PDA

View Full Version : New "Star Trek" film trailer! Looks awesome! Much better than it seemed originally!



Kernel Sanders
November 18th, 2008, 03:26 PM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VT3YTK51HtU

I was VERY critical of this film to start with, hating the fact that the cast looks too young, nothing like their older counterparts, and that the bridge of the Enterprise looks like the apple store.

HOWEVER, this trailer looks awesome :shock:

What do you guys think? Could this movie turn out to be awesome after all? :shock:

Sealbhach
November 18th, 2008, 03:31 PM
Looks different. I think if I drop all comparisons with past Star Trek presentations and view it as a story in its own right, I will enjoy it a lot more. That's the approach I'm going to take.


.

billgoldberg
November 18th, 2008, 03:31 PM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VT3YTK51HtU

I was VERY critical of this film to start with, hating the fact that the cast looks too young, nothing like their older counterparts, and that the bridge of the Enterprise looks like the apple store.

HOWEVER, this trailer looks awesome :shock:

What do you guys think? Could this movie turn out to be awesome after all? :shock:

I see aliens, futuristic cities, hot girls and big explosions.

Yes, I'll like this.

Dixon Bainbridge
November 18th, 2008, 03:42 PM
[url]
What do you guys think? Could this movie turn out to be awesome after all? :shock:

It's Star Trek. How could it be awesome?

Spr0k3t
November 18th, 2008, 03:52 PM
I see aliens, futuristic cities, hot girls and big explosions.

Yes, I'll like this.

Sounds like a Michael Ba-splosions movie. But it's not... we likes J.J.

eternalnewbee
November 18th, 2008, 03:52 PM
It's Star Trek. How could it be awesome?
Your logic is flawed.

bash
November 18th, 2008, 03:53 PM
Looks like they turned it into your standart action movie. Not that I don't enjoy action movies tremendiously, it just looks like they took everything that made Star Trek what it was. Kind of what happened to the newest Bond movie. Not a bad movie but just not a "Bond" movie.

Mr. Picklesworth
November 18th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Looks like they turned it into your standart action movie. Not that I don't enjoy action movies tremendiously, it just looks like they took everything that made Star Trek what it was. Kind of what happened to the newest Bond movie. Not a bad movie but just not a "Bond" movie.

I agree. It's the direction everything is going in these days, and we wise ones are simply not enough to curve their opinion -- and we've all paid for their junk now anyway :(

We're all DOOMED!

SeanHodges
November 18th, 2008, 04:09 PM
I see aliens, futuristic cities, hot girls and big explosions.

Yes, I'll like this.

Ha ha

+1

daverich
November 18th, 2008, 04:46 PM
may 8th!?

I thought they were releasing this for christmas.

oh well.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

mrgnash
November 18th, 2008, 05:21 PM
I got chills when I saw the shot of the Enterprise being built.

I'm such a nerd :P

Now, I could be a stickler and point out that, according to Star Trek canon, federation starships were constructed in space, not planetside; that's one of the reasons they could be built to such a massive scale. But although I am a big fan of the series (well, up until Nemesis... the stench of which took a lot of scrubbing in the shower to erase), I am not one of those people who clings so tightly to how something was, either in the past, or in another medium, that I crack a hissy fit at the slightest deviation. I do hope that they stick to some of the core philosophies that the series was built upon (humanity having reached a socialist utopia of sorts, the love of discovery, science, reason and knowledge, and secular ethics), but I like Abrams' other work, and I'm looking forward to seeing what fresh spin he can put on this beloved franchise :)

My hope is that it is successful enough to launch a new series, or at least some sequels.

Mr. Picklesworth
November 18th, 2008, 05:40 PM
They seem to be pretending that other prequel (Enterprise) didn't exist, which is a bit of a shame since the show had its good points. (It picked up a bit near the end, honest!).

For example, judging by the chatter in the background of that trailer, they are going on as if the Enterprise (the NCC 1701 one, of course, no the other one) is something super unique while TOS always painted it as something of a normal operation...

mrgnash
November 18th, 2008, 05:52 PM
They seem to be pretending that other prequel (Enterprise) didn't exist, which is a bit of a shame since the show had its good points. (It picked up a bit near the end, honest!).

For example, judging by the chatter in the background of that trailer, they are going on as if the Enterprise is something super unique while TOS always painted it as something of a normal operation.

It did? I am under the impression that the Enterprise was the only starship in the Federation to undertake such a long voyage (5 years) with no other directive than to "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

I agree though, Enterprise did have its good points... in fact I enjoyed it more than Voyager, and was sad when it got canned.

SunnyRabbiera
November 18th, 2008, 06:16 PM
It did? I am under the impression that the Enterprise was the only starship in the Federation to undertake such a long voyage (5 years) with no other directive than to "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

I agree though, Enterprise did have its good points... in fact I enjoyed it more than Voyager, and was sad when it got canned.

I thought enterprise sucked, it basically ignored continuity and made things up for the heck of it.
That Xindi crap ruined it, as did the crappy borg episode.
As for this movie I refuse to see it, Abrams doesnt give a crap about the star trek fans he said it itself.
You cant be ignorant of the fanbase when you do a movie like this, you step on someones toes and you will get a phaser blast to the head.

mrgnash
November 18th, 2008, 06:49 PM
I thought enterprise sucked, it basically ignored continuity and made things up for the heck of it.
That Xindi crap ruined it, as did the crappy borg episode.
As for this movie I refuse to see it, Abrams doesnt give a crap about the star trek fans he said it itself.
You cant be ignorant of the fanbase when you do a movie like this, you step on someones toes and you will get a phaser blast to the head.

That's fair enough, but to me, there comes a time when the insistence on absolute fidelity to canon in every iteration of a particular series/franchise/whatever becomes nothing but a fetter on creativity. I am part of the fanbase you speak of, but as I said in my previous post, I'm not going to be a stickler about whether they manage to get every piece of lore 100% correct. People were willing to give Nolan the license to do something new with Batman Begins, and I haven't seen too many people up in arms over the reinterpretation of Arthurian legend in the BBC's new series, Merlin. If Star Trek fans can't do the same, and make the same sort of complaints that LOTR nerds did concerning the horses/ponies/whatever having the wrong names, then it will only reinforce yet another negative "Trekkie" stereotype.

Frankly, I don't care as long as they stay true to the spirit of Star Trek. To my mind, anyone who balks over details probably never apprehended said spirit in the first place.

BunnyGirlDoom
November 18th, 2008, 07:32 PM
My first few minutes here and I already like you guys.

I have my reservations about the film, but I will see it anyway. I've been a long time Star Trek fan - my dad used to tell me stories about how he would let me watch Star Trek with him when I was just a wee lass, in the mid 70s. It took off from there. While I am exclusive about my ST in regards to the TOS, I always did have a special place for TNG because it's definite link to the Enterprise crew of the past, good character development (Picard, Warf, Data) and some interesting story lines. However, DS9 and Voyager can eat my bra. Also, someone above mentioned there dislike of Nemesis. I'm right there with ya.

Anyway, I'm rambling. JJ Abrahams... I was a little surprised that they have him directing. I'm also a little unhappy withthe cast choices, except for maybe Jon Cho, but while I like him, he will always be "Harold" to me. Geez, I guess we should be thankful there's no young Harry Mudd in this.

Or is there? Ha.

I'm still gonna see it though. I'm not going to lie to you and say I'm going to boycott the film only to rent it on DVD some day. Because really, I have to see it. My curiosity is too intense. I'll probably hate it, but such is the way of the world.

Cheers.

lukjad
November 18th, 2008, 07:39 PM
May this movie live long in the theaters and be prosperous.

SunnyRabbiera
November 18th, 2008, 07:45 PM
That's fair enough, but to me, there comes a time when the insistence on absolute fidelity to canon in every iteration of a particular series/franchise/whatever becomes nothing but a fetter on creativity. I am part of the fanbase you speak of, but as I said in my previous post, I'm not going to be a stickler about whether they manage to get every piece of lore 100% correct. People were willing to give Nolan the license to do something new with Batman Begins, and I haven't seen too many people up in arms over the reinterpretation of Arthurian legend in the BBC's new series, Merlin. If Star Trek fans can't do the same, and make the same sort of complaints that LOTR nerds did concerning the horses/ponies/whatever having the wrong names, then it will only reinforce yet another negative "Trekkie" stereotype.

Frankly, I don't care as long as they stay true to the spirit of Star Trek. To my mind, anyone who balks over details probably never apprehended said spirit in the first place.


But the thing is that Abrams just doesnt seem interested in the product he assigned to revive, he seems to care only about money.
For me its having a balance of respecting fans and also doing what you feel is good for the franchise.
Now you argued about Nolans Batman films, well at least he is a batman fan and so far I think he has done a good job with his direction of the new batman films. Now yes he diverges from the comics, but he doesnt obscure too much from the bases.
Now yes you brought up Merlin, but the story of King Author can be told and retold a million times and adapted to fit a certain type of audience
King Author never really had a true official series in the past (the legend of King Author is more of a compiled one) so there is not any real way to argue fanbase here.
And as for lord of the rings, I never cared for the movies anyhow... Not because of any real nitpicking but because I still think that Peter Jackson is an overrated director.
Yes he did a great job with directing LOTR but everyone seemed to treat him like a god when the films he made before that were mostly garbage.
And the film he made after the trilogy King Kong was also crap, a poor remake of a classic film in my opinion.
But yet again Jackson was a fan of the LOTR books, and I felt he stayed true as possible.
But Abrams?
He pretends the franchise never existed and there is where lines are drawn.

mrgnash
November 18th, 2008, 09:29 PM
But the thing is that Abrams just doesnt seem interested in the product he assigned to revive, he seems to care only about money.
For me its having a balance of respecting fans and also doing what you feel is good for the franchise.
Now you argued about Nolans Batman films, well at least he is a batman fan and so far I think he has done a good job with his direction of the new batman films. Now yes he diverges from the comics, but he doesnt obscure too much from the bases.
Now yes you brought up Merlin, but the story of King Author can be told and retold a million times and adapted to fit a certain type of audience
King Author never really had a true official series in the past (the legend of King Author is more of a compiled one) so there is not any real way to argue fanbase here.
And as for lord of the rings, I never cared for the movies anyhow... Not because of any real nitpicking but because I still think that Peter Jackson is an overrated director.
Yes he did a great job with directing LOTR but everyone seemed to treat him like a god when the films he made before that were mostly garbage.
And the film he made after the trilogy King Kong was also crap, a poor remake of a classic film in my opinion.
But yet again Jackson was a fan of the LOTR books, and I felt he stayed true as possible.
But Abrams?
He pretends the franchise never existed and there is where lines are drawn.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that Abrams simply "doesn't care about the product he [is] assigned to revive", only that he preferred Star Wars as a child, and that he did not see Star Trek Nemesis (something for which I cannot blame him -- I wish I had not seen it myself). I think he understands the fundamentally optimistic spirit of the film, judging by several comments he has made in interviews.

Not only that, but the scriptwriters are both Star Trek fans, one even considering himself a hardcore "Trekkie."

Regarding the examples I brought up, well, they were just that -- meant to illustrate that rebooting/reinterpreting a franchise, even in a radical way, is not necessarily always a bad thing. I liked what Nolan did with Batman Begins, but I didn't like the Dark Knight... not because of deviation from the source material, but just because I thought it was a lousy movie. Same goes for LOTR... I just found the movies to be horribly turgid and boring. It was a good example though, of how, even when one sticks pretty damned close to the source material, the hardcore fans will still find something to moan about. That's why, at some point, I think one has to simply throw caution to the wind and concentration on making a good movie rather than trying to achieve 100% satisfaction among the hardcore of the fanbase -- because it can't be done.

That's not to say though, that if they screw this movie up, that I will be forgiving in the least... but I am prepared to give it a chance ;)