 6, 2009

Just a side note about the yellow “pipes,” not that anybody cares (from the posts here, it seems you either hate the whole idea or are not concerned about how engineering looks), they are not pipes for transport of liquid per se, but structural tubing, which is probably as scientifically accurate as anything. Welded tubes are a space efficient and structurally sound way to support a large open structure, such as perhaps the engineering section of a starship. Of course, there are actual pipes in the scene as well, but they appear to be stainless steel or somesuch.

Getting down to it: If you don’t think a redressed brewery is credible as the engineering section, that’s cool. We can agree to disagree. I think it’s fine, and if it really was an effort to save costs, I’m please with where the money was spent, so I have no complaint. The E looks great, the bridge looks great, clearly no expense was spared in the visual effects.

But red bussard collectors versus blue? Are you freaking kidding me? Who ACTUALLY cares? One thing’s for damn sure, I am a hardcore Trekker, at least by my definition and the definitions of the people I know, and it doesn’t bother me one whit if the front of the nacelles is blue. It looks good to me.

Let’s sum up: I am a hardcore fan, and I am not pissed off by the Enterprise’s nacelles or any other damn change. What pisses me off is other folks ranting like a child and speaking for me. So don’t. 158, 161, etc.

269. sean - May 6, 2009

#267

Little do they remember our heated debate over Romulan liquor labels in The Wrath of Kahn! ;)

270. Tormentor - May 7, 2009

LOL. What’s up with you guys? “Oh no, you were speaking for me, and that annoys the hell out of me, I’m going to kill a kitten!” Why do you care what somebody else says?

271. TREK MOVIES:”STAR TREK” Y SU NUEVA BANDA SONORA. « AMIGOS TREK CHILE - May 8, 2009

[…] ‘Thrilling Review’ spot […]

272. Damon - May 9, 2009

This movie was not good though i was not disappointed since I had low expectations from JJ Jewface. JJ did exactly what he does best. Takes a weak screenplay, spends allot of money on special effects adds some sex and tada you have another film just like all the others. the title or plot (if they bothered to include one) of the film is moot it will be just like every other film JJ Jewface is involved in. If JJ had remade Bonanza it would be very similar to star trek as would his remake of gone with the wind… But Frankly I dont give a dam!

273. Brian - May 12, 2009

Completely disappointed! I have been waiting for this to come out forever. I was anticipating an epic sci fi drama similar to the first Star Wars. I was hoping that this movie would redeem star trek from the previous movie attempts but there was no real storyline, the Ramulons were boring and the most irritating part is that they showed all of the compelling parts of the film in the trailer. Really freakin lame and I paid $18 to see it at the Imax.

274. Fordem - May 22, 2009

When Roddenberry [creator] died, there goes Star Trek down the tubes. The quality, characters, everything was cheapened for a quick buck. Quality job none! Soap Trek, the Last episode! Didn’t JJ Abrams know that the original has a following? Can you say Racial stereotyping!!!! Pitiful.

275. deetweet - May 31, 2009

DALLAS!!!!
Does anyone else feel that, since the timeline has now been effectively wiped out, everything we’ve watched TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc. have been erased? Does anyone else feel cheated by this? I mean, if they wanted to reboot the franchise, why didn’t they do just that? Why did they need the reason to justify themselves by introducing another time travel episode? I feel as if Bobby has just stepped out of the shower, or they’ve just collectively jumped the shark!

276. Omar - May 31, 2009

I feel VERY Cheated. I went to see how kirk, spock and everyone else met, what happened in starfleet academy etc and what I got was an alternate reality . .. so I did not get to see what I wanted to see. Do I throw away my star trek dvds now?

Incredible how horrible this movie was . .

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