New Star Trek 11 Trailer

[Capt_Picard 0]

 

 

Thoughts?

[Kor37 9]

Isn't this the same trailer that you just poster?...

[Capt_Picard 0]

Isn't this the same trailer that you just poster?...

I figured it needed its own topic...

[PhaseSniper 0]

What the hell........

 

Did that remind anyone else of Starship Troopers? And who is that alien dude?

 

It does look cool though.

Edited November 17, 2008 by PhaseSniper

[A l t e r E g o 9]

The Official HD teaser trailer 2... http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/st...e_trailer2.html

[Garzo 0]

I'm withholding judgment until I see the film, but the new trailer does bring up a few questions: is that supposed to be the Enterprise under construction as young Kirk pulls up on his "motorcycle" (apparently not an anti-gravity speeder)? I always thought (and understood from Trek lore) that the Enterprise was an older ship that had been around for some 20 years before Kirk took command of it. According to "cannon," the Enterprise set sail in 2245 under the command of Captain Robert April. And, after being under the command of Captain Christopher Pike for 10 years, Captain James T. Kirk took command of the vessel in 2264.

So obviously, unless the filmmakers of the new film have completely reworked the established timeline, the ship under construction in the new move trailer as young Kirk drives up on his bike cannot be the Enterprise.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I'm withholding judgment until I see the film, but the new trailer does bring up a few questions: is that supposed to be the Enterprise under construction as young Kirk pulls up on his "motorcycle" (apparently not an anti-gravity speeder)? I always thought (and understood from Trek lore) that the Enterprise was an older ship that had been around for some 20 years before Kirk took command of it. According to "cannon," the Enterprise set sail in 2245 under the command of Captain Robert April. And, after being under the command of Captain Christopher Pike for 10 years, Captain James T. Kirk took command of the vessel in 2264.

So obviously, unless the filmmakers of the new film have completely reworked the established timeline, the ship under construction in the new move trailer as young Kirk drives up on his bike cannot be the Enterprise.

 

 

Here's what my Star Trek Encyclopedia says (You may have to click on the pic to enlarge it):

 

[MrPsychic 1]

That's the trouble with conjecture, it's open to all sorts of interpretation. Besides, April was only mentioned in TAS, which isn't considered canon by Paramount.

[Stephen of Borg 2]

you've got to forget canon or you will find something wrong with the movie, especially for nit-pickers. I think the movie looks amazing and will bring new people to appreciate Trek. This is basically like a reboot so not everything will be the same and they aren't trying to be 100% the same. It's been the same and no one plays Trek anymore on TV. It's off G4 and almost off Spike and played less on Scifi. This could be the breathe of fresh air the franchise needs.

[Kor37 9]

Actually, canon will be ok here. Its ok for a very young James Kirk to see the Enterprise constructed. Kirk didn't take over command of the Enterprise until he was in his thirties so that leaves plenty of time for April and Pike to have had their adventures.

[deagletime 1]

So obviously, unless the filmmakers of the new film have completely reworked the established timeline, the ship under construction in the new move trailer as young Kirk drives up on his bike cannot be the Enterprise.

 

Exactly... who said it was the enterprise? there were after all about a dozen or so consitution class starships..

[Stephen of Borg 2]

looks like Kirk has his gold uniform on in the trailer, which is good since all the promo pics show him wearing his black shirt. I guess that could be the end of the movie when he wears the gold. Simon Pegg was also really impressive as Scotty and sounds like he does a good Scotty accent. The only thing that bugs me just a little is that Anton Yelchin doesn't look like Koenig. Out of all the actors, he is the one that sticks out to me.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

So obviously, unless the filmmakers of the new film have completely reworked the established timeline, the ship under construction in the new move trailer as young Kirk drives up on his bike cannot be the Enterprise.

 

Exactly... who said it was the enterprise? there were after all about a dozen or so consitution class starships..

 

It's the Enterprise:

 

Click for Spoiler:

 

As for forgetting canon, you can't forget canon. If they're going to use canon to use the characters (Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy etc..) then you can't forget canon. Canon is Star Trek's history.

 

I'll go to the movie, I may even like it but honestly I'm not a fan of some of the changes I've seen so far. If they're going back the the NCC-1701 of Kirks day then the bridge should look like it did in TOS. The ship should look similar too.

 

I'll old judgment on any changes until I see the story and fully see the changes and any reason they might give for the changes, if any is given at all. Changing it just for a "reboot" though, no I wouldn't be pleased with that.

 

It'd be like rebooting Star Wars, except this time R2D2 would be orange and would hover rather than be grounded and would have the abilities of a battle droid, and in stead of bleeps and squeeks for sound he'd actually speak english.

 

Might be interesting, but how do you think the Star Wars fandom would react? Remember JarJar Binks? They'd love him compared to how much they'd hate the "reboot".

[Stephen of Borg 2]

the things changed are not that drastic. My brother who isn't a Trekkie wants to see this movie, so they are doing something right. It is already drawing in people who aren't Trek fans.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I still believe canon matters. Why have a "history" if it's going to be ignored?

 

As for a very young Kirk seeing the Enterprise under construction, remember James T. Kirk was born in 2233. Enterprise was launched in 2245, so yes a 12 year old or younger Kirk could see it under construction. He looks 20+ in the trailer though. If that's the biggest error in canon that they make then that's not that big of a deal, it's a story telling device. A little annoying but I could live with it. I'd rather they show the little boy Kirk looking up at it but I'm not the one making the movie.

 

The design of the ship and layout of the bridge though, a little more annoying. There's 79 hours of TV that show the bridge and ship as it is in the series, not to mention the DS9 spisode "Trials and Trible-ations" and the TNG episode with Scotty (The episode title escapes me at the moment) any movie that is set back in that era should at least try to be close to what has already been established. Draw new viewers in but don't do it by abandoning the fandom with massive errors in canon, especially a fandom that cares a great deal about canon.

 

Of course I'm keeping in mind that we haven't seen the inside of the Enterprise yet, we've seen what looks like the bridge of some ship (or simulator) but we don't know what it actually is in the movie and if it is the Enterprise and those changes are what they are but they stay true to canon on everything else then I won't judge the movie on that alone but I will be disappointed.

 

After all, one of the criticism's of Enterprise was that it was set before TOS but the bridge and onboard computers looked much more modern than the TOS bridge and computers. We'll see once the movie comes out how it is.

 

Has anyone else noticed that in the trailer, when Spock has a choke hold on Kirk (I assume it's Kirk) that the image is reversed? His patch is on the wrong side. I sure hope they're more careful with the actual movie and don't make idiot mistakes like that in the final edit.

[Kor37 9]

It'd be like rebooting Star Wars, except this time R2D2 would be orange and would hover rather than be grounded and would have the abilities of a battle droid, and in stead of bleeps and squeeks for sound he'd actually speak english.

 

That sounds exactly like what they did to Battlestar:Galactica

[Kor37 9]

Here's a neat article I read today:

 

Since When Is There Sex in 'Star Trek'?

PopEater / Wire Services

posted: 4 HOURS 48 MINUTES AGOcomments: 17filed under: Gut Reactions, Movie News, Sex That's SFW

(Nov. 18) -- Just like everything these days, it seems that the new 'Star Trek' movie is getting a sex-and-violence filled edge.

The new trailer for the impending 'Trek' film is out, and even more shocking than Zachary Quinto as Mr. Spock is the fact that there's some serious getting-it-on (see screengrabs above) to be seen. Yep, 'Star Trek' sex!

 

'Trek' director and producer J.J. Abrams visited Rome on Friday to give a sneak peek of the early years of Capt. James T. Kirk and the other characters who warp around the galaxy in the upcoming "Star Trek" movie.

The prequel, set to open worldwide in May 2009, explores how the starship Enterprise and its iconic crew set out on their interstellar journey, adding a good dose of space battles and dastardly aliens.

"My goal was to make a movie about the emotional lives of these characters," Abrams told reporters. "We've seen a million ships fly by the camera, but nobody is going to care about the ship if they don't care about the people inside."

Abrams hopes the movie, which is aimed at revitalizing the 42-year-old franchise, will appeal not only to die-hard fans but to people who didn't follow the original 1960s adventures of Kirk, the logical alien Spock and their fellow explorers.

"I want fans of Star Trek to come watch it, but the truth is I made the movie for future fans," Abrams said at the presentation in a Rome theater. He and his footage made similar appearances across Europe this week.

"Star Trek" fans — and they are legion — have been eagerly anticipating the movie for more than a year. As excited as they are, however, many have expressed trepidations that the film will be a "reboot" and will reconfigure the fictional history of the "Trek" universe they have followed so ardently.

Abrams and his writers have promised to be faithful to the spirit of "Star Trek" and its fan base. Still, the director of "Mission: Impossible III" and creator of TV's "Lost" and "Alias" acknowledged that he was no Trekkie before starting the project.

"It was never my thing," he said. "I have become a trekker having fallen in love with the characters."

The preview and four "Star Trek" scenes were strictly controlled, with security keeping out cameras and other recording devices.

 

This much we can say: The brash and womanizing Kirk had a less than glorious start to his career, since the film introduces him as a bar-brawling biker in 23rd-century Iowa.

The movie follows the young troublemaker, played by actor Chris Pine, as he meets up with his future crew, getting off to a rocky start with most of them, including Zachary Quinto's edgy and hostile Spock.

The peek given Friday also featured plenty of action sequences, including a hair-raising space dive and a sword duel at high altitude above an alien planet as the crew battle the villains led by Eric Bana.

The movie is also likely to enthrall fans with inside jokes, including a scene that pokes fun at the accent of Russian character Chekov, as well as a cameo by Leonard Nimoy, who reprises his original role appearing as an aging, time-traveling Spock. The original Kirk, actor William Shatner, will not appear in the movie.

In its first incarnation, "Star Trek" ran from 1966 to 1969 before it was canceled. An animated series was made in the 1970s, followed by four sequel series between 1987 and 2005.

The original cast reunited for six feature films between 1979 and 1991 before yielding the big screen to the younger cast of "Star Trek: The Next Generation." But popularity waned, and no "Trek" feature film has been released since 2002.

2008 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved. // Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. // Copyright 2008, Reuters

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Here's a neat article I read today:

 

"Star Trek" fans — and they are legion — have been eagerly anticipating the movie for more than a year. As excited as they are, however, many have expressed trepidations that the film will be a "reboot" and will reconfigure the fictional history of the "Trek" universe they have followed so ardently.

Abrams and his writers have promised to be faithful to the spirit of "Star Trek" and its fan base.

 

This part concerns me. There is a "history" already set. If you are "reconfiguring" that history then you aren't being faithful to the spirit of Star Trek. I was really excited when I heard that they were making this movie, really looking forward to it. Now I'm not too sure.

 

Maybe I'll be wrong, hopefully I'll be wrong but I have the sinking feeling that picking Abrams to do this movie may have been a huge mistake that in the end could end up killing the franchise as far as future projects go.

[PhaseSniper 0]

Here's a neat article I read today:

 

"Star Trek" fans — and they are legion — have been eagerly anticipating the movie for more than a year. As excited as they are, however, many have expressed trepidations that the film will be a "reboot" and will reconfigure the fictional history of the "Trek" universe they have followed so ardently.

Abrams and his writers have promised to be faithful to the spirit of "Star Trek" and its fan base.

 

This part concerns me. There is a "history" already set. If you are "reconfiguring" that history then you aren't being faithful to the spirit of Star Trek. I was really excited when I heard that they were making this movie, really looking forward to it. Now I'm not too sure.

 

Maybe I'll be wrong, hopefully I'll be wrong but I have the sinking feeling that picking Abrams to do this movie may have been a huge mistake that in the end could end up killing the franchise as far as future projects go.

 

I agree. It already seems to focus too much on the sex/violence, but if they reconfigure the existing history of the Star Trek universe I will not be happy

 

Also, Checkov better not be able to pronounce his Vs.

Edited November 19, 2008 by PhaseSniper

[Stephen of Borg 2]

early on, Yelchin said that Chekov will still say "wessels" and things like that.

[BakulaBabe 2]

After seeing the trailer a few times, I thought the young guy riding up on his bike was a young Christopher Pike. Could that be possible?

[TransporterMalfunction 1]

After seeing the new trailer I can't say I'm overly impressed. I'll wait till I see the film but I can't really see it fitting into Trek history as we know it, so I'm looking at it as a recon and something completely different to the Star Trek we know and love.

 

If the whole thing stands on it's own, then fine. If not I'll just write it off and go back to The Wrath of Khan - Voyage Home trilogy, which in my eyes can't be beaten anyway.

[gul_nodrog 2]

Well, I love the new Battlestar Galactica, probably because I never watched the old one!

 

New people are probably going to like this new Star Trek because they never watched the old series'. They never will go back and watch the original material and as this is a reboot, there will be no need or desire in them to do so.

[Kor37 9]

Well, I love the new Battlestar Galactica, probably because I never watched the old one!

 

New people are probably going to like this new Star Trek because they never watched the old series'. They never will go back and watch the original material and as this is a reboot, there will be no need or desire in them to do so.

Actually, if I like a movie based on a TV show that I had never watched before, I would be more inclined to watch the TV show afterwards.

[gul_nodrog 2]

Well, I love the new Battlestar Galactica, probably because I never watched the old one!

 

New people are probably going to like this new Star Trek because they never watched the old series'. They never will go back and watch the original material and as this is a reboot, there will be no need or desire in them to do so.

Actually, if I like a movie based on a TV show that I had never watched before, I would be more inclined to watch the TV show afterwards.

 

 

It really depends on how different the movie is from the t.v. show. I think it fair to say that anyone who watched The Wrath of Kahn would undoubtedly have gone back to the source material. Those who are watching the new BSG are looking a reimagined thing, and the old stuff really has no bearing on the new.

 

Does that make sense?

[Kor37 9]

Well, I love the new Battlestar Galactica, probably because I never watched the old one!

 

New people are probably going to like this new Star Trek because they never watched the old series'. They never will go back and watch the original material and as this is a reboot, there will be no need or desire in them to do so.

Actually, if I like a movie based on a TV show that I had never watched before, I would be more inclined to watch the TV show afterwards.

 

 

It really depends on how different the movie is from the t.v. show. I think it fair to say that anyone who watched The Wrath of Kahn would undoubtedly have gone back to the source material. Those who are watching the new BSG are looking a reimagined thing, and the old stuff really has no bearing on the new.

 

Does that make sense?

 

I see what you are saying. But in the case of Battlestar:Galactica, I would think there would still be a curiousity factor on what the original show was all about. I have to disagree with you on BG. If I watched the new one and went back and watched the old one, I'd realize how much better the original was.......lol....just my opinion there.

[gul_nodrog 2]

I see what you are saying. But in the case of Battlestar:Galactica, I would think there would still be a curiousity factor on what the original show was all about. I have to disagree with you on BG. If I watched the new one and went back and watched the old one, I'd realize how much better the original was.......lol....just my opinion there.

 

It's possible that I feel that way because I have a huge crush on Jamie Bamber (Lee Adama). I'm 42 years old and I just blush like a schoolgirl everytime he comes onscreen! :)

[Kor37 9]

I see what you are saying. But in the case of Battlestar:Galactica, I would think there would still be a curiousity factor on what the original show was all about. I have to disagree with you on BG. If I watched the new one and went back and watched the old one, I'd realize how much better the original was.......lol....just my opinion there.

 

It's possible that I feel that way because I have a huge crush on Jamie Bamber (Lee Adama). I'm 42 years old and I just blush like a schoolgirl everytime he comes onscreen! :)

I feel the same way about Maren Jensen..... :)

[Stephen of Borg 2]

They never will go back and watch the original material and as this is a reboot, there will be no need or desire in them to do so.

 

could be a true statement. My brother told me that the new movie looks awesome, but that doesn't stop TOS from being boring. The difference is that he has watched TOS with me, so he isn't a Trek virgin. Strange since he is a TNG fan, but that is the only Trek he likes