The Star Trek trailer hit the Trek world by storm this week, including the contributors to TrekMovie.com. Anthony, the Editor in Chief, has weighed in with his trailer review (and his 20 minute preview analysis), but today some of the other contributors put in their two cents on the trailer, including some observations from their unique perspectives.
WWJD? (What would Jung Do?)
by John Tenuto – Consigliere / Shatnerologist / Collectibles Editor
[also a Professor of Sociology]
[NOTE analysis includes SPOILERS]
Swiss Psychologist Carl Jung never knew Star Trek. Yet, based on the 20 minutes of footage seen by the press and the trailer, it is obvious that if Jung never heard of Star Trek, the creators of the new movie know Jung. The more we hear about Star Trek 2009, the more evident it is that the characters and narrative are even more mythological than ever before. The theories of Carl Jung and mythologist Joseph Campbell about how archetypes creep into a storyteller through the collective unconscious we all share have never been more applicable to a Star Trek film.
Jung and Campbell, writing separately, yet whose work intertwines, both suggest that there is the monomyth and the hero with a thousand faces. What they mean is that because we all share archetypal definitions (or definitions of perfect or ideal types, for example, mt of us would agree what a perfect mother or father should be like) it is not surprising that narratives and characters from fiction are similar. The story of Superman is much the same story as Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter. Whether created in England or the United States, Russia or Kenya, our heroes are pretty much the same and experience pretty much the same things in all our mythologies.
The new Star Trek film is obviously riffing on mythology, perhaps in a way that Star Trek has never really done before. When people think of science fiction and archetypes, they tend to think of Star Wars (Lucas consulted with Campbell). It isn’t fair to say that Star Trek never expressed archetypes or monomyth themes before now (in fact, many academic essays have been written on the idea). However, as more and more is known about the film, the comparison to ideas of Jung and Campbell are replete, especially when thinking of the character known as James T. Kirk.
The Hero: James T. Kirk
For Campbell, the Hero can take two main forms, the citizen hero (sometimes called the compassionate hero, like Superman) or the rogue hero (sometimes called the passionate hero, like Batman). The Pine version of Kirk appears to have elements of both. Like all citizen heroes, we now know that this version of Captain Kirk has a special birth. Kal-El escapes from Krypton or Luke Skywalker is born in unusual circumstances, and while these heroes have a special birth, they live in meager environments. We see the birth of Kirk in the trailer, and we know from media reports that his father dies saving him and many others on the USS Kelvin. A father or mother sacrificing so a child may be born is a common theme of mythology. And, like many citizen heroes, from Luke Skywalker to Harry Potter to Dorothy from Oz, Kirk is raised in Iowa, on a farm.
Kirk also has features of a rogue hero. Rogue heroes usually start off needing redemption, the form of which is usually offered by meeting other hero partners and meeting the challenges of the narrative. Han Solo, for example, is a selfish criminal when we first meet him. Through his interactions with Luke and friends, and through their shared adventures, he redeems himself at the end by helping destroy the Death Star. Yet, Han is brash and cynical in a way Luke is not, and his roguish nature is what is attractive to women and makes him a fan favorite. Rogue heroes are usually characters who enjoy things like hotrods (witness Han’s love affair with the Millennium Falcon, with its miniature dice in the window in Episode IV). It appears that Kirk starts out this way, also. He obviously likes fast cars and motorcycles, gets in trouble with robotic looking law enforcers, and the scene described by the media in the bar with Uhura and her fellow cadets sure sounds like Kirk needs redeeming.
The Hero’s Journey: Kirk and his Boon
Every hero’s journey has a boon. A boon is the treasure, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or the Grail at the end of the crusade. However, boons are often not things, but more ephemeral treasures such as knowledge or courage. Indiana Jones never keeps the item he is seeking (the government gets the Ark, the villagers get the Sankara Stones, the Grail stays where it is, and the aliens leave). That is because Lucas and Spielberg know the item isn’t Indy’s boon. The boon in Raiders of the Lost Ark is Indy learning to respect religion and reestablishing his relationship with Marion. In the Temple of Doom, it is learning that fortune and glory and not as important as family. In The Last Crusade, the boon is restoring the connection to the father. And in the fourth film, it is finding that family is indeed the greatest treasure.
Kirk’s boons are already evident. The first is his command of the Enterprise, something that we have always known is his first, best destiny. The second is his own redemption from individualistic to group leader. He will obviously earn other things along the way, which include friendships and a purpose. He will probably also come to grips with the legacy of his father, as saves others just like the old man.
What is amazing is that just the two minute trailer (and the reports of the 20 minute preview), the mythological themes of Star Trek are already asserting themselves. It will be interesting to see how Jung and Campbell’s ideas are expressed in the entire narrative.
A hero is (re) born
It’s about ‘the millennials’
by Matt Wright – Asst. Editor
There is a is a lot of buzz (and fan controversy) about the new trailer, but an important element to bear in mind is: demographics. This trailer aimed to catch the attention of the "millennials", the young adults born in the 1990’s who are now moving into the prime teen and early adult age range. These are the movers and shakers when it comes to pop culture and product consumption. And to them, Star Trek is a relic from the ’80s or, even worse, the long gone 1960s with almost no context.
The successful recent genre "restarts" (for lack of a better term), like Batman, Bond, and even Transformers, were all re-made to be relevant to the 21st century. Batman and James Bond had to reinvent its main character for a new generation. Batman comes from just before World War II and James Bond comes from a post-WWII era, historical contexts most people under 70 know very little about in a tangible way. Re-introducing stories isn’t new; humans have been updating and changing fables, myths, and time tested works of literature for every era.
For the youth of today the 1960s has been reduced to a phrase: "a time of upheaval, and change", without any real grasp of why or how these changes emerged. Star Trek was a Parsonian view of change, order, and progress. This paradigm has little relevance to a teen of today. In the post-modern world we’re cynical about progress while being more reliant on, and connected by, technology then most could have imagined 20+ years ago. Further, teens today don’t really remember before 9/11. They were 11 years old or maybe as old as 13. Sept. 11 was a radical shift in the American social landscape: changing the political climate, the way we communicate, and the liberties we feel we should have.
This is not to say that teens should be pandered to, quite the opposite. Pandering is humoring, and that’s simply a hollow form. It’s more that these new cultural realities must be encompassed to be relevant to the youth who are the key to the film’s mainstream success, and Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman seem to know how to appeal to this generation. I do not envy their task of making the Trek legacy relevant to both the 1960s optimism and the 2000s cynicism.
So am I happy that we have an "iBridge"? not so much. Will it matter if it reinvigorates the franchise I love? Nope. If it works, it works. I’m willing to allow for change. Although I do not want the essence of Trek lost to a "music video sensibility" story, so far this is just a trailer, and on that is clearly aimed at hooking those with the MTV sensibility, and it is far too early to make out what the story will really entail.
Can Paramount bring back the kids?
Realizing the 23rd century
by Kayla Iocovino – Science & Technology Editor
From a scientific perspective, it is hard to say much about the new trailer. There are still plenty of unanswered questions regarding how scientifically accurate the movie will be. But just based on what we know so far, my guess is that the movie will be fairly accurate, at least in the realm of science fiction. As far as visuals go, JJ and crew brought aboard Carolyn Porco, the Cassini Imaging Team Leader for NASA’s Cassini Spacecraft currently in orbit around Saturn. With her help, the shots of space, planets, nebulae and so forth should be stunning and realistic.
Going off the trailer, we can look at Abrams’s portrayal of future technologies; things like flying cars (or motorcycles), compact angular buildings, and of course, space ships. What we can see, which again isn’t much considering the devil is in the details when it comes to this stuff, makes it look like the people behind the new movie really want to capture Trek in a more believable and relevant way than ever before. In my opinion the trailer represents the rebirth of a franchise.
If the movie truly is as exciting and action packed as the trailer makes it seem, Star Trek is going to be a highly successful box office draw next Summer.
This Trek should look realer than any before
Mulling over the details
by Robert Lyons – Books Editor
Having seen the trailer, both on the big screen and repeatedly on the web, I’ve had a wide array of thoughts about it. My first thoughts were somewhat unflattering; I wasn’t a huge fan of the newly revealed Enterprise, the new bridge, or the new uniforms when I saw them in still-life, but the trailer helped them to grow on me at least marginally. I’m still not sold on the new design ethic, but I am trying to keep an open mind. Some thoughts that have flowed from viewing the trailer:
- In many ways, the new Enterprise looks far more massive than feels right, making me think more of the USS Star Empire from the Diane Carey novel "Dreadnought".
- Kirk, in the car chase sequence, appears to be old enough to be on Tarsus IV (TOS: The Conscience of the King), but we have already heard that this takes place in Iowa. I’ll be curious to learn more about the car chase, as I sure can’t think of a reason for a canyon in Iowa.
- The new transporter effect is growing on me, as is the starship Kelvin. I’m still holding out for now on the Enterprise, but I really like what I have seen of the warp drive effects.
- I’m pretty sure that Bruce Greenwood owns Pike.
- The Vulcan sequences were exceptionally well done.
- Nero’s delivery of the trailer’s final line is flawlessly chilling, taking my mind back to some of Khan’s greatest phrases. And that look on his face when he says "The wait is over" is perfect.
- Between the pictures I have seen and the trailer, I think that Karl Urban should have been cast as Gary Mitchell, not Dr. McCoy.
- Skydiving fistfights didn’t work for Battlestar Galactica (Razor), or for Quantum of Solace, and I sure hope nobody has tried to try to make them work for Star Trek.
Some of the concerns that the recently released photos from the movie stirred have been quelled, and while I still have a level of concern about the new movie, I am remaining optimistic about it.
Urban playing Jim’s early best friend, but not Mitchell?
Gauging the Memory Alpha effect
by Charles Trotter – News & Celeb Editor
After avoiding the trailer spoilers, when it first started playing in my theater and that Corvette roared on the screen, I didn’t even realize it was Trek (which was probably the point). In fact, I thought it was another trailer for a Fast and Furious flick with Vin Diesel and I initially didn’t pay a lot of attention to it. When I realized that a kid was driving and the cop chasing him was on a hover bike and appeared to be a robot — this had me going, "what the hell?" When the kid proudly proclaimed himself to be James Tiberius Kirk, I was at first shocked, then my extreme nerdity took over and my complete attention was on the screen.
What followed on the screen was simply amazing, especially after covering all the casting news it was great seeing these actors bring these legendary characters to life. Based just on this 2-minute trailer, I am fully confident that the actors did fantastic jobs in each of their roles. I was disappointed that we never caught a glimpse of Nimoy in the trailer, but, hey, at least we got to see Rachel Nichols’ Orion babe! How awesome is that? The Enterprise especially looks lovely. I must say that the new design is growing on me fast. Based on the glimpses I’ve seen, Ryan Church is right: he and his team have designed us a fine ship, one which looks to certainly earn the name of Enterprise.
Now, having said all this, I do have some concerns over what I have seen in the trailer. You may not know this (or maybe you do), but in addition to writing for TrekMovie.com, I am also an archivist and administrator at Memory Alpha, an encyclopedia for canon Trek. Needless to say, I am wondering how this movie will affect the current state information at Memory Alpha since, judging by the trailer, the new movie will be toying with established canon quite a bit. There are several shots in the trailer which definitely raises a few canon-related questions. Why is the Enterprise being built in Iowa? How is it that Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov are apparently officers while Kirk is still a cadet? I can’t wait to see the explanations for these apparent contradictions but I don’t look forward to the chaos it will all cause at Memory Alpha.
However, these concerns pale in comparison to how psyched I am about this movie. I didn’t think I could get more excited over it before the trailer was released, but I was wrong; the trailer promises a movie that looks better than anything I could have imagined. I can only hope it follows through on that promise.
This is just the tip of the iceburg for the ripple effects to Memory Alpha
Can’t Wait for it to come out!
Look at the photo directly above my post….on the left…..that would seem to be Pine, but……..my gawd……it looks like Jeffrey Hunter as Pike!!
Gary Mitchell. I miss Gary Mitchell.
I’ve gotten a Gary Mitchell vibe from Urban, too.
Yeah. Imagine if this film was actually set on the Enterprise and about how Pike took command from April, with Pine as Pike. I imagine it wouldn’t have had the mass appeal and the built in context, but I bet there’d be less canon fights!
“A Music Video Mentality”
YES! That’s what I was looking for but didn’t know how to describe.
Being older than DIRT, I’d rather watch an old Cary Grant movie than anything staring Tom Cruise.
When movies first began, they were written by writers that READ books. Then after Star Wars, movies were written by writers that WATCHED movies.Now films are being made by people that grew up on MTV. Witness Charlies Angels. You’ll think of your own examples yourself, I’m sure.
Notice that scary movies are cheap copies of Sam Raimi’s Dead movies. I’ll never see a “Saw” movie because I saw the originals in the 70’s.
Books dont interest people that like information presented to them in little bites or bytes. Books are static. Three minutes of watching someone shaking her bonbons is dynamic.
I’ve never looked so forward to a Trek film. I suspect we’re beginning a new golden age for Star Trek. God bless Abrams.
It’s not a canyon, it’s a quarry.
One last thought
(I’m old, I dont have all my thoughts at one time anymore)
The design of the Big E
has anyone ever really thought about why it looks the way it does?
Consider that the Horizon was the first Enterprise design. It was rejected. GENE said to Jefferies it must not look like a Flash Gorden or Buck Rogers ship or a current real life rocket. Other than that, he had free reign.
Horizon was just a sketch.
The Enterprise looks like a ship, a real wet navy ship. The Secondary Hull has the lines of a galleon or a wooden frigate. The nacelles look like rockets, but evoke the feel of sails. The saucer feels like a deck. It doesnt look like the real USS Constitution, but it feels like it.
I agree completely! That’s why the writers of film should be a little older, while leaving the frenetic pace of the movie to the younger directors!
At least older writers have an idea of storyline, subtext and substance compared to the hyper-paced frantic attention span of people under 25!
6. MGB- did you spend the 70’s like I did reading and re-reading the Blish books? That’s how I grew up on Star Trek without DVD!
I do believe Hollywood has become very homogenized. I find myself enjoying films I probably shouldn’t just because they are DIFFERENT. Movies that aren’t just following the tropes and formulas of the day- movies like “The Fountain” and “Solaris.” Of course, these movies aren’t money makers. Here’s to hoping the new film maintains some level of literacy and intellectualism while still appealing for popularity.
Never in the history of cinema have so many words been written about a movie yet so far from release.
Well, never say “never.” There’s always the next sequel to consider.
About the “music video mentality”: I hardly think that two minutes’ worth of trailer is sufficient to indict the new movie as just so much MTV glitz. Whatever happened to actually watching the movie before judging it, anyway?
Rather than a music video mentality, I would wonder whether, based on the style of Cloverfield, the new Star Trek might have more of a cinema verite feel to it. If it does, then so be it. It would be something new, wouldn’t it?
… Or perhaps not. Think back to the prologue to “Emissary” (DS9). There was chaos all around; the camera was moving herky-jerkily as Sisko tried to save his dying wife. Finally, by a hair’s breadth, he escaped in an emergency pod. That was cinema verite at its best.
Bring on the shock of the new.
You know it!
Star Trek Logs or something like that. I had the blueprints, the joke books, and even played SFB with paper and pencils long before D&D
Realer than before? Is that even a word?
Instead of being reduced to the term of uphavel and change maybe we should use the quote
a time for reckless self indulgencs that cashed in at the first opertunity and now lives the life of the guive me im old mentality
at the expence of our remaining recources that are the future
the 60s are a dead and usless time that contributed nothing but blured memories and whining decadence that apparently we need to be romantic about (puncuation and gramer omited) leave the future alone and let star trek be the income that it has to be to survive
the time star trek was created in took a dump on its future and
all its ideals no longer exhist and never did
150 million is an investment not an ideal acept the future for what it is and leave the past where it belongs
dead and usless
I’m glad our first analyst mentioned mythological archetypes in reference to Trek. I’ve always thought the prime difference between Original Trek, particularly its characters, and any other form that came after, is that Kirk and the rest of the original seven are somewhat like mythological heroes, like Jason and the Argonauts. Whereas, those that followed are written to be more real, and come off as not, and are far less dramatic as a result.
Even their names ring out in a different way, in dramatic staccato. You could seriously deliver a seven punch combo to somebodies face, saying the names of the Original Enterprise crew with each impact of your fist, and not sound like an idiot. On the contrary, the crew from “Enterprise” sounds like this year’s pride parade organizers in comparison.
Even the recent miring of Trek heroes in technical solutions detracts from their status as mythological heroes. There is absolutely nothing heroic about how the crew of Voyager gets themselves out of trouble almost every week. It is usually a question of pressing many buttons in a combination that is considered unorthodox. While Roddenberry aimed for accurate science, he aimed for it as the reason for his crew to be where they are when the adventure takes place, not the sole reason for the adventure. True human conflict, whatever the resolution, requires no techno-babble.
hat rick. your jedi mind tricks don’t work on me, i will still not go see it. the trailer has convinced me that this is for the ipod generation. or ipod 3rd generation. or ipod nano. no, ipod touch. yeah, that’s it. that’s the ticket.
but I’m not buying that ticket. even if Mr. Fandango gives it to me for free.
Those who don’t learn from history……..ah, never mind!
Amen! Remember the “Best of Trek” books, and fanzines actually printed on paper and delivered in the mail? SFB, and Federation Space, and other weird old games (though I know they still produce SFB). Fan produced reference guides like the Starfleet Medical manual. Those were good times. Being a fan then required effort and dedication. I miss that in a lot of ways, but I sure do like having the internet to talk about Trek on. If only we could mix that old dedication with the web… oh wait- it’s called “Phase II.”
“The Shock of the New” is what prompts NYC “artists” to create “art” out of feces.
Now I know who buys that crap
You really think shock jocks are funny?
Rodney Dangerfield and Milton Berle were funny.
Here’s a Redd Foxx joke: “What’s the difference between a peeping tom and a thief? One snatches watches, while the other …” and he leaves it for you to finish the joke in your own head.
With experience comes wisdom, someday you may learn that, if you live long enough.
Wow the staff love it – what a surprise.
Well, it’s a cool trailer. Remember that there were two pilots for Star Trek. They looked different from each other, and yet, both remain popular to this day.
Has anyone thought that the next trailer might just be a bit more toned down and storyline driven? Everyone’s jumping the gun on a movie that’s still months and months away. I’d love to slip a valium into all your morning coffees…
I’m still not convinced. Will this be a good movie worth to watch? Perhaps, but I have to admit Special Effects and action are too less to make me going in a cinema anymore (maybe I’m getting old these days). To target the young people is allways a good strategy, so it seems. But the MTV-generation kiddies don’t care for any franchise. They just want have fun for an eveneging and that’s enough. Star Trek will be staying in their memory until the next action movie come up, maybe Wolverine – and after that, Star Trek will be forgotten and left for us true-fans.
I can understand that Paramount wants a piece of the cake (a big piece of course), but I doubt it will be Star Trek that will delivers it to them. Transformers or Iron Man 2 are the next huge hits next year, IMO. No Star Trek movie ever was a so huge success as the one Paramount is hoping for now (not even TVH and First Contact). This movies costs 150 mil. $ and have to bring in much more than 300 mil. $ to be considered as a success. But Trek has to run against Wolverine next year and many kiddies say THAT guy is much cooler than any Star Trek character. Consider all the other “cool” movies next year: Terminator, Transformers, Iron Man, Harry Potter… who wants to see a Star Trek movie then?
I know a bunch of not-Trekkers out there and many of them had seen the new trailer allready. Some said “cool”, others said “Oh no, not again”. I’ve asked them if they’ll plan to see it and some said “Well, perhaps, perhaps not”, but the most said “Perhaps when it comes out on DVD.” I’m not very optimistic by now. It was brave, but very risky for Paramount to spend 150 mil. $ for that movie. But perhaps a budget around 90 or 100 mil. $ would have been enough to create a fantastic movie.
Will it please the majority of old fans? Possible
WIll it bring in new fans? Possible
Will it a major world-wide mega-blockbuster-sucess? Very unlikley
Will it the doom of Star Trek? I hope not.
So let’s turn Trek into a Video game. Two hours of Explosions, and sex for the Millenials. Trek is at it’s best when about people and ideas. Sad that we need to transform it to cater to the “No attention span” generation.
I hope it bombs.
Who are you to presume what the “MTV-generation” is looking for when they go see a movie? And what the hell is the “MTV-generation” anyway? MTV has been around for 20+ years, so we can all quit stereotyping the younger people. I’m 22, and when my friends and I go to see a movie we go because the movie looks good…not because we’re looking for a fun evening. That’s what the bars are for. I’ve been a Trekkie my entire life, so I’m obviously thrilled with the promise of this movie. I’ve shown this trailer to everybody, from my 5 fraternity roommates to my younger 21 year old sister and her volleyball teammates. Every one of them has agreed that it looks amazing and will go see it with me. Stop ripping the trailer for being action-oriented. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY. The trailer is not meant for us fans but for the non-fans. The action and Uhura taking off her top are meant to garner interest from the guys and Pine’s handsome mug is for the ladies. These factors bring in the non-fans and THEN they get hooked on the story. It’s not that hard to understand.
Will this be a good movie to watch? Uh, it better be. Trek hasn’t been good in the movies since First Contact.
Why oh why is everyone convinced the Enterprise is being built in Iowa? California has flat places, too, and enough time has elapsed between young Kirk’s Corvette scene and older Kir’s motorcycle scene for him to get from one place to the other.
I thought the skydiving fight in Razor was fantastic. (Not that Trek needs to duplicate it, mind you.)
28 – Have you read the several stories on this site about the screening of several scenes? The first scenes of the movie and the Enterprise take place in Iowa.
I’ve been a major Trek fan since the first film in late ’79 (I’m 33 now)
I’m just hoping that is still retains the charm and ideas of the Roddenberry/Coon/Bennett stories. Those three know what Trek is certainly about,
I’m no too much into the visuals as much as long as the story and acting are there. I’m really hoping the writing meets the old vibe of Trek in general.
I think the Trek shows and films lost their ‘touch’ since Roddenberry passed for the most part. There were some great episodes that did get that vibe every now and then, but a lot of it turned into either just another soap opera ala 90210 or just a shoot em up with not much behind it.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually have liked most of Trek for the past 30 years, there have been some duff episodes/movies here and there, but they all have been at least good and watchable. I actually thought that Nemesis was actually pretty good, except for that wedding scene, it was horribly written and executed..it looked too forced and the shabby acting shows it.
My God….its full of stars
Gary Mitchell….I had almost forgotten about that character.
Maybe the next movie?
#25 – “So let’s turn Trek into a Video game. Two hours of Explosions, and sex for the Millenials. Trek is at it’s best when about people and ideas. Sad that we need to transform it to cater to the “No attention span” generation.”
Sad that you thought this worthy to post. Please, do share with us, point by point, all the scenes you saw of the new movie to make such a statement. Go on please.
Carl Jung und der Archetyp… bis zur Wiedergeburt einer Legende.
Strong stuff John, Matt, Kayla and Robert.
This is a fine thread. I love the observations from all the Trekmoviedotcom contributors.
I’m not sure I can add to any of the posts above. I still feel like I’m taking it in. I’ve only watched the trailer about 100 times now, so I may have missed something.
23d Century Bridge littered with 21st Century retail Bar Code Scanners.
This is the sort of thing that bothers me. Lazy and unimaginative.
Fire the set director.
It makes me feel like somehow the person that thought it would look futuristic to have BAR CODE SCANNERS all over the bridge and that we wouldnt know what they were thinks we’re clueless.
Its the same thing that made me angry (to a lesser degree) with some of teh decisions that Meyer made in his films but THIS film has a much bigger budget so there is NO excuse.
Lazy and unimaginative unless everybody has to scan their own groceries on the bridge..
I finally went and saw Quantum of Solace (good stuff) tonight, and was fortunate enough to see the Star Trek trailer on screen. Having seen it several times to date, I knew what to look for. The Enterprise, the Kelvin, and Spock Prime’s Time Ship are all stunning. The reverse angle of the Enterprise warping away just fills me with a sense of thrill & power.
I will be able to stomach a few scenes of bratty kid Kirk & Uhura bra antics in exchange for a helping of majestic views of the Enterprise in movement. Also, the prospect of Spock’s upbringing is appealing, and I believe there is potential for substance there — perhaps more so than for Kirk’s upbringing. (This Boy’s Life is a great movie, but I don’t want to spend a lot of time on that period in Kirk’s life as a boy).
25 – What’s interesting to me is that every generation for the last three quarters of a century has felt the need to condemn the one below it as having ‘no attention span’. Which suggests it isn’t, and never has been, true.
Plus ca change?
I have to say, this site does a good job of sucking all the excitement and life out of that trailer, I’m surprised Bob Orci can bear to look at this board at times. He must have the thickest skin of any writer ever. More power to him.
#26 – Thank you for that. It’s always good to have a reminder that I’m not the only one born in the 80s and the 90s who are Trek fans.
The more I hang around TrekMovie, the more I’m convinced that there will be a whole bunch of fans who will show up on May 8th next year just to prove to themselves that JJ Abrams’ Star Trek was the final nail in the coffin (and then they’ll come online to go “I told you so!”).
And for this bunch of “fans”, I thank you. Your continued interest in the downfall of this movie will hopefully push it to the #1 spot for many many weeks. Why? Because the more some people want it to fail, the more it will spur others to make it succeed.
I must admit , I have found the five editorials exhilirating and thought provoking . So these critical reviews , that one thinks about , or looks and searches for (of course its not always possible) , and it should be said , we had always considerably hoped , that this scifi series could have evoked an intellectual response , and that it is very much an interesting contact discussion ?!! Yes , very enjoyable !!
Ok, I was a bit exaggerating with the MTV-Generation. It would have been better to name that word millenials (it was very unwise to name it MTV-Gen. I have to admit). I appologize if you feel offended by my comments. It was not meant against you or your sister’s volleyball-team. How younger people see the trailer: Well, different locations, different opionions I presume. My comment was not meant against the millienials, only general concerns about the younger generations taste of movies or how they think about them.
In the age between 13 to 17 a movie has to rock. Story, the grade of acting or logic is not so important (A feel for that grows only with the years). So, it is meaningless if the movie is called Star Trek, Transformers or Wolverine, it has to be fun and it has to be entertaining. I know that, because I know many, many younger adults and teenagers. For example: Everyone I know (in the range between 13 and 20) likes the new Bond. It was a very good movie, superb acting, action without end – But the day after, QOS was forgotten and the younglings looking forward for the next possible great movie. No one was mad a Bond-fan because of QoS. No one plans to watch the older Bonds because of QoS. The same might happen with Star Trek too. They’ll see it, they’ll like it and they’ll forget it the day after. No one will watch TOS, TNG, DSN, VOY or even one of the older movies because of Star Trek 2009.
Nothing against action or entertainment, but for me a good movie needs much more than that. And I will not stop to speak against the trailer, not because it’s action-oriented, but for it’s lack of show something of the story or at least something interesting. I don’t like this kind of trailers. Point.
I doubt Star Trek can cross the 450 mil. $ to be considered as a financial success by Paramount. But we will see.
21: Reading these reflections I’d rather say the staff has mixed feelings.
As long as we see a famous signature “Kirk drop-kick” from Pine in the fight scenes, all other canon deviations will be forgiven.
#28 – Agreed. The Bay Area, Northern California in general, has its share of flat planes pocketed within the foothills.
I may be atypical among 1980’s-born Trek fans, but I find the discussion here interesting. So, I shall offer my perspective.
Watching TOS, the point that was of the most important to me was the writing and the ideas conveyed in it. In it, like in TNG, the very best episodes were hour-long fables; they would offer a valid and universal lesson, compellingly conveying it by way of a set of characters to whom one could relate. (DS9 did that occasionally, but Voyager and Enterprise were pretty lacking in that department.)
That is: to me, the very best of Trek told us something about ourselves and the world we live in — generally in very allegorical terms. And I, for one, didn’t need outstanding special effects or great suspense to accomplish that.
Likewise, for me the coming film is not so much about getting the characters just right, or building the Enterprise in the right place, or sorting out the timeline so that Kirk doesn’t meet Pike, or whether the antimatter reaction formula is just right… or even just how many women Kirk gets into bed (individually or simultaneously). And it certainly isn’t about seeing the mind-blowing special effects. (If I ever want to enjoy a gorgeous view of Enterprise 1701, I call up the famous Kirk fly-in from STTMP.)
In short, I don’t care about all that surface crap.
What do I care about? The storytelling. Do these characters, to whom I have a genuine attachment, take me on a journey that makes for a bit of introspection? All the movies — even the lousy ones — did that. And the first two series did it on a regular basis. (DS9’s most glorious moments, for me, were when it captured that too.)
So, we’ll see. I am very apprehensive and fear that the movie will lack that critical feature… but there is enough brainpower in this that I could very well be pleasantly surprised.
In six months, I’ll know if the new Star Trek is still MY Star Trek. Maybe it is, and so this may be an exciting beginning. And if not? Then, as holo-Archer said for our benefit during the last Trek outing on any screen: ‘Here’s to the next generation.’
Spock, in a different context, said it for me: ‘I am understandably curious.’
about people gettin a gary mitchell vibe from karl urban: wat if the writers of the film merged gary mitchell and bones into one character?
What about Kirk’s youth on planet Tarsus IV? This is a pretty big event to leave out of Kirk’s life.
“Realer”? Guys … c’mon … stop butchering our language.
if this movie is going to the road of “changing the timeline” (which of course will erase TNG, DS9 and VYG) and intends to create a new opportunity for a whole new trek (even to a new series it’s good cos i think trek belongs to tv) it will be bitter but i am not so sure that i’ll cry a lot for that. all in all, classic trek and its spinoffs will be there always.
and again, if this is the case, original spock changing the timeline seems quite appropriate at one point.