For any die-hard fans out there who are not jazzed and excited about this trailor or movie, I have three (3) words:
"Get A LIFE!"
(more words)
This trailor ROCKS! It's SEXY! Kids LOVE IT! It's COOL!
GOD BLESS J.J. ABRAMS & GANG!
My God, I must have watched this trailer a zillion times this weekend. Go figure.
A review of the trailer is coming soon.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
Forget all this talk about canon and Star Wars. What I want to know is why Kirk has to destroy such a great car??? What is this, "The Dukes of Hazzard"???
Actually, it looks great for an early trailer. But I can't get excited about a movie that won't be released for more than six months from now.
--------
"Be seeing you."
From the real "The Prisoner" 1968
Well, it doesn't give a lot away about the story, does it? That might be a good thing, I guess, but without that, all we have are flashes of images and action. I liked the look of the characters. Spock in particular finally looks great. The previous released images of him all look incredibly photoshopped/airbrushed ... But now I see that Zachary looks excellent in the role. Not sure about Simon Pegg though. He doesn't seem much like a "Scotty" to me.
Hmm ... I wish this trailer did more. I can't see it building up hype in non-trekkers, I really can't. There's nothing compelling here for non-trekkers! Make it about the destiny of two people (Kirk and Spock), but don't be so subtle about it. Or discuss the mission to kill Kirk and Spock's quest to save him. Or something ... anything ... just not flashes of images on the screen.
Argh. I guess I was expecting a WHOLE lot more from JJ from this first trailer. I think many of us are just happy to finally see images from the film, but when you sit back and think about it, this really is a disappointing trailer. Definitely not a trailer from a "must see" film like ID4, Transformers, Starship Troopers, and so on.
Timmer33
-
I can't see it building up hype in non-trekkers, I really can't.
I guess it's not so much for total non-trekkers but latent trekkers, trekkies or SciFi-fans who have never cared about Star Trek since TNG went off air or the original movies ended in 1991. And off course for the young people who vaguely know what Star Trek is but didn'z check it out because the thought of it as lame, contreived, cerebral mumbo-jumbo (wich was partly true with VOY, ENT and the NG movies)...
Just the idea that such an old, iconic farnchise is handled in such a fresh and fast-paced way is exciting to A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.
The freshness, the clean cut from previous installments, that is VERY much building up a hype among general media representatives and young online users who never really cared much about Trek...it is building right now while we are talking!
Some site are already predicting this movie to be a major summer hit!
And sorry...what was so compelling about ID4, Transformers or STARSHIP TROOPERS (which wasn't even a big hit back then)...FAST-PACED ACTION...and that's what this trailer is about, isn't it?
-
My comparison to ID4 and so on wasn't to the actual films, but to the trailers. Go back and watch those trailers ... people couldn't wait to see the films when they came out. Esp. ID4. The stories *were* compelling. The Trek trailer is not compelling. What's it about? No one can tell.
And JJ has said repeatedly that this film was made for non-trekkers too ... and frankly I don't see that in the trailer. In short, it won't bring non fans into the fold, which is what he wants.
-
Quote:
Not sure about Simon Pegg though. He doesn't seem much like a "Scotty" to me.
That's weird. For me, Simon Pegg is the best casting in the whole bunch.
Of course, that could be because I think that Simon Pegg is nine kinds of awesome.
--------
I have slowed it down, gone frame by fame, sped it up, watched backwards ... LOL. It really is exciting to finally have something new to bicker and nitpick about.
I actually read someone's post who claimed that they had seen the preview and were now going to boycott the film? By "boycott", I do understand you mean "second showing" on opening night and watching it 10 times instead of 20. Take that Paramount!
Crazy times ahead....
--------
----------------------------------------
Lover of all things Trek since 1974
"In four hours the ship blows up" -- Scotty (The Savage Curtain)
----------------------------------------
You can't please everyone all the time. Hard core fans will always find something to 'comment' about. Two books out are wonderful for this, Nitpickers guide, ST:TOS & ST:TNG+Movies. Fun books to read. But come on guys, don't you think if they had 40 years ago what we have now they'd use it? Green screen, CGI. If the film is going to be successful it has to appeal to todays audiance. I think it's a good 'reboot' of Trek, and as long as the core theme is kept in tact, then I think Gene would be blown away. Let's wait until Majal (sp?) Roddenberry has a look at the film and see what she thinks. Just had a thought... how cool would it be if they used her for the computer voice??? Hell, they've got six months, they can do lot's a little tweaks like that. You never know :)
Me, after seeing the preview, hi-def, full screen, volume cranked... Damn, I gotta see this in the thearers! It kicked ass! And yes, the music got my blood pumping too. I can't wait until May!!
-
I've been at the boards very recently after the trailer release and am now at the boards much more frequently, so here's what I learned:
The original composer is Brian Tyler (a very prolific composer and producer on his own) and he wrote the music for "Children of Dune". The trailer score was edited somewhat by Michael Giacchino (won an Emmy and a Grammy).
Now I have to tell everyone that it was Brian Tyler and not Michael Giacchino who composed the score for the trailer :/.
So in all actuality even I don't know what the actual score sounds like.
OK PEOPLE THIS WHOLE RE-BOOT CAN BE SUMMED UP IN ONE SENTENCE, AND I'M SHOCKED IT HASN'T BEEN SAID YET.
WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THE "WB" ING OF STAR TREK.
IN THE WB WORLD EVERYONE IS PRETTY OR GOOD LOOKING. IN "WB" WORLD JIMMY DOOHAN WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SCOTTY, HE HAD A MISSING FINGER!!
It appears that when the Kelvin is destroyed, it kills Kirk's father, Commander George Kirk, who was not supposed to die in the original timeline, thus creating a new timeline and "new" Star Trek universe, if you will. Makes sense to me.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
On the youtube video at 1:00 -- could that be the new transporter effect? Hmmmm....
--------
"It's fiction. It's not supposed to make sense." --a Trekweb poster defending Brannon Braga's scripts
Quinto's openly gay Spock redeems this entire effort. This is going to be a very important film.
-
lol
-
Don't feed the troll.
--------
"Outer Space: The Last Frontier.
These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."
Patrick Stewart--SNL, Stardate 9402.05
Definitely has money behind it
but we'll see
The Of Gods and Men trailer was 100x better than the movie- Marketing is much easier than making a quality movie
JJ seems to know how to hype but can he make a ST movie that's really ST ?
I am a fan and am willing to give this movie a chance... but if the trialers for it show basically the same "style" over the next months, I will be less likely to spend $$ on it.
As for altered history viewpoints: If this is an altered history, then all the Trek from TOS to STTNG is lost and invalid. So now there will be two fan bases: Trek. and AbramsTrek.
I prefer Trek over AbramsTrek
One good thing about an altered history: Now Abrams can change how Kirk dies. Hmmmm. So he could have put older Kirk in this movie afterall... if it truly is an altered history.
--------
-
An alternate timeline is a very good concept because it creates ultimate creative liberty but doesn't get rid of the old timeline completely. Look, the mirror universe is there, beyond the looking glas, and it always will be there.
So could the old Trek universe. Maybe they are going to revisit it at some point but these new movies are set in a new timeline that doesn't need all the continuity background.
Things will play out differently in the new movie series. Some planets or threats may be not encountered at all. Others under completely different circumstances. Think of it.
They could easily make a movie about Trek's number one iconic villain: Khan! But this time, everything happens in a different way. Maybe Khan is ressurrected by another ship, leading to a completely different and yet familiar course of events.
They could come up with a major cinematic showdown between Kirk and Gary Mitchell, revolving around a group of X-Men-like ESPer mutants trying to conquer the Federation and enhance humanity by exposing them to the same radiation, that created them in the first place. Instead of a low-budget paper planet showsdown it could be an incredibly epic blockbuster!
The Doomsday Machine, the Guardian of Forever, Tholians...everything essential to TOS might reappear but on a much larger, much more epic scale! Cinematic in scope and visuality and still classic and recognizable!
But the old timeline isn't lost or rendered invalid. It requires just a little multidimensional thinking. They are out there somewhere...beyond the final frontier!
-
"but if the trialers for it show basically the same "style" over the next months, I will be less likely to spend $$ on it."
In any decision there are costs and benefits. Wisdom lies in choosing actions where the latter outweigh the former. Inevitably, there are going to be people on this planet who will not see the movie. If one has a dying church, should one continue to preach to the choir, or should one try to find ways to reach out to the masses? Should choir members that stomp their feet in protest be permitted to drag the church into oblivion, or ought they be ignored?
"If this is an altered history, then all the Trek from TOS to STTNG is lost and invalid. So now there will be two fan bases: Trek. and AbramsTrek."
That seems to me to be not only a self-evident false dilemma, but somewhat premature to declare before the film has even premiered.
"I prefer Trek over AbramsTrek"
And I prefer milk and cookies to roasted targ, but comparing a known to an unknown doesn't really say much objectively about anything, does it?
"One good thing about an altered history: Now Abrams can change how Kirk dies. Hmmmm. So he could have put older Kirk in this movie afterall... if it truly is an altered history."
"Can" != "Ought". Abrams "can" choose to splice single frames of chimpanzees at five minute intervals into the movie. That says little about whether he should, unless one has already assumed that doing so would be a good idea. Thank goodness Abrams appears to have the larger picture of the future of the franchise in mind over assuaging any proclivities for simians that might exist amongst potential moviegoers.
IMHO,
-The Doctor
--------
"That green-blooded Son of a Bitch... It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost to me!"
- Bones
-
I might have missed it, but could someone point me to a source where it is confirmed that what happens in this film and, presumably, what follows is in fact an altered timeline? In the Trekverse, time travel doesn't necessarily mean far reaching "butterfly effects", as can be seen in ST4. They simply brought the whales back, made the probe happy, and all was well. So, I'm just curious if there is an official word on altering the time line or if this is something fans came up with based on assumptions.
-
"As for altered history viewpoints: If this is an altered history, then all the Trek from TOS to STTNG is lost and invalid. So now there will be two fan bases: Trek. and AbramsTrek."
Why do some fans feel this bizarre need to create labels for everything? I just don't understand that.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Quote:
"As for altered history viewpoints: If this is an altered history, then all the Trek from TOS to STTNG is lost and invalid. So now there will be two fan bases: Trek. and AbramsTrek."
Why do some fans feel this bizarre need to create labels for everything? I just don't understand that.
It's an easy and simple way to compartmentalize, especially when an aspect of a franchise comes along that will be difficult to rectify with previous canon. (Let's put that another way: many fans won't be able to look at the new Trek film and see it as existing in the same universe as the TOS TV series, either from a standpoint of visual continuity or from character continuity; some fans, however, can and have no problems rectifying that the 2008-era Trek effects take place in the same universe as the 60s-era Trek effects of, say, The Trouble with Tribbles.)
You also see it with Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, James Bond ... anything that has undergone major changes. And even the Trek franchise has already had some labels added to it by fans -- TOS era and TNG era and ENT era, for example. This is the first I've seen of AbramsTrek, though. The ones I've heard most frequently used is nuTrek or Trek 2.0.
Al
-
"It's an easy and simple way to compartmentalize, especially when an aspect of a franchise comes along that will be difficult to rectify with previous canon. (Let's put that another way: many fans won't be able to look at the new Trek film and see it as existing in the same universe as the TOS TV series, either from a standpoint of visual continuity or from character continuity; some fans, however, can and have no problems rectifying that the 2008-era Trek effects take place in the same universe as the 60s-era Trek effects of, say, The Trouble with Tribbles.)"
Yeah, except that the new film DOESN'T take place in the same continuity as the original series, since history has been changed by Nero.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
After the Kid Kirk and the Cop scene, what is the music that plays during the rest of the trailer? Is it a pre-existing piece or is it part of the soundtrack? I love it! The driving tempo of the strings matches the pace of the clips an it really gets the adrenaline flowing. I've watched the thing about 10 times already and it's the music that gets me.
They made you take the pics from the trailer down too??!
--------
"Outer Space: The Last Frontier.
These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."
Patrick Stewart--SNL, Stardate 9402.05
I went to see Quantum of Solace last night to see the trailer. I'm as giddy as a school girl about it. It looks out-freakin-standing!!! Abrams and company have out done themselves. I'm sooo excited by the new interpretation of Trek. A fresh perspective on my childhood heroes and their adventures is exactly what Trek needed.
To HELL with canon. This movie is gonna ROCK!!!
-
I had gone with a number of my friends Saturday night to check out Quantum of Solace, and nowhere did the Star Trek trailer play at all. The only trailers that I recall playing before QoS were previews for the next Adam Sandler movie, Jim Carrey's latest "Yes Man" (with a great appearance from Terence "Zod" Stamp, no less), and Will Smith's next movie.
We asked the manager why there was no trailer for Star Trek on there, even though it was touted all over the place, and we were told that they never got in prints of the trailer at all. This leads me to believe that it was probably released with select prints of QoS, or released in selected theaters/chains across the nation.
I felt like I got ripped off $6.
(posted in wrong place)
I'd like to point out that Roddenberry didn't give two f***s about canon. What he wanted to do was tell intelligent stories about human beings set in a hopeful future. *That's* Star Trek, not what fictional event happened on so and so fictional date.
Roddenberry changed the look of the Klingons with no explanation and without any sense that he needed to explain it. And when he created TNG, he originally mandated that not a single reference to or appearance by any aliens from TOS could occur on the show, i.e. no Vulcans, no Klingons, no Romulans, etc. and that all the aliens on TNG had to be new. It was people like D.C. Fontana, Robert Justman, and David Gerrold who convinced him that there should be a few familiar elements, lest the Trek fans reject it outright.
--------
"It's fiction. It's not supposed to make sense." --a Trekweb poster defending Brannon Braga's scripts
-
your wrong, didnt you see the pilot for TNG it was called encounter at farpoint, and there was a cameo by the one and only Leonard Bones McCoy, that proves he wanted to tie the TNG universe with the TOS universe, its called continuity, and how about the TNG first season episode the naked now, continuing the TOS episode the naked time, all done during Roddenberrys watch, check your facts. you can have a great story and have continuty.
-
Quote:
your wrong, didnt you see the pilot for TNG it was called encounter at farpoint, and there was a cameo by the one and only Leonard Bones McCoy, that proves he wanted to tie the TNG universe with the TOS universe, its called continuity, and how about the TNG first season episode the naked now, continuing the TOS episode the naked time, all done during Roddenberrys watch, check your facts. you can have a great story and have continuty.
No, dude, you need to check your facts. Read what Justman, Fontana, and the others had to say about Roddenberry about the creation of TNG. Roddenberry wanted absolutely no references to TOS at all. Hell, I think even the TNG Companion talks about this.
--------
"It's fiction. It's not supposed to make sense." --a Trekweb poster defending Brannon Braga's scripts
-
You may be right but that doesn't mean it was a good idea of Roddenberry's...I can see the point of not doing Vulcans, Kligons, etc. EVERY WEEK but there should be touchstones to what came before.
Why did he bother naming the ship Enterprise if he wanted NO references to TOS?
-
Quote:
You may be right but that doesn't mean it was a good idea of Roddenberry's...I can see the point of not doing Vulcans, Kligons, etc. EVERY WEEK but there should be touchstones to what came before.
Why did he bother naming the ship Enterprise if he wanted NO references to TOS?
When Brannon Braga first met Gene Roddenberry, Braga asked him for advice. Roddenberry gave him one piece of advice -- don't watch the original Star Trek. He wanted Braga to do his own thing and not be hampered by any preconceived notions of what Star Trek should be. (Unfortunately, Roddenberry had no way of knowing Braga's "own thing" was utter crap.)
Roddenberry cared about the core of Star Trek. The characters, the optimism, the original stories about the human condition. Fans arguing about geeky shit have sort of missed the point.
That's not to say this movie will be any good. It may well be crap. But it will succeed or fail on the merits of the story and whether or not it feels like Star Trek.
--------
"It's fiction. It's not supposed to make sense." --a Trekweb poster defending Brannon Braga's scripts
-
Quote:
I'd like to point out that Roddenberry didn't give two f***s about canon. What he wanted to do was tell intelligent stories about human beings set in a hopeful future. Roddenberry changed the look of the Klingons with no explanation and without any sense that he needed to explain it. And when he created TNG, he originally mandated that not a single reference to or appearance by any aliens from TOS could occur on the show, i.e. no Vulcans, no Klingons, no Romulans, etc. and that all the aliens on TNG had to be new. It was people like D.C. Fontana, Robert Justman, and David Gerrold who convinced him that there should be a few familiar elements, lest the Trek fans reject it outright.
You should bring the up in a separate, new thread. Them are some good points.
--------
@ Siskokirk from one fan to another I respect your view and opinion but Star Trek more then just about continuity. You need to look at the bigger picture and not be bogged down by Star Trek cannon. I have been able to look past it so should you. Keeping true to Star Trek is not about keeping true to the cannon but the over all message..the bottom line kind of deal, and you KNOW that is what Gene Roddenberry would tell you. I am not going to bitch, you have your opinion and I value that, but grow my friend, grow.
-
I agree. There are some things that need to be respected when it comes to canon, but its not like its been respected before. First Contact's treatment of Zephram Cochrane is the finest example. That guy, while more interesting that the fellow in TOS episode metamorphisis, seemed nothing like the previous incarnation... so it depends on what you're talking about. If it's where the Enterprise was built, then I don't care. If its the fact that Spock has a human mother, and vulcan father, then that has to be respected.
-
I keep looking for the cannon in the trailer and I cant ever see it! What kind of projectiles does it fire?
Joking of course. Speaking of canon, who cares, as long as its a good film.
--------
Make it so
I have no opinion about the trailer except it's all nonsense to me. As usually. Trailers are like that. And even then, the trailer usually takes all the worst ingredients from the movie and shows them off in one minute or so. So all the good stuff is still up in the air.
-
I completely disagree! I LOVE trailers. I've always been a trailer collector and I fell in love with Trek due to a UK home video trailer back in 1993.
Trailers are the best thing about movies, next to soundtracks and the movies themselves of course.
I'm not just into Trek trailers. I love watching trailers of all genre productions online or in theatre. It is such a delight to watch a good trailer. Even bad movies can have good trailers (see Nemesis)...
But each his own.
-
Sounds like you are in for the adrenaline rush? Or maybe you were once fasinated by the intensity of trailers and has since come to value them for artistic reasons? I however have always liked the inner peace that can be felt, for example in nature when you stand and look at a beautiful landscape unspoiled by human activity (not that I mind human activity when it doesn't pollute) or the feeling of awe when you stand and look up at the stars at night and it's so peaceful and quiet (needless to say I don't live in a city). I didn't always have such peace in my life, but I have that now and that has allowed my soft personality to emerge. I'm a very laidback person. Action movies are just too violent for me, so I doubt I'm going to like the new Star Trek movie. I actually never really liked any of them. I liked the feeling of peace I got when I watched TNG and that's why I became a Trekker. But I prefer happy endings, love and romance, things like that. I hate brutality, and trailers - well, they're full of violence and sex. I hate them.
This link has a better, bigger, clearer version than youtube....Hi Def.
http://vimeo.com/2246656?pg=embed&sec=2246656&hd=1
-
Sorry but the Paramount Police are on patrol today! This article WAS updated with two better links, but they're gone. The site you refer to had to remove their file, apparently. Maybe we'll have a nice official HD version tomorrow! (Update: Monday at 10AM according to Trekmovie)
--------
"Outer Space: The Last Frontier.
These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."
Patrick Stewart--SNL, Stardate 9402.05
-
That is so stupid. Why would Paramount discourage people who want to watch the trailer? What, they want people to pay to watch James Bond? Sorry but that's not going to happen with me.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
This link has a better, bigger, clearer version than youtube....Hi Def.
http://vimeo.com/2246656?pg=embed&sec=2246656&hd=1
I find it hard to belive that JJ and gang didnt do thier homework. In the TOS episode the menagerie, Kirk indicated that he only met Pike once when Pike became fleet commander. According to what i have heard about the new movie is that it is Pike that convinces Kirk to join Starfleet. This is not consistant with the menagerie. Also in the episode a Piece of the action Kirk didnt understand how to drive the old earth cars. The new movie depicts a young kirk driving a Corvette. This to is not consistant. I know, I know the fringe Trek fans will bash me for pointing this out, but they need to understand that its this type of respect for the historical continuity of Trek that makes the show have such a large following. fans tune in to see how the past matches up with the future. The fans deserve better, easily JJ and gang could have developed a story that didnt conflict with the proud history of the show, it shows a lack of respect for the fans.
-
Quote:
I find it hard to belive that JJ and gang didnt do thier homework. In the TOS episode the menagerie, Kirk indicated that he only met Pike once when Pike became fleet commander. According to what i have heard about the new movie is that it is Pike that convinces Kirk to join Starfleet. This is not consistant with the menagerie. Also in the episode a Piece of the action Kirk didnt understand how to drive the old earth cars. The new movie depicts a young kirk driving a Corvette. This to is not consistant. I know, I know the fringe Trek fans will bash me for pointing this out, but they need to understand that its this type of respect for the historical continuity of Trek that makes the show have such a large following. fans tune in to see how the past matches up with the future. The fans deserve better, easily JJ and gang could have developed a story that didnt conflict with the proud history of the show, it shows a lack of respect for the fans.
I'd have a hard time driving one of those old 30s cars too. lol
--------
There once was a man named Scorned,
whose posts were more offensive than porn.
He posted one too many,
got kicked out on his fanny,
and all the while he had been warned.
-
"I find it hard to belive that JJ and gang didnt do thier homework. In the TOS episode the menagerie, Kirk indicated that he only met Pike once when Pike became fleet commander. According to what i have heard about the new movie is that it is Pike that convinces Kirk to join Starfleet. This is not consistant with the menagerie."
It doesn't need to be. It's an altered history, which we've known for many months now.
"Also in the episode a Piece of the action Kirk didnt understand how to drive the old earth cars. The new movie depicts a young kirk driving a Corvette. This to is not consistant."
Again--this movie is an altered history, and the alteration occurs when Kirk is a boy. So there's no problem.
"I know, I know the fringe Trek fans will bash me for pointing this out, but they need to understand that its this type of respect for the historical continuity of Trek that makes the show have such a large following.
There's no disrespect here whatsoever. It's an altered history. The timeline is changed in the course of the movie--hence, Kirk's life unfolds differently.
"fans tune in to see how the past matches up with the future."
Not in this case. The timeline has been altered.
"The fans deserve better,"
None of us have seen the film yet, so there's no way to make such a statement.
"easily JJ and gang could have developed a story that didnt conflict with the proud history of the show,"
It doesn't.
"it shows a lack of respect for the fans."
It doesn't.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
You're right. They should adhere to every single established piece of obscure continuity that exists.
So by your own logic, everything that happened which is inconsistent with the original low-budget 3 year series filmed over 40 YEARS AGO should be scrapped.
I guess since in the original series we never saw a warp effect, the producers of the TOS movies should be yelled at for creating a warp effect.
It shouldn't be James "T" Kirk because the tombstone in the original episode has a different middle initial.
There should be a Warp 12 in the movies and TNG series because it was mentioned in TOS.
Since 1979, Klingons have garbage all over their foreheads, but they didn't in TOS.... so should we poop our pants about "lack of respect for the fans"?
SLIPS OF PRINTERD PAPER should pop out of the bridge consoles because THAT is what happened in TOS.
Static transparencies should be on the top of the bridge monitors because THAT is what happened in TOS.
And of course, they should mention predjudice against women commanders in the new movie because they mention THAT in the Menagerie when talking about Majel as Number One.
Guess what... TOS has LOADS of episodes that contradict themselves... all within the first 79 episodes! There's an entire book that analyses the inconsistencies of the canon it tried to establish for itself in the first 3 years. What do you say about that?
And one more little tidbit... I can drive a Corvette, but I guarantee you I'd have trouble with some piece of shit manual transmission 1940's car... and I live in the era of the 20th century.
You know this is a fictional universe, right?
Lack of respect for the fans is changing the call letters of the Enterprise, making Spock a Klingon and casting Seth Rogan as Captain Kirk.
Hell... lack of respect for the fans was putting a triple-chin Data in Nemesis..
But lack of respect for the fans is *not* all these blantantly obscure references and minor visual mods that forum ranters keep bringing up.
The best are the ones who announce they will *not* see the new movie.
Yes... we all believe that. We truly believe that someone who has taken the time to register an account on a Star Trek message board will *not* go to see a new Star Trek movie.
-
Where were you when Enterprise came out? The majority of folks on these boards wouldn't watch it because it violated continuity. Now, all of a sudden, continuity violation is acceptable?
I will watch the movie. The same way I watched the last Indy movie. On DVD. Or, the way I will watch it when I get around to opening it.
I don't necessarily object to a reboot. I object to Abrams spending the last year telling us how he respects the series, respects the canon, respects the continuity and that the film isn't a reboot. Yet everyone who has seen the film is calling it a reboot. Everyone but Abrams, anyway.
No, I like my 40 years of Star Trek. I'll check in on the new universe, but I won't bother getting attached to it. Eventually, someone else will come along and reimagine the franchise, and you can grow all you want to.
--------
"A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of tiny minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Emerson!" Isaac Asimov
-
Quote:
Where were you when Enterprise came out? The majority of folks on these boards wouldn't watch it because it violated continuity. Now, all of a sudden, continuity violation is acceptable?
Silly me, and here I thought people weren't watching it because it was a dull show with some dully story telling and dull characters.
-
"Hell... lack of respect for the fans was putting a triple-chin Data in Nemesis.."
Huh? How is that disrespecting fans? I know you were joking, but seriously--how is disrespectful to fans that Brent Spiner dared to get older?
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
"Huh? How is that disrespecting fans? I know you were joking, but seriously--how is disrespectful to fans that Brent Spiner dared to get older?"
Particularly when Jimmy Doohan had 12 chins.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
you totatly missed the point of what i was saying. your talking about physical things, like upgrades and so forth. for instance i have no problem with the ship design, new uniforms, new an improved special effects. one would have to be a fool to think that the apperance of the show wont change, escpecially with new tech advancements. those things are all great. i'm speaking about the pure historical nature of the charactors and the actions they took in the past. for instance if picard was captain of the stagazer, that should never be changed because writers are not creative enough. writers and producres should stay true to the hsitory of trek.
-
"i'm speaking about the pure historical nature of the charactors and the actions they took in the past. for instance if picard was captain of the stagazer, that should never be changed because writers are not creative enough. writers and producres should stay true to the hsitory of trek."
This isn't a case of writers not being creative, or ignoring what came before. This is a case of a character altering history, resulting in a timeline where things are different...like in City on the Edge of Forever, Yesteryear and Yesterday's Enterprise, all of which are among the best episodes of Trek history. This is no different.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
@ Siskokirk from one fan to another I respect your view and opinion but Star Trek more then just about continuity. You need to look at the bigger picture and not be bogged down by Star Trek cannon. I have been able to look past it so should you. Keeping true to Star Trek is not about keeping true to the cannon but the over all message..the bottom line kind of deal, and you KNOW that is what Gene Roddenberry would tell you. I am not going to bitch, you have your opinion and I value that, but grow my friend, grow.
-
i never said that star treak was just about continuity, simply asking the question whats so hard about keeping with it. for example DS9 is just as near and dear to my heart as TOS is, DS9 was atotatly different take, but it kept with the history of Trek. writers that cannot keep with the continuity are simply ego driven or not creative enough.
Had women in miniskirts for the sake of miniskirts. Where Kirk went shirtless for the sake of going shirtless. A fist fight for the sake of a fist fight.
And people are taking up this moral high ground about the action packed nature of the trailer and Uhura taking off her shirt?
Star Trek was relevant because it attempted to stay relevant...and not just in preaching the moral of the decade at the end of every other episode.
The Gene who oversaw the original Star Trek would be proud of this trailer.
-
Wha? Are you kidding me?
Nearly every episode of the original Star Trek had a fist fight for the sake of a fist fight... Kirk shirtless... and women in miniskirts.
Were we watching the same show as you? Star Trek in message boards or in lectures at conventions is way more profound than the actual series itself was.
What percentage of the original Star Trek episodes actually took "the moral highground"?
What percentage of *all* the series' episodes has a "special relevant message"?
Funny that for a franchise that is about the future and change and tolerance that it's most intense and whiny fanbase hate even the slightest modification to what they are used to, or what they *think* the franchise is about.
So many critics here belong to the same odd batch of people akin to the screaming freakshows who had ranting spastic fits when they first heard about the details of ST:TNG in 1986.
Just sit back and enjoy the show, kids.
Well,
The look and feel of this trailer is certainly NOT “Star Trek” as most of us know it. Maybe that is a good thing. Only time will tell.
Here is my grand problem with the movie: Writers Orci and Kurtzman!
When “Transformers” was being produced, leaked images of Optimus Prime hit the net in all of his FLAMED glory. To many a fan’s disgust, I must add. Orci and Kurtzman were asked on Don Murphy’s board to justify the reasoning for the flames. Their answer, “The flames serve a significant purpose in the movie. They are there for a reason.” Well, the movie came out and no “point” was given for the flames or their significance identified. Orci and Kurtzman lied to goat the old Transformers’ fan base along.
I fear Abrams is doing the same thing to the traditional Trek fan base. Things in this movie will forever change the core mythos of Star Trek. That is a fact with the dynamic duo of Orci and Kurtzman lying their way along too.
Here is what will happen: The movie WILL be a huge success. Because of the way the mythos and “feel” of Trek will be changed, others who may produce movies or TV series down the road will also have full license to CHANGE anything about the mythos of Trek they want. This movie will be the END of old Trek as we all know it.
My proof? Transformers .
The movie came out and was a hit. Now we have “Transformers Animated” which drastically diverts from the original mythos of 1984 Transformers. So there are currently three DIFFERENT versions of Transformers. And the ultimate proof you ask? I asked my 17 year old nephew how the Transformers arrived on Earth? He said in protoforms that smashed into the earth. We all know that is the Bay version of how Transformers arrived on Earth. A true Transformers fan knows they arrived millions of years ago on the ark.
This will happen with Trek too. The mythos will change. New TV series will come out that hardly resemble Roddenberry’s universe. And my 17 year old nephew will say the first time Kirk encountered Romulans was before taking command of the Enterprise.
For good or bad, this is the future of Star Trek.
--------
-
You compare this Star Trek trailer to Transformers in its departure from "canon" ... and I suppose that is a fair comparison in some respects. However, what if it is more comparable to the Dark Knight?
There was a raging debate among Batman fanatics about the re-imagnining of the Joker's origin for the Dark Knight. There were the comic book fans that wanted the chemical-burn permanently-white Joker -- and there were others who simply wanted a good story. And, the re-imagining of the Joker worked, created a completely new Joker, and revitalized the Batman franchise.
Overall, I'm not sold on the concept of "canon". At some point in an existence of 40+ years, it may be time to reset. Keep true to the characters, make changes as necessary, and see where the new story goes. Star Trek is currently so bogged down with canon that the writers are paralyzed. I honestly don't care if Kirk knew how to drive a car in TOS ... this is a different Kirk. Just like Daniel Craig's James Bond isn't always consistent with Sean Connerys's, Tom Welling's Clark Kent isn't always consistent with Chris Reeve's, Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne isn't always consistent with Michael Keaton's, and Heath Ledger's Joker is inconsistent with Jack Nicholson's ... Chris Pine's Kirk will be different from Shatner's.
And, with Transformer's as your example ... Transformers was a pretty dead franchise before the new movie. That movie brought Transformers to a new generation ... and this Trek will bring Star Trek to a new generation.
And, hopefully, in 40 years, the new fans created by Abrams' Star Trek will be on some random blog complaining about a new departure from the "canon" created by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto.
-
i said that the trek that we know and love had had its time and it will continue no more , i said that about a year or so ago..
the future RE-begins....
TREK V2.0 BRING IT ON
--------
" laffa while you can ,,, monkey-boy!"
-
Dude, I've been lurking at this site for around a year now, and your post is the first thing that's finally inspired me to get an account, log in, and say something. And that something is...
This Transformers analogy is flawed.
You talk about three different versions of Transformers. You seem upset that your nephew's canon states that the Transformers crash landed on Earth as protoforms.
That was NOT an Orci/Kurtzman invention...that was created for the "Transformers: Beast Wars" cartoon that came along in 1996! And was then popularized by the "Transformers: Armada" cartoon that debuted in 2002!
So there's actually FIVE iterations of Transformers...not counting the "Beast Wars" sequel "Beast Machines," the poorly dubbed "Robots in Disguise" cartoon, the original Marvel comic (which vastly strayed from the cartoon), the Marvel UK comics, and not counting all the various different Japanese cartoons that were never broadcast in North America.
You're upset that there's 3 iterations of Transformers? The number is more like 20, my friend. In fact, in an interview in ToyFare magazine in 2002, Hasbro representatives stated that their strategy for Transformers is to do a complete reboot every two or three years to make it more accessible.
Orci and Kurtzman didn't change anything about the Transformers universe. They just picked and chose everything they liked from the past 20 iterations and put it all together in one movie.
My point is, pointing to the live-action "Transformers" film and using it as an example of how Kurtman and Orci are going to alter "Star Trek" is a flawed analogy. How can you complain about "Transformers" being changed when it was changed 20 times before you went into the theatre?
Now, making changes after just one iteration, such as "Star Trek," that's worth complaining about. But the truth is, I haven't seen enough changes to get me complaining yet.
-
No, my point IS that Orci and Kurtzman lie. All I am saying is to be prepaired for all of this "it is not a reboot... it is staying true to TOS..." bull that those two hacks are saying to be untrue.
That is what they said for Transformers too. Just to get fans of 1984 Transformers on board. They are doing the same thing here. You will see who is right.
Trek mythos means nothing to them.
And... when O/K did say they were not changing the 1984 Transformers mythos... and then did it, how can you say they did not change anything about the TFs universe. They may not have in your view, but they certainly did lie just to cover their arses to keep 1984 fans quiet until the movie came out. (Which I did not go see or buy) Trek might be this way for me too... and I am an uber-fan of Trek.
--------
-
Indeed. Transformers was a complete lie. That movie was total bait and switch by the "writers" and of course Michael Bay.
I would hope that people would realize that today's markets are not for mass audences anymore but rather niche groups of fans and the occasional converts. Trek should be made for the fans, not re-made in the hopes of getting new fans.
BTW, in Beast Wars, the prehistoric transformers actually come across the ARK at one point, and we see our familliar Robots in Disguise in stasis, waiting for the appropriate time to come in the future. So, even in that abomination, a degree of continuity is held.
BAT
That trailer is fantastic. Finally, Trek on an epic scale!
But to those who are worried it's too much action, or looks too much like Star Wars (I don't think it looks anything like Star Wars. Fabulous tailfins are the exclusive territory of Trek. Speaking of, when's the last time you saw a vintage vette on Star Wars?), you're basically a beat wife wondering why you deserve nice things all of a sudden. It's ridiculous. So Star Trek can once again afford nice sets and great effects. That doesn't mean it's not Trek anymore. There must of course be substance to this movie but the mere fact that it looks good and has some style to it doesn't mean it won't also have a heart.
Even the snarky UK press had only nice things to say about the 4 extended scenes they saw from the movie. Everyone who's seen any of it says it's great.
Relax. We deserve to see our heroes in style for once.
-
Well, I do fully understand the Star Wars comparisons:
* Young Anakin/Luke = Young Kirk
* T-16 Skyhopper and Landspeeder = Corvette
* Destiny to do something more with their lives
* A guy with tatoos trying to kill both Anakin and Kirk
* The lack of a father figure for all three youths
That said, this film really is shaping up to be a cool movie.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Destiny? Landspeeder=Corvette? Tattoos? Age? Oh boy. Maybe you should have mentioned they both have three legs!
Perhaps the question should be, what's the difference between Skywalker and Superman?
*Both fly
*Both are young
*Both are aliens
*Both have something to prove
*Neither have fathers
*Neither have tattoos
*Both possess super-human abilities which seem to have more to do with magic than technology
Or Batman. Substitute a horse for a skyhopper and you've got any number of John Wayne characters.
I guess Lucas stole his idea from something previous then. I won't even mention "cloaking", "tractor beams", and the poor substitute for subspace(guess what), hyperspace!
VERY cool!!!
--------
If you can't be who you are, why be anything at all?
~Charles Pierce
Now, I feel really good about this movie. It looks fantastic.
I was so upset when I went to see Quantum of Solace last night and there was no Star Trek to be seen. So...when will we see it. The next big movie coming out is The Spirit, I doubt they would show it with The Punisher.
I'm totally thrilled about this trailer. Can't wait to see more!
--------
living in darkness / sleeping in light
I have to admit, I really really dig this trailer. I was a bit apprehensive after reading Devin's thoughts over at Chud, but I just got a big stupid grin on my face while watching this :) I can't wait to see it in HD :)
--------
Well, who cares...for every whining fanboy/girl there will be a hundred new viewers...
You know, the people here who are complaining that this movie may have too much "Star Wars" like action are probably the same twits that complained that there was NOT enough action in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Theres no pleasing the fanatics!
At last a Star Trek movie that has that Epic, feel good, comic book adventure look to it that has been missing since the Wrath of Khan, the colour pallette, action sequences and from the little snippet of footage the chemistry between pine and quinto seems electric......i cant wait !!
-
the colour pallette
That's been my favorite part of all the preview pics we've been getting. The uniforms and the deflector dish (i love blue) and the Vulcan landscape just abso-friggin-lutely rock.
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
At last a Star Trek movie that has that Epic, feel good, comic book adventure look to it that has been missing since the Wrath of Khan, the colour pallette, action sequences and from the little snippet of footage the chemistry between pine and quinto seems electric......i cant wait !!
I'm disgusted with this more than words can say, in one swift move they have turned Star Trek into Star Wars!!!
Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon and Fred Freiburger are doing back flips and somersaults in their Graves or ashes in space.
Thanks for the preview I will be going to to movie just to be watching the laughing and jeering from the gangs of punks, who will probably be throwing popcorn and drinks on the geeks who sit in awe over this tripe.(just kidding of course!)
It should be fun actually.
love Amy and her Landru friends!
(5th and last edit!)
--------
.."Tis a thirst....a flower... dying in the desert....
"Stop, No!, Do not order me!"
"I choose where I want to go, what I want to do... I CHOOSE!"
-
Of course it's not TOS. TOS was a television series which ran on NBC from 1966-1969.
This is J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" featuring his interpretations of the ship and characters, which is coming to theaters in 2009.
Don't know what to tell you if you can't accept the fact that a 100+ million dollar theatrical movie designed to attract more than just hardcore Trekkies isn't going to be a perfect replica of a television show that will have been off the air for 40 years when it arrives in theaters.
--------
"Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk
-
How amusing, you, a dear child instructing the expert about her life long hobby...Star Trek.
Thank you my very dear boy/girl/trekchild.
with all my love,
Aunt Amy
- not quite in the nursing home -
--------
.."Tis a thirst....a flower... dying in the desert....
"Stop, No!, Do not order me!"
"I choose where I want to go, what I want to do... I CHOOSE!"
-
ah, there she is... i knew you still had it in ya!
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
-
"Thanks for the preview I will be going to to movie just to watch the laughing and jeering with the gangs of punks, throwing popcorn and drinks on the geeks who sit in awe over this tripe."
Anyone who behaves like that gives fans a bad name.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
Trailer looks great to me. I converted it to an MP4 and single stepped thru it. You actually get to see a lot of stuff. The Enterprise looks fantastic in motion and the whole thing has a very cinematic, big-movie feel (something that many of the Trek films sadly lacked).
I feel sorry for those people who can't get past their prejudices about this not being identical to TOS. If they want to attract a new audience, they really can't do that anymore and need to make it accessible to a wider audience. As for me, I'm excited and can't wait for May to get here.
-
Quote:
I feel sorry for those people who can't get past their prejudices about this not being identical to TOS. If they want to attract a new audience, they really can't do that anymore and need to make it accessible to a wider audience.
I blame the mixed messages from Paramount and Abrams, all of whom said this is going to be a true prequel, not a reinvention. If they'd come out and said it was a reinvention -- a new beginning -- after the inevitable grumbling I think the diehards would have accepted the new look easier.
I still think we're going to get some sort of story-related rationale for the new look because of all the people (including Kevin Smith) who claim the film fits into canon. So I'm keeping an open mind about that.
And at worst, I'll do what a lot of other people do and simply treat it as a reinvention, a Trek 2.0, and enjoy it that way and to hell with what Paramount claims about it being a prequel. Let it be a new beginning like Casino Royale was for Bond.
Al
James T Kirk becomes Luke Skywalker.
Complete with 'destiny' shit and everything.
Or so it seems from the trailer.
--------
1
-
"destiny shit"???
DESTINY IS EVERYTHING! Giving Trek back some sense of destiny and meaning isn't shit...
It's all about destiny, not about galavating around the galaxy, fighting your forehead aliens of the week..
BTW: This movie has got a destiny, too...It's destined to kick some serious a$$!
-
I agree. The trailer rocks !!! This movie is gonna be huge, dude.
And commanding a starship is Kirk's first, best destiny, as Spock said once.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
..it looks like Trek for those that thought the Mission Impossible movies were better than the series. Which I'm sure is the case with people who though the original was too cerebral. Sigh
What's with the scene with Uhura taking off her shirt? Hope it's vitally important to the movie. Else it won't be long before we have a buff shirtless Kirk rubbing decontamination gel on a half naked Uhura or other female crew member. Just because.
-
Even though I HATE Tom Cruise, I consider the movies far superior to the series. The series was quite boring...I tried to get into it after having seen the first two movies...didn't work out...
As for the shirt...It doesn't have to be vitally important at all...it's just sensuality that sells and that is a good thing...just because!
Though I really hate the WHITE bra...it should have been black or red on Uhura. White bras are ugly!
oh my.... oohhhhhhh my...
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
I wasn't excited until now. Thanks.
(1)
| 
