Youtube
A big huge can of awesome sauce, that is what this is!
Seconded, and I'll raise you a .
Trailer looks good
Do the actors cast for Kirk & Spock look too young to anyone else? Seems like they should barely be in the Academy, much less commanding the Enterprise
The "next generation" of Trek effects does look pretty cool, though.
Yeah, a bit. I hope the movie takes it seriously. Young actors are OK, as long as the script is mature. No teenage drama, please. That ruined AvP: Requiem. Seriously, a gory movie with aliens fighting predators with humans caught in the middle does not lend itself well to a pizza delivery teen having a crush on a girl from school, with the discovery of the aliens only possible because the girl's jackass of a boyfriend chucked his keys down the sewage drain
I saw this trailer over the weekend when I went to see Quantum of Solace (which, imho, was a bit of a letdown). I was quite a "trekkie" in my younger years but the series has appealed to me less and less over time... particularly with the general catastrophe that was Enterprise... but this trailer has renewed my faith. I'm ready for this film, and oddly, a number of the people I was with admitted that it looked good. Perhaps because I didn't even realize what it was until about 30 seconds in. J.J. Abrams for the win?
As for the actors being young, I don't really have an issue with it. They're going for a "sexier" view of Trek, I think, which is okay with me as long as it's not ridiculously overdone (original series...?). Chris Pine is no Patrick Stewart, and it does seem a bit odd that such a young captain (and crew, I suppose) would be placed in command of Starfleet's flagship, but isn't that what's so special about Kirk? He's extremely accomplished at a very young age... probably from all that driving stolen cars across deserts
Indeed. Let's see if this movie can be done without screwing up Trek history.
may!!
gah
I cant wait!
[url]http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/[/url]DL is inconsistent. My bet is it is getting slammed. It is also exclusive through apple so the official site won't show it until tomorrow.BTW. It is needed to be seen in Hidef. Youtube hack job didn't do it justice.
There is a big uproar going on in the trek community about jj abrams making the original series look so umm.. Different.
This movie should be considered the BSG of Star Trek. Similar but definely not the same. It is a Reboot, because we have a time traveling romulan (along with his uber ship) from the late 24th century causing chaos in the mid 23rd century mucking everything up. All this just to kill Kirk. The trek timeline as we knew it is smashed.
The only canon being adhered to is the characters. Everything else is re-imagined BSG style.
Yes i think the new cast is a little to young, but they are supposed to be "academy cadets". Except for young spock who seems to be the leader of this bunch. Loved seeing him lose his cool.
I grew up watching the original star trek, and i think after 40 years its time for something new, and completely different. Though one again we have yet another time travel story. C-mon guys time travel in trek is old hat.
The trailer looked excellent despite my dislike of the new ship, and the Abercrombie and Finch models....err i mean the new crew.
Hopefully JJ Abrams does to trek what Ron Moore did with BSG.
That's a pretty tall order, IMO. But thanks for the buzz--I hadn't read as much about the project as I'd thought.
They put time-travel in. Why, oh God, WHY?!
Chris Pine is 28, the Shat was 35 when doing the start of the Original Series. I guess Chris Pine does look about 24/25 in the Film but maybe if he can pull it off then he can pull it off!
zachary quinto is 31, due to Spock's Vulcanicity, age would not be much of an issue since Vulcans live longer than Humans an appear to be young for their age look at Tuvok, he looked in his early 40's and was 106 when Voyager went missing
I'm not a trek-ee but I do remember reading that everyone is well into their 100's or something, but modern medicine keeps them all looking young. So they might look 24/25, but wouldnt' they actually be in their 40's?
EDIT
I watched the trailer. It's a much grittier looking Star Trek. Not so much the Utopian Trek I remember watching as a kid. I never liked it, seemed to fake that everything was so clean. Deep Space 9 seemed to divulge a bit from that. Also, this movie looks like it has way more action in it than Star Trek old as well. I'm interested to see how it turns out.
that was suppose to be star trek reboot. Well i guess Kirk has more an interesting life when he was young then probably mellowed out a bit when the original series timeline came around.
Well no matter, I will be grading this movie against Star Trek II.
Oh come on there's umpteen ST plots with time travel in (think ST IV and First Contact for a start).
I reckon that this will be a bit of a Batman Begins / Casino Royale sort of film - liked by a wider audience but hated by hardcore fans. Basically though they had a choice between something like this or ditching it. The demise of Enterprise shows that 'authentic' ST doesn't have the wide appeal it once had.
BTW did anyone know that an ancient and mysterious race called the Iconians featured in a TNG episode... I suspect someone at SD might be a bit of a ST fan.
Well I think the time travel thing was sort of required to set up the reboot. It would allow them to branch off the 'canon' that has been more or less established by all the series and movies. They couldn't really just set it in the same timeline as the old ST series and retell the adventures of the same Kirk and Spock.. and there wasn't that much room for them to continue from where Nemesis left off - let's face it, with no Patrick Stewart/Jonathan Frakes/Brent Spiner/Marina Sirtis/Michael Dorn they'd have an extremely uphill battle in making a watchable movie with a completely new crew.
The solution then is to tie the new movie in with the established timeline, but give it enough of a twist that would set the movie aside and allow the new timeline to grow - what better way to do that than time travel? Romulans go back, screw stuff up, and the Trek universe isn't quite the same anymore.
It's definitely a reboot in that sense, and hopefully it manages to be a good one and more Trek films follow it. But I wouldn't say that the established fans will hate it just yet
QFT
Really I have to wonder, why do (some) ST fans scream for a new star trek film or series, and then take the new film or series and bash it to oblivion? Its stupid really, they want a new series, but then hate the NEW stuff because its DIFFERENT from the OLD stuff. Anybody else see the irony in this? I pity those stupid fans.
Also, the authentic ST fans are above 40 years old. What worked in the 70s and 80s does not work very well now, 30 years later, 2 generations later, one internet later and one Lord of the Rings trilogy later (really, many youngters judge according to those movies.)
Looked odd, the battles were cool, but the rest.. Uhmm, there were things that looked more like some drama series than star trek, with plenty of whiny characters and what not.. plus they looked to young.
Funnily enough, JJ Abrams himself admitted that he didn't make the movie for the old fans so much as to make new ones
Enterprise was not "authentic" in any way, shape or form.
Enterprise failed because it had the worst writing possible. A TV show lives or dies on the basis of its writing. If the BSG reboot had Enterprises writers, it would have failed even more miserably. Fortunately for them and fans, BSG got DS9's writers, which seems to have worked out pretty well so far.
Authentic ST can work. But not when you have crappy writing; nothing works with crappy writing.
Yes. Which is why it is overused and cliche. Hence the "WHY?!"
Not to mention that most time travel plots suck. Some work, some work very well, some are just funny, but most of the time that Star Trek dips into that well, they come up with crap.
No. First, there was no need for a reboot to begin with. If they wanted to tell new stories, just jump ahead of the DS9/Voyager timeline for about 25 years.
What they're doing here is trying to entice the old guard of Star Trek fans by ostenteously making a movie about the TOS crew, except that they're going to take their own spin on it, make the characters and setting their own, and take out whatever they want. That is, they're hijacking the setting in order to do whatever they want to.
The Batman Begins reboot was not that. It was a different take on the same character. The Casino Royale reboot is similar to that: it's still Bond, but in a more serious world.
The trailer showed clearly that they have no intension of being true to the characters of TOS, the setting of Star Trek, or, well, anything really. They're just stealing the face of the show to make yet another Hollywood blockbuster. In short, they're doing to Star Trek what was done to Transformers.
That's a pretty ridiculous way of looking at it. Is it impossible for you to accept that we might like the new stuff if it were actually good, but we don't see the new stuff as being good?
DS9 was new for Trek. It was a very different kind of Trek. Grittier, darker, but there was still a sense of optimism and hope. It didn't focus so much on exploration of places as exploration of people, but the exploration was still there.
DS9 is the kind of "different" that I'm looking for. And thus far, this new Star Trek isn't that.
A DS9/Voyager movie would've tanked horribly at the box office. Those shows haven't gotten nearly as much exposure as TOS/TNG. If they made a movie based on it, it would've made very little money and Star Trek movies would be even deader.
A fresh reboot is the only way to suck in new fans to make making Trek movies worthwhile.
It was completely that. Notice in the Dark Knight his nemesis was the Joker, which there is already an old Batman movie about. Begins set up a whole new Batman that they can use to make new movies and new stories.
Did you notice the words jump ahead in my post? As in, a move after those series with an entirely new crew of characters that they can do what they want with.
Again, did you actually read my post? Batman Begins was not a hijacking of the Batman setting in order to do whatever the writers wanted. They told a Batman story, not a story in Batman's clothes.
This new Star Trek does not look like a Star Trek story; it looks like a story that's wearing Star Trek like a paper-thin disguise.
Exactly my point. What you described of DS9 is not something "new", it the same old thing, but with a different sugar coating. TNG tackled the same topic which is DS9 main topic, the darker setting. I recall an episode, mirror something iirc, of an alternating reality where the federation is in a state of total war against the klingons. That episode had a much darker feel to it, and a lot of characterization, espcially of the (she) lieutanant who goes to the old enterprise to fight a losing battle against romulans. But TNG never elaborated much on that topic. DS9 did.
You do have a point about the aweful writing of Enterprise though.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
