Star Trek movie (2009)

[Sean Walsh]

A lotta jargon, but it's in there - and this seems to totally confirm the rumors (and even his personal comments about wanting to do the movie) are coming true:


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002840144

Abrams builds his Robot
Par, WBTV deals fuel company
By Nellie Andreeva and Tatiana Siegel
In the end, it all came down to J.J. Abrams' desire to build a bigger and better Bad Robot.

After signing separate film and TV production pacts with Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. Television last week valued at an eye-popping $60 million, Abrams is about to embark on building his dream production company. He can afford to.

Abrams' new pacts secure a total of $4 million a year in overhead financing for Bad Robot for the next five years. The company will have an additional $500,000 a year in a discretionary fund from Paramount for the five-year term of his feature pact, which begins Aug. 1. Under the six-year term of his TV deal, which also begins Aug. 1, Bad Robot is assured a sixth year of $2 million in overhead funding from Warner Bros. TV, taking the company through May 2012.

Bad Robot has been a title-card fixture on Abrams' productions for at least five years and the name of his Disney-based production banner. Yet in a statement issued Saturday, Abrams indicated he views the new deals as a new beginning. The company is expected to move off the Disney lot soon into new office space on the Westside.

"I've been looking forward to the launch of Bad Robot Prods. for a long time," Abrams said. "The executive teams at (Paramount and Warner Bros. TV) understand what we're building at Bad Robot, and I can't wait to get to work."

The television deal with Warner Bros. takes Abrams out of the Touchstone Television roster for the first time since 1997 when he co-created the WB Network series "Felicity" for Imagine Television, which was then based at Disney. However, he won't be a stranger to the ABC-Disney offices with three Touchstone-produced dramas on ABC's 2006-07 season lineup: the Emmy-winning "Lost" and the fledgling "What About Brian" and "Six Degrees."

Paramount chairman Brad Grey and president Gail Berman had long been courting Abrams for a movie deal after he impressed them with his handling the studio's tentpole summer feature "Mission: Impossible III" (for which he was hand-picked by star and producer Tom Cruise). But the pact with Warner Bros. TV caught the industry by surprise when word spread Friday morning.

By Thursday night, Susan Brooks, WMA's head of TV business affairs; Warner Bros. Television Group president Bruce Rosenblum and executive vp Craig Hunegs; Paul; and lawyer Jackoway were huddled at the Regency Club in Westwood Village, pounding out the details of the TV pact. In the wee hours of Friday, Lonner and Fogelman arrived at the club after wrapping another marathon meeting at Paramount, where the agents finalized Abrams' feature deal around midnight with lawyer Wertheimer; Rob Moore, Paramount's president of worldwide marketing, distribution and home entertainment; and Paramount executive vp Daniel Ferleger. Throughout the night, WMA chief Wiatt monitored the negotiations by cell phone from Sun Valley, Idaho, where he was attending the annual summer moguls retreat hosted by investment banker Herbert Allen.

Under the first-look feature producing deal, valued at $22.5 million over its five-year term, Abrams is guaranteed $2 million per year plus $2 million annually in overhead for Bad Robot and the $500,000 discretionary fund. Abrams already is attached to direct and produce a revival of the "Star Trek" film franchise for Paramount, which is his first project under the new feature deal. Abrams also said Saturday he intends for Bad Robot to oversee a slate of features budgeted under $25 million.

Abrams' directing services are not exclusive to Paramount, and he gets final cut on the pictures he does make for the studio. On the other hand, he does not have put-play option like Jerry Bruckheimer enjoys at Disney, and there is a limit to the number of films he can shop to other studios if Paramount passes.

"From the minute I arrived (last year), Brad and I began having this conversation" about a deal with Abrams, Berman said. "As 'Mission' progressed, we saw the great work he was doing there, mastering this very big, complicated production."

Berman said she was unfazed by the possibility of Abrams being spread thin among many projects and two studios.

"He is someone who is extremely prolific and multitasks better than anyone I've ever seen," she said.

Borys Kit and Cynthia Littleton contributed to this report.

[Dennis K]

...and JJ Abrams is....?

[Sean Walsh]

...and JJ Abrams is....?

Seriously?

Creator of LOST.

Creator of ALIAS.

Director of MI3.

Creator of FELICITY.




Wait, seriously? You needed to ask that? :eek:

[Dennis K]

Seriously?

Creator of LOST.

Creator of ALIAS.

Director of MI3.

Creator of FELICITY.




Wait, seriously? You needed to ask that? :eek:


Well, let's see, I've never had any interest in LOST, ALIAS or FELICITY, and I didn't see MI3, so yeah, I needed to ask.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Whats suprising is WB must believe in JJ Abrams to look past the under performing MI:III to hand him that kind of deal. He's a great TV Producer and the CW network could be landing an ace if he does produce & develope TV for them. But as a Director , its unknown.

It sounds like a good deal now. It could be a major HR for WB/Paramount.

[Sean Walsh]

Well, let's see, I've never had any interest in LOST, ALIAS or FELICITY, and I didn't see MI3, so yeah, I needed to ask.

Well, I didn't either.

But then I'm a nerd.

Congrats on being one of the normal ones, dude. :p

[Sean Walsh]

Whats suprising is WB must believe in JJ Abrams to look past the under performing MI:III to hand him that kind of deal.

Underperforming? I thought it did well in theatres, that the studio was happy (enough) with its numbers and he got lots of good reviews for his first directorial gig.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Underperforming? I thought it did well in theatres, that the studio was happy (enough) with its numbers and he got lots of good reviews for his first directorial gig.


It underperformed. They loved the directing I believe but felt Cruise hurt the movie with his insane actions the past year.

MI: $ 180 Million USA ( Overseas $ 275 Million ) Total Worldwide: $ 456 Million

MI: II $ 215 Million ( Overseas $ 330 Million ) Total Worldwide : $ 545 Million

MI: III $ 133 Million ( Overseas $ 219 Million ) Total Worldwide: $ 352 Million.


MI: III underperformed by a huge margin. It made its budget back by the time ya factor overseas totals in but its something you can tell the studio expected another 400 million to 500 Million worldwide blockbuster.

[Michael P]

MI: III underperformed by a huge margin. It made its budget back by the time ya factor overseas totals in but its something you can tell the studio expected another 400 million to 500 Million worldwide blockbuster.Yeah, but you can say that about every would-be blockbuster this summer. It says less about that particular movie and more about the movie industry in general.

[Sean Walsh]

MI: $ 180 Million USA ( Overseas $ 275 Million ) Total Worldwide: $ 456 Million

MI: II $ 215 Million ( Overseas $ 330 Million ) Total Worldwide : $ 545 Million

MI: III $ 133 Million ( Overseas $ 219 Million ) Total Worldwide: $ 352 Million.

MI: III underperformed by a huge margin. It made its budget back by the time ya factor overseas totals in but its something you can tell the studio expected another 400 million to 500 Million worldwide blockbuster.

Wow, why the hell did I think that movie made more than $133M?

And totally forgot about the Tom Cruise factor. Doesn't surprise me though. :p Though I'd like to think the studio didn't fault JJ for Tom's probable affect on the movie's financial outcome...

[meethraa]

But you all agree that the movie wasn't very good, right?

[drwho]

Star Trek needs to stick to just the tv shows and forget the movies. Here is a plot I'd be interested in seeing on tv. Make the setup similar to sliders or Time Tunnel where this starfleet science crew finds that they are trapped in some type of time loop that they cant escape from so the ship gets sent through different periods and times and they have no control over it.

[rick]

As I understand it, his plan is to start all over again, ala Battlestar Galactica, with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Personally I like the idea.

[Dennis K]

As I understand it, his plan is to start all over again, ala Battlestar Galactica, with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Personally I like the idea.



Matt Damon should be the new Captain Kirk

[Ontir]

When he was first talking about it, a few months ago, he said he wanted Philip Seymour Hoffman as "Bones," which would be very interesting.

Personally, I've got to nominate Nicholas Hoult (About a Boy, the Weatherman & Wah Wah), as "Spock!" Yes, he's very young, but he's tall, lanky, has a really deep voice, and the only thing they'd have to do to his eyebrows, is not shave the bit that goes up, off! Also, his youth would be an interesting point in terms of interaction with the others, because while he looks so young, as Vulcans have a longer life-span, he'd actually be older than pretty much anyone else around him.

[marshal99]

As I understand it, his plan is to start all over again, ala Battlestar Galactica, with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Personally I like the idea.

Ala Battlestar Galactica ?
So that would mean a female Kirk , McCoy is Black and Spock is an asian vulcan. ;)

[Ontir]

Maybe Mr. Scott will be played by Annie Lennox! :p

I'm very interested in seeing what Abrams is going to do here!

[Jared]

Ala Battlestar Galactica ?
So that would mean a female Kirk , McCoy is Black and Spock is an asian vulcan. ;)

"Ripped-Shirt-Kirk" would take on a whole new meaning.

[rick]

"Ripped-Shirt-Kirk" would take on a whole new meaning.


Hell, that's an extra 10 million at the box office right there.

[Sean Walsh]

Hell, that's an extra 10 million at the box office right there.

Only 10?

What has happened to America? ;) :p

[Sean Walsh]

But you all agree that the movie wasn't very good, right?

Haven't even seen MI2, much less 3. I enjoyed the first one, though, but that was before Tom went coo-coo for L. Ron Puffs.

[Ontir]

He'd gone and drunk the kool-aid by then!

If you've seen Mission Impossible: the Movie than you've seen "Mi:II," and Mi:III." They all have the same basic plot: Surprise, surprise, there's a rogue IMF Agent! Whoda thunk?!?. Some of the details around it are a little different, but otherwise they're the same Cruise = "American Bond" - movies.

To get this back to "Trek," what do you want to see/not want to see, as part of this new continuity?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yeah, but you can say that about every would-be blockbuster this summer. It says less about that particular movie and more about the movie industry in general.


A lot of movie blockbusters have made thier cash. X3 blew away expectations as have Pirates II. MI : III and Posedion failed at the box office. But movies like X3, Cars , Da Vinci Code have cracked the 200 million barrior thus far.

Of course compared to 2005 , its been an off year. I mean looking at 2005 you see that Episode III cracked $ 380 million. Then ya had 7 films total over 200 million for that year.

Then ya had 11 films do over the 100 million mark.

For 2006 you've had 4 films do over 200 million thus far. And 6 have done over 100 million. Yeah things aren't as good but its a long year and Hollywood has some big films planned ahead.

July:

My Super Ex-GF
Lady in the Water
Monster House
Miami Vice
John Tucker Must Die
The Ant Bully

Aug

Talldega Nights: Story of Ricky Bobby
The Barnyard
The Descent
World Trade Center
Zoom
Snakes on a Plane
Invincible


Theres some big flicks left so Hollywood can still rebound.

[meethraa]

Haven't even seen MI2, much less 3. I enjoyed the first one, though, but that was before Tom went coo-coo for L. Ron Puffs.
Well, you've seen the only one worth seeing, then.

[kalorama]

Haven't seen MI3, but MI II was not good.

As for Star Trek, I really think it's time for them to stop trying to pump life back into the franchise's mummified corpse.

[Julusnc]

I am an original Trekkie from the 1960's and I have always been a fan of all the television shows but enough is enough with the badly scripted movies....The movie will bomb because todays younger Sci Fi fans only want the Matrix.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

The new Star Trek movie will not be a reboot, according to Abrams. What it will be, however, is unknown. Perhaps it will involve a revision of history that will allow them to bring in updated versions of Kirk, Spock & Bones, but he's been watching all the episodes of the previous shows to get up to date on all the various continuity hoops he has to jump through.

[kalorama]

A revision of history that results in updated versions of previously established characters is a reboot.

But whatever form it takes, do we really need more Star Trek movies? How about coming up with some new concepts instead of trying to pimp new tricks out of old ones?

[StoneGold]

I am an original Trekkie from the 1960's and I have always been a fan of all the television shows but enough is enough with the badly scripted movies....The movie will bomb because todays younger Sci Fi fans only want the Matrix.
Yes, which is why the later Matrix films bombed.


And so many other Matrix knockoffs bombed.


And stuff that isn't Matrix-y has done quite well.

[titanfan]

Whats suprising is WB must believe in JJ Abrams to look past the under performing MI:III to hand him that kind of deal.

The studio claims that it was in-line with their projections--and they realize that it's poor performance wasn't his fault.


But you all agree that the movie wasn't very good, right?

It was *very very* good. 71% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. MI:II was horrible, but MI:III was really done right and more in-line with what a Mission:Impossible movie is supposed to be. It was definitely a critical success, if not a commercial one, thus another reason why JJ is extremely hot right now.

[The Batman]

a Star Trek revamp like the one Battlestar Galactica got might not be an entirely terrible idea. i'd definately be interested in seeing what Abrams came up with.

[Ontir]

Aug

Talldega Nights: Story of Ricky Bobby
The Barnyard
The Descent
World Trade Center
Zoom
Snakes on a Plane
Invincible


Theres some big flicks left so Hollywood can still rebound.

the Descent Rocks! I've seen it twice now, and jumped all throughout both screenings!

IF Star Trek is going to have a future, it HAS to be a re-boot. In order to get the franchise running properly, they need to be free of old continuity. Go back to the core question of the show: Will the technology make us more than we are, or less than we were? Bring back the classic characters, as Eick and Moore did with "Galactica," and re-interpret Roddenberry's Navy of Utopia fresh, for a new generation. There's no reason the Enterprise couldn't be the flag ship of Sci-fi, once again!

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Its gonna be a dogfight in August . Isn't there another Harry Potter flick scheduled for this year come fall ?

[titanfan]

IF Star Trek is going to have a future, it HAS to be a re-boot. In order to get the franchise running properly, they need to be free of old continuity.

No way. Well, maybe. It might get them to attract new fans, but at the same time they lose a lot of the hard core one ones that helped keep the franchise afloat. I think it would ultimately be a wash.

They do need to be free of some of the continuity issues though. Nothing they can't solve by just jumping ahead another 100 years or so.

[drwho]

I'm not interested in seeing another thematic sequel that may or may not be a sequel thrown in with lousy plots. I can just picture a gay Captain Kirk or a lesbian Uhura.

[Jared]

There is no power in the universe strong enough to make James T. Kirk gay.

I read Abrams interview in TV Guide, he's confirm that it's actually a prequel with younger Kirk and Spock, but does say it will respect the canon. So I doubt it's an outright remake of the original.

[kalorama]

No way. Well, maybe. It might get them to attract new fans, but at the same time they lose a lot of the hard core one ones that helped keep the franchise afloat. I think it would ultimately be a wash.

They do need to be free of some of the continuity issues though. Nothing they can't solve by just jumping ahead another 100 years or so.

The problem with that (and I'm not much of a Trek fan) is that the more you do that, the more removed you are from the "real" Star Trek and the more you end up with some generic bit of sci-fi by numbers with a Star Trek label smacked onto it.

[rick]

I can just picture a gay Captain Kirk or a lesbian Uhura.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[rick]

stupid double post

[Ontir]

No way. Well, maybe. It might get them to attract new fans, but at the same time they lose a lot of the hard core one ones that helped keep the franchise afloat. I think it would ultimately be a wash.

They do need to be free of some of the continuity issues though. Nothing they can't solve by just jumping ahead another 100 years or so.


This is exactly why it SHOULD be done this way. Starting completely fresh, means that the original stuff is left as is, intact. No one is dicking about with anything that the original cast was a part of, it's a complete re-boot, choerent within itself. If they do a prequel, that means they're mucking something up, or hamstrung by existing continuity. Why not start fresh? There's really no reason not to.

[Cyke]

Star Trek needs to stick to just the tv shows and forget the movies. Here is a plot I'd be interested in seeing on tv. Make the setup similar to sliders or Time Tunnel where this starfleet science crew finds that they are trapped in some type of time loop that they cant escape from so the ship gets sent through different periods and times and they have no control over it.

Judging from your plot and your screen name, I'd like to take a guess: the Starfleet vessel is also bigger on the inside than the outside.

[Ontir]

I love Doctor Who, and as a life-long Trekkie/Whovian, I've long dreamt of a cross-over, but I want Star Trek to remain Star Trek!

[ragnarok_2012]

I love Doctor Who, and as a life-long Trekkie/Whovian, I've long dreamt of a cross-over, but I want Star Trek to remain Star Trek!

Personally, I'd like a reboot/reimagining of Star Trek a la BSG, which I think is very doable.

They can even say it's an alternate universe, if that makes people happier. I just want something on a qualitative par with the new Galactica.

[Ontir]

I completely agree.

[titanfan]

This is exactly why it SHOULD be done this way. Starting completely fresh, means that the original stuff is left as is, intact. No one is dicking about with anything that the original cast was a part of, it's a complete re-boot, choerent within itself. If they do a prequel, that means they're mucking something up, or hamstrung by existing continuity. Why not start fresh? There's really no reason not to.

Do you really need to ask this on a comics board? This debate happens all the time with the various reboots. Like with each LSH incarnation, you lose some viewers, but gain new ones.

Simply put, to a lot of fans reboots piss on the work done on the past by saying: "Sorry, the show you watched for the last 30 years never really happened, it was a waste of your time." Even though the stories by themselves weren't messed with, it's an insult to a lot of people.

Why not start fresh with a different set of characters, but in the same universe?

The problem with that (and I'm not much of a Trek fan) is that the more you do that, the more removed you are from the "real" Star Trek and the more you end up with some generic bit of sci-fi by numbers with a Star Trek label smacked onto it.

Not if they're smart with it. Star Trek has one thing that few sci-fi franchises have. A Legacy. I don't think TNG took enough advantage of it the first time, but a future Star Trek definitely could take advantage of that.

[Ontir]

The difference between such a thing with Star Trek as opposed to the Legion is that "Trek" isn't on the air, and hasn't been. I'm not advocating cancelling the show to do the movie.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

A revision of history that results in updated versions of previously established characters is a reboot.

You're right, but there's different degrees of reboots. What I'm saying is that Abrams wouldn't be bothering to watch every single episode of the previous incarnations if he was going to do a Galactica-style top to bottom reboot.

We may get a solf-reboot that keeps the history largely intact while allowing them to bring back Kirk, Spock & McCoy with new actors.

[Dr. Banner]

The first teaser poster has been released and is up at startrek.com!

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/19575.html

Also, seems he knows his stuff and won't have any trouble not breaking the infamous "canon".

"We're in the middle of breaking the story, and it's coming along great...we have an incredible beginning of a really dramatic story, and it very much honors the canon of Star Trek," said Abrams. "I'm producing and may direct." He said that he owned every Star Trek DVD from all the series, though he didn't watch Deep Space Nine, Voyager or Enterprise as attentively as the original series and The Next Generation, which he called "incredibly smart television."

"The original series and Next Generation were about...human nature and the idea of coming up against the unexpected and the often terrifying," he said, noting that he thinks it was incidental that they were science fiction series because the storylines were so strong. "When I watch episodes with my 7-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter and see them so vitally respond to a show that was made the year I was born — it's not because it takes place on a spaceship. What endures isn't a genre, it's character and emotional connection."

http://www.trektoday.com/news/200706_01.shtml

[Captain Trips]

The first teaser poster has been released and is up at startrek.com!

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/19575.html

Also, seems he knows his stuff and won't have any trouble not breaking the infamous "canon".

"We're in the middle of breaking the story, and it's coming along great...we have an incredible beginning of a really dramatic story, and it very much honors the canon of Star Trek," said Abrams. "I'm producing and may direct." He said that he owned every Star Trek DVD from all the series, though he didn't watch Deep Space Nine, Voyager or Enterprise as attentively as the original series and The Next Generation, which he called "incredibly smart television."

"The original series and Next Generation were about...human nature and the idea of coming up against the unexpected and the often terrifying," he said, noting that he thinks it was incidental that they were science fiction series because the storylines were so strong. "When I watch episodes with my 7-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter and see them so vitally respond to a show that was made the year I was born — it's not because it takes place on a spaceship. What endures isn't a genre, it's character and emotional connection."

http://www.trektoday.com/news/200706_01.shtml


Dammit, I really need to start reading through some of these threads before I post a picture. Sorry about that. I posted a picture of the teaser poster in a new thread and didn't realize it had already been covered.

[Captain Trips]

You're right, but there's different degrees of reboots. What I'm saying is that Abrams wouldn't be bothering to watch every single episode of the previous incarnations if he was going to do a Galactica-style top to bottom reboot.

We may get a solf-reboot that keeps the history largely intact while allowing them to bring back Kirk, Spock & McCoy with new actors.


But we've already seen a young Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. It was the original television show. If they are going to use these characters, I'd rather they just start the franchise over instead of trying to make it fit into all the stories that have already been done. Enterprise contradicted ST continuity just by the very look of the show and the ships and crew even though it was supposed to take place years before the original Star Trek. Why retread that whole issue?

[rick]

But we've already seen a young Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. It was the original television show. If they are going to use these characters, I'd rather they just start the franchise over instead of trying to make it fit into all the stories that have already been done. Enterprise contradicted ST continuity just by the very look of the show and the ships and crew even though it was supposed to take place years before the original Star Trek. Why retread that whole issue?


Rumor has it that this is exactly what they are going to do.

As far as I understand it, this film is a complete reboot.

[Dr. Banner]

Rumor has it that this is exactly what they are going to do.

As far as I understand it, this film is a complete reboot.

The rumours and evidence are the opposite, actually. That it fits right in with the canon, occuring before the famous 5 year mission on the Enterprise (no bloody A, B, C, or D).

Hence Abrahms line "it very much honors the canon of Star Trek", and the use of the familiar insignias and colours on the poster.

[Captain Trips]

The rumours and evidence are the opposite, actually. That it fits right in with the canon, occuring before the famous 5 year mission on the Enterprise (no bloody A, B, C, or D).

Hence Abrahms line "it very much honors the canon of Star Trek", and the use of the familiar insignias and colours on the poster.

Is it true that some or all of it will deal with Kirk and Spock at Starfleet Academy? If that is the case, that already messes up the canon of Star Trek because those two didn't attend the academy together. Spock was already a crew member on the Enterprise when Kirk became captain, and that is where the two of them met.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Is it true that some or all of it will deal with Kirk and Spock at Starfleet Academy? If that is the case, that already messes up the canon of Star Trek because those two didn't attend the academy together. Spock was already a crew member on the Enterprise when Kirk became captain, and that is where the two of them met.

I'm no Star Trek expert, but I don't remember it ever being specifically mentioned in any of the original episodes or movies that Kirk & Spock didn't know each other or weren't friends until they were both assigned to the Enterprise together.

Just because it wasn't mentioned that they knew each other before, doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

[Captain Trips]

I'm no Star Trek expert, but I don't remember it ever being specifically mentioned in any of the original episodes or movies that Kirk & Spock didn't know each other or weren't friends until they were both assigned to the Enterprise together.

Just because it wasn't mentioned that they knew each other before, doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

True. Although I am pretty certain that it's Trek history that the two of them didn't attend the academy together.

I'd like to see them just redo the whole franchise. I don't mind them using the same characters, just start over and take it in a new direction.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

True. Although I am pretty certain that it's Trek history that the two of them didn't attend the academy together.

I'd like to see them just redo the whole franchise. I don't mind them using the same characters, just start over and take it in a new direction.

I think that'd be a better move myself. Just start things over anew with Kirk & Spock starting their 5 year mission on the starship Enterprise.

The only people who will care that their precious continuity has been discarded will be the die-hards who clearly aren't enough to sustain the franchise right now.

[EZMOHR]

Redo the Franchise. The thing with Trek is....it is not as broad as Star Wars movie fan wise. A lot of people don't go and see the Star Trek movies at the theatre because they don't "feel" like part of the group in some sense. It ain't there baby. Star Wars appealed to all movie fans because no prior knowledge was needed. That was the undoing of the Original Star Trek franchise (and I mean everything that has to do with Star Trek right now...the shows, the movies, the books, the whatever.)

If Paramount wants to redo the franchise and salvage it into something viable, they will start all over, and try to get new fans in.

[Dr. Banner]

^^^
Seems like they are starting over. At the beginning, with Kirk. You don't need ANY knowledge of anything when you start at the beginning.

And, really, the 4th movie was the most successful from a non-fan point of view. That's the 4th MOVIE shown after, what, 79 episodes of TOS? Seems to me that as long as the story is enjoyable and written in an accessable way, people will follow.

Does NOT have to be a reboot if there's talent behind the production.

[Ontir]

If you start at day one, and introduce the characters as if they were brand new, they'll be as blank a slate as you want them to be, and you also have the option of bringing certain plot points together, that could've been, but just never connected before, and everyone is on equal ground.

[darkwolf]

Please don't do this. Kirk, Spock and Bones are over. He should be focusing on new characters and new ideas and not recreate the original Star Trek.

[The Punished]

Saw the Teaser poster today. Nice!

Heard last week that Matt Damon to be Kirk? Any truth to this? Any confirmation?

[ragnarok_2012]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000354/ It's on IMDB, Punished.

[Ontir]

Sounds good.

[Steve Brady]

You can get anything on IMDb this early along...

[The_15th_Sven]

Is there a trailor out for the new star trek movie and/or any information about who will star in it and who it will be about?

[SnowTrooper]

All that has been said about it is that its a prequel to the original Star Trek series and will be written by J.J. Abrams and the main choice for Captain Kirk is Matt Damon.

[marshal99]

Bah , i'm more interested in borg war. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsl490L5VOQ

[Ontir]

I just heard the other day, that Abrams priced himself out! Whatever happens with "Trek," he won't be on the bridge.

[mybotisgone]

All that has been said about it is that its a prequel to the original Star Trek series and will be written by J.J. Abrams and the main choice for Captain Kirk is Matt Damon.

J.J. Abrams will do the next Star Trek film. But the prequel and Matt Damon as Captain Kirk will not be the movie he is making. In fact that's just a rumer. http://www.tv.com/story/story.html&story_id=4792

The thing is I don't know what kind of Star Trek movie he's making. All I can tell you is that it's not a prequel and Matt Damon will not be Captain Kirk.

[Ontir]

That's more than a month old. I was told, by someone who tracks such things for a subscription service, similar to imdb, that after the less than desired box office of M:I:III, and the high price he was demanding, the negotiations fell through, and he's no longer the next Lord of Trek.

[mybotisgone]

That's more than a month old. I was told, by someone who tracks such things for a subscription service, similar to imdb, that after the less than desired box office of M:I:III, and the high price he was demanding, the negotiations fell through, and he's no longer the next Lord of Trek.
Well that could be ture. But I don't know.

[choptop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_XI

[Ontir]

Yep. Back in April.

[BigBoss]

all we know is that it is a prequel and its not coming out till 2008.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

Suposedly the new enterprise

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/enterprise_orbit_1080.jpg

http://www.filmdrunk.com//ul/974-Enterprise.jpg

[thejbcrazy]

it O.K. i guess. The warp acells look weird.:cool:

[rick]

Suposedly the new enterprise

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/enterprise_orbit_1080.jpg

http://www.filmdrunk.com//ul/974-Enterprise.jpg


Very nice looking update, while still sticking firmly to classic styling.

I like it.

[Jared H.]

Saw the teaser trailer at the Cloverfield midnight showing last night.

Kinda short and light on content(then again it IS a teaser), but it had the audience applauding.

[BoosterBronze]

I dig the design. Traditional and yet it doesn't look dated

[hoffmandu]

Saw the teaser trailer at the Cloverfield midnight showing last night.

Kinda short and light on content(then again it IS a teaser), but it had the audience applauding.

Care to give us a quick rundown of what you saw? I'm pretty stoked about this actually, and I'm not even a huge trek fan.

[Jared H.]

Care to give us a quick rundown of what you saw? I'm pretty stoked about this actually, and I'm not even a huge trek fan.

What I remember:

mostly folks in mask doing wielding jobs on an unknown spacecraft's hull. We also hear Neil Armstrong's famous Moon landing quote. Then, they pan out and show the upper part of the Enterprise, and Leonard Nemoy's voice rings out "Space, the final frontier..."

And that's pretty much it.

[hoffmandu]

What I remember:

mostly folks in mask doing wielding jobs on an unknown spacecraft's hull. We also hear Neil Armstrong's famous Moon landing quote. Then, they pan out and show the upper part of the Enterprise, and Leonard Nemoy's voice rings out "Space, the final frontier..."

And that's pretty much it.

Doooooooooooooooooooope!

[Captain Trips]

Here's a very low-res version of the teaser: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35319

[thejbcrazy]

short but sweet:D

[rick]

I am going all sorts of fanboy crazy right this minute.

I am ready for my Christmas present and I'm ready for it now.

[Cyke]

Yeah, just quick brainfart of a question: if there was a photo of Scott Bakula as President Archer, would that appease some fans? Would that mean a certain amount of continuity? Is even a quick 2 second glance too much fanstroke?

[saintsaucey]

Wow this thread was started back in 2006 thats crazy. For those of you who don't know here is the cast of the new trek


Chris Pine ... Kirk http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-10/33130172.jpg

Zachary Quinto ... Spock http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Sbk/174/IMG_0354.jpg

Eric Bana ... Nero

Winona Ryder ... Amanda Grayson

Zoe Saldana ... Nyota Uhura http://bigyellowtaxi.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/zoe.jpg

[saintsaucey]

Karl Urban ... Leonard 'Bones' McCoy http://www.sliceofscifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/385035406.jpg

Bruce Greenwood ... Christopher Pike http://www.the11thhour.com/archives/111999/features/images/mia_greenwood.jpg

John Cho ... Sulu http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/jcho.jpg

[saintsaucey]

Leonard Nimoy ... Spock

Simon Pegg ... Scotty http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/simon-pegg.jpg

Anton Yelchin ... Pavel Chekov http://www.fantasy.fr/news/upload/actu/20070821-yelchin.jpg

[Rabid Trekkie]

I just got chills! This year is going to rock, I've got The Dark Knight, Hellboy, and the new Star Trek movie to look forward to. Life doesn't get much better than this.

[ChrisIII]

There's been some recent photos of that cast at the "Cloverfield" premiere. Urban in particular now has the "Bones" haircut.

[ChrisIII]

According to Variety, the new J.J Abrams film has been delayed until Summer 2009. Trek fans like myself are of course, kind of upset, but perhaps this will allow a better polish to the finished product.


http://www.variety.com/VR1117980912.html


Then again, it's all about making more money, I suppose.

[Captain Jim]

Darn, I hate that. If it was because they needed more production time, that's one thing. But it sounds like this is strictly about competition. What the heck is the big competition that they're so worried about at Christmastime? And I have to admit, I kind of shook my head at the statement that they would have no competition in the new slot--even though Wolverine debuts a week earlier. :confused:

edit: And now I read elsewhere that Watchmen debuts two days before Star Trek's new date. No competition, right. :rolleyes:

[ChrisIII]

Yeah, the only real competition this December are the remakes of Fame and The Day The Earth Stood Still. Wolverine seems like heavier competition than that. I don't think it'd be too heavily impacted by Quantam of Solace or Harry Potter, since those would already be over one month.


They might be trying to not have a repeat of Nemesis, but that was up against "The Two Towers".

[LtMarvel]

...and a Harry Potter film, as well.

[Jmacq1]

There's another tack that can be taken here:

This could very well be seen as a sign of confidence in the project. Moving it to the uber-competitive summer movie season means they think it'll stand up to whatever juggernauts are coming out around the same time.

Or in another direction altogether: Maybe with the writer's strike over, they decided some serious script tweaking was in order......

(And let's be honest, "Watchmen" is really only a tentpole flick for hardcore comic-readers at this point. Previews might change that, but 99 percent of America is going to see the previews and think it was all made up for the movie).

[Captain Trips]

There's another tack that can be taken here:

This could very well be seen as a sign of confidence in the project. Moving it to the uber-competitive summer movie season means they think it'll stand up to whatever juggernauts are coming out around the same time.

Or in another direction altogether: Maybe with the writer's strike over, they decided some serious script tweaking was in order......

(And let's be honest, "Watchmen" is really only a tentpole flick for hardcore comic-readers at this point. Previews might change that, but 99 percent of America is going to see the previews and think it was all made up for the movie).

I agree with you that it is probably a pretty positive sign if the movie is being pushed to a summer release.

I think Watchmen is coming out in the spring (March 2009).

[Captain Jim]

I agree with you that it is probably a pretty positive sign if the movie is being pushed to a summer release.

I think Watchmen is coming out in the spring (March 2009).

Not according to Newsarama. They say two days before Star Trek.

[Wolf-Man]

I hope the movie opens with no credits or titles, and they finish the movie with the classic 'space, the final...' and TOS credits at the end.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Rumor had it that JJ Abrams was itching to do some on-set script tweaks but was prevented from doing so due to the Writers' Strike. Now that the strike is over, the delay will also give them time to make those tweaks and reshoot a few things.

Paramount isn't stupid, they want this relaunch to be as successful as possible. Moving it to the summer won't mean squat unless the film is as good as it can be.

[Captain Trips]

Not according to Newsarama. They say two days before Star Trek.

Really? Wow. Last I heard it was spring. Well, I am looking forward to both of these.

[rick]

Here is a nice link with a bunch of photos from the new Star Trek movie.

Awsome stuff ahead (http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/15/star-trek-reveals-galore-kirk-spock-nero-full-cast-and-more/)

This my friends is going to be freaking fantastic.

[elheffe]

It definitely looks cool, but is this movie a reimagining or is it supposed to take place before the William Shatner era?

[rick]

It definitely looks cool, but is this movie a reimagining or is it supposed to take place before the William Shatner era?


A little bit of both actually.

[Sean Whitmore]

I've got reservations about the way they're doing it, but it'll still be nice to see some new Star Trek.


SEAN

[Bored at 3:00AM]

If they've cast Kirk. Spock & McCoy right, then they have a fighting chance of doing something great.

[Sean Whitmore]

If they've cast Kirk. Spock & McCoy right, then they have a fighting chance of doing something great.

Would you say they turned death into a fighting chance for life?


SEAN

[Pro]

Looking good, wasn't sure when i first heard about it but the more i see from this movie the more i want to watch it. Actors seem to have been picked right, especially Kirk and Spock.

[Gavin Higginbotham, BotF]

It's nice to Zachary Quinto is still going to be badass in this. Spock looks like he's going to be demonstrating both the Vulcan's capacity for logic and extreme violence. Yay!

[Pro]

It's nice to Zachary Quinto is still going to be badass in this. Spock looks like he's going to be demonstrating both the Vulcan's capacity for logic and extreme violence. Yay!

I wonder if they're going to do something with the fact Spock wasn't emotionally detached in the very first episode of star trek (under captain Pike). I wonder if we'll see captain Pike.

Didn't Spock have trouble finding a balance between his human and vulcan heritage when he was younger? Think it was mentioned at some point.

[darkwolf]

Looks good. Perhaps a new series of Star Trek movies will begin.

[Jmacq1]

Impression: Favorable thus far.

I want this to be good. I really want this to be good.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Spock looks like he's had some plastic surgery in that cover, but he looks great in the stills so that's no problem.

As for the other stills, maybe its just me but its weird seeing a Kirk and Co. styled crew looking like their on the bridge of the Enterprise from Star Trek: The Next Next Next Generation. Just something I'll have to get used to I guess. Like the look of the villain, wonder if their fighting the Romulans?

One thing though, why isn't Kirk in command gold? The captain needs to appear in uniform long enough to get a ripped shirt just for continuity's sake.

[Imaginos666]

I'm now officially excited ... just wish this was a Christmas release.

[marshal99]

Bah ! I only looked forward to Leonard Nimoy as old spock , the rest are gash.

[jesse_custer]

This could be alright, but I have the same attitude for Star Trek as I do for Star Wars: Let It Die Today.

[Joe Rice]

Frickin' neat.

[Justin D.]

Ok, the bridge on the ship looks pretty damn cool from what I can see.

Also, skants!

[Phil Clark]

One thing though, why isn't Kirk in command gold? The captain needs to appear in uniform long enough to get a ripped shirt just for continuity's sake.

Because as I understand it, in this story he isn't yet a captain. This is before the start of the three year mission. Pike is in command of the enterprise. It will be interesting to see if they have Kirk promoted to Captain by the end of the film.

[Ilash]

It looks pretty decent but I really wonder how it's ever going to get past its one fatal flaw:the biggest part for me of what made Original Trek great, and as such clearly better than its sequel shows, is the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the chemistry between the people that played them for so many years. Recapturing that would be a HELL of a trick.

[Legato]

Im not a Star Trek fan but the pics have got me interested in seeing it. Im confident Zachary Quinto will portray Spock right.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

ditto Legato. I probably won't necessarily see it opening night but I'll at least give it a shot at a matinee. Not particularly worried about Urban or Quinto getting the job done for now.

[EZMOHR]

Im not a Star Trek fan but the pics have got me interested in seeing it. Im confident Zachary Quinto will portray Spock right.

The only things Trek I've ever liked are Star Trek II-IV. The pictures I've seen have me wanting to watch a Star Trek movie at the movie theatre.

[Legato]

The only things Trek I've ever liked are Star Trek II-IV. The pictures I've seen have me wanting to watch a Star Trek movie at the movie theatre.

I agree that Star Trek II was one of the best Trek films I have seen, atleast IMO. I just wonder when it comes to the new Kirk can he portray ripped shirt Kirk in action pretty well. To me nobody does that better than William Shatner.

[EZMOHR]

I agree that Star Trek II was one of the best Trek films I have seen, atleast IMO. I just wonder when it comes to the new Kirk can he portray ripped shirt Kirk in action pretty well. To me nobody does that better than William Shatner.

I'll go you a few better on Trek II. I think not only is it one of the Top 5 sci-fi/action films EVER, it is the best adaptation of Moby Dick ever on screen. PERIOD.

I don't know much about the Chris Pine dude playing Kirk (I've like only seen him in Smokin Aces), but, the best thing he can do is NOT be William Shatner, ala Steve Carrell not being Don Adams in Get Smart, and make Kirk have the core character ticks we know about Kirk from previous incarnations....and then make Kirk his own character.

[Legato]

I'll go you a few better on Trek II. I think not only is it one of the Top 5 sci-fi/action films EVER, it is the best adaptation of Moby Dick ever on screen. PERIOD.

I don't know much about the Chris Pine dude playing Kirk (I've like only seen him in Smokin Aces), but, the best thing he can do is NOT be William Shatner, ala Steve Carrell not being Don Adams in Get Smart, and make Kirk have the core character ticks we know about Kirk from previous incarnations....and then make Kirk his own character.

True but not to whare Kirk becomes out of character. Adding a nice twist to the character is good but sometimes that can backfire.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

Wow, that could be its own thread. I liked Moby Dick and Trek 2 is one of the only Trek movies I really dug so I'm interested in seeing how you break down the parallels between those two. New thread? I lost interest in Trek as a franchise after Roddenberry died and everything I saw after his death persuaded me that I had no reason to keep following the series. But, inexplicably, I find myself wanting to actually see this thing in a theater when it comes out. After Insurrection and Janeway I keep telling myself the franchise has nowhere to go but up.

[EZMOHR]

There was a thread going on almost a year ago, where some one came up with a TOP 25 sci-fi movies ever list, and you had to justify why you thought the movie should be, or not be in the TOP 25. I wrote a huge post on why I thought Meyer(one of the great, unknown treasures in Hollywood IMO) must have had Moby Dick cracked open as a he wrote/directed Trek II, because it is essentially Moby Dick. I don't remember exactly how it went, but you should look it up if you like.

[Legato]

The one Trek series I was interested in was The Next Generation with Patrick Stewart. The rest was rather meh to me, Voyager I would watch on some occasion but nor religiously like NG. Wasn't really interested in Enterprise despite the guy from Quantum Leap was thare and the inclusion of a sexy female Vulcan.

The last Trek movie I have watched in theaters was the crossover involving The Next Generation cast and the Original Series cast.


I think the Futurama episode that featured The Original Series cast was one of my top favorite Futurama episodes.

[EZMOHR]

I saw Star Trek IV in the movie theatre when I was 7. Still the only Trek movie I've seen in a theatre.

With everything I see coming from Abrams Star Trek...this will most likely be the second I will see at the theatre. I don't know, Trek always seems like something I should've loved, but, like Abrams, I always preferred the first three Star Wars movies, and just never got into Trek.

But, I like the casting choices, the supposed direction of this one, and I mean, I just like Abrams and Quinto, and I'm unappoligetic in that. I want this movie to make these people huge commodities in Hollywood, because I just like what they do. I want to watch what they put on my screen, be it theatre or TV. Sorry.

[Sean Whitmore]

I saw Star Trek IV in the movie theatre when I was 7. Still the only Trek movie I've seen in a theatre.

The only one I've ever seen in the theater was Generations.

Which actually explains why I didn't go to see the next three.


SEAN

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

ezmohr, thanks for the heads up. I'll try to look for that over the weekend when I don't have to be going to bed for the day job. :biggrin: Trek 2 was always my favorite and the one that actually felt like (no offense to Trek fans) an actual movie and not a TV episode.

[Kaos]

looks pretty cool. I'll probably check it out.

[Syzygy]

I've got reservations about the way they're doing it, but it'll still be nice to see some new Star Trek.


SEAN

Yes, I have been missing Star Trek for some time now....

[Ontir]

I'm hoping for the best, but as much as I like Quinto, he's mis-cast. Also, the images of the Bridge I've seen look very much like "Barbie's Starship!" :eek:

[Damiean Dark]

It looks pretty decent but I really wonder how it's ever going to get past its one fatal flaw:the biggest part for me of what made Original Trek great, and as such clearly better than its sequel shows, is the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the chemistry between the people that played them for so many years. Recapturing that would be a HELL of a trick.

Agreed i dont know about you but Wrath of Khan, The undiscovered Country and The Final Frontier are the best movies of any trek and they never bothered to make ones on Voyager or DS9 (which is criminal especially in DS9 case as it had the richest, most diverse primary and secondary characters in any trek imo) and the TNG films where enjoyable (with first contact the best) but failed to recreate the atmosphere of the tv show.

[Treqqor]

I personally cannot wait for the movie.
The pictures ignite the imagination enough on their own, but once we see them in a moving trailer, I know I'll be blown away. :cool:

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

Barbie's starship. Awesome. But seriously, it's not like we all can't go back and take a gander at the actual outfits women wore on the original series. I would expect Barbie's starship.

[Cyke]

I'm hoping for the best, but as much as I like Quinto, he's mis-cast.

Obviously it's much too early for me to say Quinto will definitely do a good job. However, Leonard Nimoy was part of the casting process that picked Quinto. Essentially, if Nimoy believes the guy's good enough to fill his shoes, then I have faith in Quinto.

In fact, I like all this interaction between the old crew and the new. Shatner helped pick Chris Pine (despite all his bellyaching about not being in the movie), and Nichols, Takei, and Keonig have all acted as consultants/surrogate parents to the new kids. Meanwhile, Urban and Pegg, at least from what I've seen in interviews, have taken really mature routes with their approaches to McCoy and Scotty, respectively.

[Treqqor]

^^^
Agreed.

In fact, of all the re-cast roles, Quinto was the one I was most happiest with. I thought that was dead on casting. Not only does he look the part (which is a plus), but he seems to have the acting chops. He is at the bottom of the list of things to worry about, to be sure.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

Even if I didn't know Nimoy was involved in casting I would still say Quinto seems like a great choice. With casting like Quinto I'd say the real worry should be about the script, not whether or not he's a good pick. Pegg as Scotty I could see some people being worried about, though.

[Sean Whitmore]

** ''In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast,'' Abrams says. ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''

Nice.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38779


SEAN

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

I like me some Dark Knight pessimism but that's a good point. At some point the pop culture pendulum gets to swing the other way, too.

[x_goalkeeper]

Can't wait to see this take on the classic Star Trek!

[Sean Whitmore]

I like me some Dark Knight pessimism but that's a good point. At some point the pop culture pendulum gets to swing the other way, too.

Yeah, either extreme can work depending on the material, but it's good to hear Abrams knows which side Star Trek should fall on.


SEAN

[the goddamn batman]

Wow. This looks like complete ass.

[Treqqor]

^^^
You are not liking the very few stills that have been released that really tell little of the story and production as a whole?

[Treqqor]

I am thinking from little we have seen, serious money, attention and care have been poured into the production.
It really seems to show, too! VERY glad we are getting this fresh start from a new team and their take on the franchise.

Not worried at all! :cool:

[Treqqor]

double post

[Pro]

Wow. This looks like complete ass.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/sexyitaliana13/extremely_20fat_20ass2.jpg

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/enterprise_orbit_1080.jpg

I fail to see the resemblance.

[Rabid Trekkie]

^^^
You are not liking the very few stills that have been released that really tell little of the story and production as a whole?

For myself, seeing the changes they've made to TOS is similar to when I heard that Heath Ledger was going to play Joker. I was nervous, but still trying to be cautiously optimistic.

Except this nervousness is like a thousand times more because its Trek. But I'm still holding out hope that Abrams and Co. will pull it off and it will spark a new interest in the franchise and maybe get Paramount to get some decent writers together for a new series. That's a lot of hope to pin on a movie I'm nervous about, but there you go.

[Jmacq1]

Yeah, either extreme can work depending on the material, but it's good to hear Abrams knows which side Star Trek should fall on.


SEAN

And perhaps more importantly, that Paramount seems to agree with him, as to many it was the "darkening" of Trek in the franchise post-Roddenberry that helped lead to its' near-demise.

[the goddamn batman]

^^^
You are not liking the very few stills that have been released that really tell little of the story and production as a whole?

Yeah. It's pretty much just like how most of you are getting all excited about the very few stills that tell very little of the story and production as a whole.

Except I'm not excited.:wink:

[Sean Walsh]

Wow. This looks like complete ass.

No, no, no.......everyone knows the only Star Trek movie that looked like complete ass was STAR TREXXX 6: THE UNDISCOVERED :eek:

I'm sure you can guess what word the :eek: stands for. *shudder*

[Shellhead]

Barbie's starship. Awesome. But seriously, it's not like we all can't go back and take a gander at the actual outfits women wore on the original series. I would expect Barbie's starship.

So true. Remember Janice Rand:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/1502566634_44a709cb8b.jpg?v=0

[Ontir]

Barbie's starship. Awesome. But seriously, it's not like we all can't go back and take a gander at the actual outfits women wore on the original series. I would expect Barbie's starship.

That wasn't an allusion to the mini dresses, but to the plastic-y looking day-glo-ish bridge set. I just don't believe, at least from the photo I've seen, that trans-galactic voyages could be had from that more faux than the original looking set.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

For all we know it's a holodeck bridge or a testing station. But point noted.

[Jared]

And perhaps more importantly, that Paramount seems to agree with him, as to many it was the "darkening" of Trek in the franchise post-Roddenberry that helped lead to its' near-demise.

Voyager and Insurrection were not dark, just retarded.


That pic on the previous page is the best I've ever seen the Enterprise look.

[Sean Whitmore]

Voyager and Insurrection were not dark, just retarded.

Nemesis, however, was both.


SEAN

[Treqqor]

Voyager and Insurrection were not dark, just retarded.


That pic on the previous page is the best I've ever seen the Enterprise look.

It looks nice, but I am still surprised after all this time Gabe Koerner's (ever see the documentary "Trekkies" or the sequel?) well known piece of art is still fooling people.

It is a fake. At least as far as the movie is concerned. :cool:

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

If that's a fake it's a beautiful fake. Better than the real thing, even. :) But since I stopped caring about Trek after ROddenberry died I don't care too much if I didn't recognize it as a fake or not because this is the first time since about 1992 that I give a crap about Trek at all.

[Ontir]

Pro, that beauty shot of the Enterprise is now my desktop.

[Lupek]

It might not be up long since it is a bootleg, so check it out now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0XsvgPFQrM

[Asmith]

I thought the idea of doing a 'The Early Years' thing with Star Trek was horrible when I heard about it... however after seeing that trailer I think this may be the first Star Trek movie I'd go to the cinema to see since First Contact.

Looks cool! (Damn, who'd ever think you'd be able to say that about anything Trek again...)

[Cyke]

YaY! They kept the old-timey red alert sound effect! I'm a happy fanboy.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

It was a good trailer. The getting back to the basics approach worked and the cast is all fresh , new and young. This will save the Franchise. I loved that Kirk is the rebel and all....should be good.

[arp2008]

Is an officail copy expected online anytime soon?

[Treqqor]

Looks cool! (Damn, who'd ever think you'd be able to say that about anything Trek again...)

Thousands of trekkies, I would imagine.

:cool:

[Treqqor]

Is an officail copy expected online anytime soon?

Monday on the official web site. There is a deal made where they are not allowed to put it online before then, until the James Bond movie has gone through the first weekend (where the trailer is attached).

:cool:

[Kaos]

Is an officail copy expected online anytime soon?

In like 2 days.

[howyadoin]

Thousands of trekkies, I would imagine.Sure, but an awful lot of them would like anything Star Trek; they're not exactly looking at this with a critical eye.

[meethraa]

Even on the remote possibility that Sylar can act on something good, I can't help but cringe every time he opens his mouth, which is a shame because this could be a cool movie otherwise.

[Treqqor]

Sure, but an awful lot of them would like anything Star Trek; they're not exactly looking at this with a critical eye.

Agreed!! There is a built in bias.

But they would still watch and most likely enjoy it. :)

[Treqqor]

Even on the remote possibility that Sylar can act on something good, I can't help but cringe every time he opens his mouth, which is a shame because this could be a cool movie otherwise.

I thought that this season he showed that he could certainly act and hold his own.

He is the least of my worries, to be honest. Chris Pine, on the other hand, is the one I wonder about the most since I have not seen him in anything before and this is quite the important role.

[Kaos]

Just look into those baby blues and be won away.

[The Zapper]

I might actually go see this.

[Lord of Denial]

Looks okay.

[Nate Grey]

I'm there.

[DarthAlani]

Sd.net is going to be pissed that this film will assrape any of the prequel Star Wars films

[$5 Milkshake]

I know that since I never liked the Star Trek franchise, I'm not the target audience for this trailer, but...

God, that was terrible. Because of the cast! It looks like Saved By the Bell: The Star Trek Years. It just looks silly.

[Jake V]

I know that since I never liked the Star Trek franchise, I'm not the target audience for this trailer, but...

God, that was terrible. Because of the cast! It looks like Saved By the Bell: The Star Trek Years. It just looks silly.

So you want a story about the original crew when they were new recruits to star... 30 year olds? 40 year olds?

[Lord of Denial]

Did the kid in the beginning say his name was James Siberias Kirk?

[Jake V]

Did the kid in the beginning say his name was James Siberias Kirk?

he said "Tiberius"

which is Kirk's middle name.

[Lord of Denial]

he said "Tiberius"

which is Kirk's middle name.


I know what his middle name is.

Watch it again he say's James Siberius Kirk. It is pretty clear.

[Jake V]

I know what his middle name is.

Watch it again he say's James Siberius Kirk. It is pretty clear.

OK. Assuming you're right. Which you aren't. Why would he say that?

[Wolf-Man]

No no, he says "Dame Siberius Kurt". I'm sure of it.

He's trying to be tricky to the policeman, like how when he blows up computers by talking to them.

[Lord of Denial]

OK. Assuming you're right. Which you aren't. Why would he say that?

I am right as anyone with ears and the ability to hear would be.

A fuck up they missed happens all the time.

[Jake V]

I am right as anyone with ears and the ability to hear would be.

A fuck up they missed happens all the time.

Sure. They shot the scene with the kid. Probably had to have him re-dub the scene in an audio booth. Then the scene went through color correction, and then some editing. The shot was then re-cut to fit in the trailer. All the while, he says "Siberius" without anyone noticing.

That's it.

[$5 Milkshake]

So you want a story about the original crew when they were new recruits to star... 30 year olds? 40 year olds?

Not exactly, but close yeah.

I mean, am I to believe they would hand over a military spacecraft to somebody who looks like he was just doing keg stands at a frat party the night before?

[Lord of Denial]

Sure. They shot the scene with the kid. Probably had to have him re-dub the scene in an audio booth. Then the scene went through color correction, and then some editing. The shot was then re-cut to fit in the trailer. All the while, he says "Siberius" without anyone noticing.

That's it.

And yet know one notice CARS going past Sam and Frodo in the background in The Shire in LOTR.

Fuck up's happen all the time in movies that no one catches, hell people have sites that pick them out of each film.

Some films have close to 100 fuck ups in a single 2 hour movie.

[Treqqor]

Not exactly, but close yeah.

I mean, am I to believe they would hand over a military spacecraft to somebody who looks like he was just doing keg stands at a frat party the night before?

No, you are not to believe that because it does not happen in the story.

This is all set BEFORE his 5-year mission. Which means he is not the captain of the ship. Captain Pike still has to command the vessel first (some people are thinking it is Pike narrating).

It all looks like elements beyond people's control is what gets the famed group together.

Besides which, I believe it is pretty much impossible to become a captain straight out of the Academy.

:cool:

[$5 Milkshake]

And yet know one notice CARS going past Sam and Frodo in the background in The Shire in LOTR.

Fuck up's happen all the time in movies that no one catches, hell people have sites that pick them out of each film.

Some films have close to 100 fuck ups in a single 2 hour movie.

LOL Fellowship of the Ring? Which scene?

No, you are not to believe that because it does not happen in the story.

This is all set BEFORE his 5-year mission. Which means he is not the captain of the ship. Captain Pike still has to command the vessel first (some people are thinking it is Pike narrating).

It all looks like elements beyond people's control is what gets the famed group together.

Besides which, I believe it is pretty much impossible to become a captain straight out of the Academy.

:cool:

Ah, I didnt know that. That makes much more sense. :smile:

[Jake V]

Not exactly, but close yeah.

I mean, am I to believe they would hand over a military spacecraft to somebody who looks like he was just doing keg stands at a frat party the night before?

Well, they aren't "military spacecraft" to begin with, and they aren't "handing it over' to him.

But yeah. The current military hands over incredibly deadly weapons to kids who look like that all the time.

[Treqqor]

Watch it again he say's James Siberius Kirk. It is pretty clear.

I heard Tiberius.

Watched the trailer for the 32nd time.

And also, this type of bootleg is not exactly known for its pristine audio quality. Something to consider.

[Treqqor]

Ah, I didnt know that. That makes much more sense. :smile:

I just hope I didn't go TOO far into spoiler territory with that, mate.

(I have to keep telling myself that not everybody eats and breathes this stuff like I do!!)

:cool:

[$5 Milkshake]

I dunno, Kirk just looks a little too "Fresh Faced" to me. It looks to me like they were trying a little too hard to "hip" up the cast. And the guy from Heroes looks absolutely ridiculous as Spock.

Those are the two I have the biggest problem with.

[Jake V]

I dunno, Kirk just looks a little too "Fresh Faced" to me.
He should be.

You think Kirk would wait til his mid-30's to join up with Starfleet?

[$5 Milkshake]

He should be.

You think Kirk would wait til his mid-30's to join up with Starfleet?

Thats not what I mean. I mean he looks like some daytime Soap actor.

[Treqqor]

Thats not what I mean. I mean he looks like some daytime Soap actor.

I know what you mean, a little too "pretty-boy"ish.

As I have said before, I have not seen the actor in anything else before, so maybe he will knock it out of the park and blow us all away. Or maybe he won't.

I will still be there opening night to find out. :biggrin:

[$5 Milkshake]

I know what you mean, a little too "pretty-boy"ish.

As I have said before, I have not seen the actor in anything else before, so maybe he will knock it out of the park and blow us all away. Or maybe he won't.

I will still be there opening night to find out. :biggrin:

I'll be there the Tuesday it comes to DVD :wink:

But yeah, you never know. I dont know the guy from Adam, so its possible he'll be amazing. But I find the look discouraging.

At least he has Spock to look worse though, no matter what!

[GRANT!]

Why is a little kid Kirk driving a car off a canyon? I know wait and see the movie but it's pretty odd moment to have in a trailer.

Looks all right. Not a Trek fan but I might go see it.

[Sean Walsh]

....interesting trailer. Besides the odd "Kirk as kid driving car" part, it looks decent.

[GRANT!]

And what was with the weird robot guy who walked off the set of some 50s sci fi movie?

[Asmith]

And what was with the weird robot guy who walked off the set of some 50s sci fi movie?

Walked off the set of a 50s sci-fi movie, or do you mean; walked off the set of a 60s sci-fi television series...?

From the trailer and a small smattering of stills I've seen, I'd say the films art department have done a very nice job in building a consistent universe for this film. You can see how they taken the old bridge set, tarted it up some but left the core 60s feel and vibe. Then taken that retro-fitted 60s vibe and applied it to the rest of the Trek universe. Such as that weird robot cop guy who looks like he coulda been on the original show - almost.

I think they've done a really brilliant job with the design. I'd be happy to go see the film just to enjoy the consistency of their design approach.

[Ontir]

The break of continuity, having the Enterprise constructed on Earth, is just odd for a film that's mean to be within established continuity. I hope they don't blow "the Balance of Terror" continuity as well.

I'm not too happy with the bridge design either. It's so "Barbie's Spaceship," and it looks like all the fancy flashing lights that mean nothing, things that Roddenberry would've axed immediately, are there in abundance.

The casting, for the most part, seems uninspired, but I'm going to see it and give it a shot. I miss "Trek" and am willing to give it a fair shake.

[Ill Communication]

This looks awful, and I'm so sad. I had A LOT of hope for this movie, because it sounded filled with promise ... but from the trailer, it looks campy, and not the good Flash Gordon kind.

The only highlight was the 2 seconds of Simon Pegg. Much like Judd Apatow, I think JJ makes better TV than he does movies, and should stick with that.

[Cyke]

The break of continuity, having the Enterprise constructed on Earth, is just odd for a film that's mean to be within established continuity. I hope they don't blow "the Balance of Terror" continuity as well.

I'm not too happy with the bridge design either. It's so "Barbie's Spaceship," and it looks like all the fancy flashing lights that mean nothing, things that Roddenberry would've axed immediately, are there in abundance.

The casting, for the most part, seems uninspired, but I'm going to see it and give it a shot. I miss "Trek" and am willing to give it a fair shake.

After all the huge continuity gaffes committed by Enterprise, I'd have to say the ship getting built on Earth is a minor thing, well worth having the shot of young-Kirk looking up at the ship from his motorcycle.

As for me, I'm very very happy that they've kept:
-streaking warp stars from TNG - on
-the warp trail effect from the TOS movies (heck, the fact that they combined the two, like a faster version of VI, is great)
-some elements of the TOS movie Enterprise(s)
-the classic Red Alert sound effect

Yep, I'm excited. Heck, it says so in my signature! After the dreck that was Nemesis (which in hindsight is VERY campy in a very boring way), I want something bright and cheery again.

[Jmacq1]

I'm looking forward to it, continuity be damned.

It isn't like Trek had the most rock-solid continuity to begin with anyhow, and Enterprise mostly threw it right out the window, to boot (I enjoyed Enterprise a heck of a lot more than Voyager).

Times change, so do franchises. This is an opportunity to revive Trek, which let's face it, was on its' last legs. Yeah, that probably involves a fair bit making it "younger" and "hipper" and "sexier" (though Trek was pretty darn sexy for its' time) but the "Trekkies" of tomorrow are the youth of today.

If "New Trek" can do for Star Trek what the Daniel Craig Bond films have done for James Bond, I'll be a happy camper.

[Ontir]

After all the huge continuity gaffes committed by Enterprise, I'd have to say the ship getting built on Earth is a minor thing, well worth having the shot of young-Kirk looking up at the ship from his motorcycle.

As for me, I'm very very happy that they've kept:
-streaking warp stars from TNG - on
-the warp trail effect from the TOS movies (heck, the fact that they combined the two, like a faster version of VI, is great)
-some elements of the TOS movie Enterprise(s)
-the classic Red Alert sound effect

Yep, I'm excited. Heck, it says so in my signature! After the dreck that was Nemesis (which in hindsight is VERY campy in a very boring way), I want something bright and cheery again.

"Enterprise" is it's own group of troubles. This is meant to be something within the established continuity, and if they're going to say that, they should stick to it.

I still HATE the warp flare. The thing I always thought was so cool about the Enterprise and all the vessels from Star Trek, is that they didn't have any of that cheesy stuff. It seemed more realistic then, and far less so now.

[Justin D.]

The gripe that the cast looks too young is an odd, dumb complaint if you think about it for more than five seconds.

"The cast looks so young. It's Dawson's Trek!"

"The movie is about the early lives of the main cast and how they come together as the Enterprise's crew that everyone knows. That means it takes place before the show's timeline so they have to look younger than the original actors did."

"Yeah, but they're so young! It's Saved by the Bell: The Trek Years!"

"Yes, clever, but they're not that much younger than the actors were when the original TV series was shot. And Chris Pine doesn't look that much more polished than William Shatner did in all those PR images for the original series."

"It's like a Trek version of Muppet Babies. Trek Babies! Ha!"

" . . . . Yeah. Good one. Just be quiet about this now because that's as good as you're going to get."

[Kaos]

Why is a little kid Kirk driving a car off a canyon? I know wait and see the movie but it's pretty odd moment to have in a trailer.

Looks all right. Not a Trek fan but I might go see it.

Cos he's a rebel..don't play by no ones rules...not even his own.

The break of continuity, having the Enterprise constructed on Earth, is just odd for a film that's mean to be within established continuity. I hope they don't blow "the Balance of Terror" continuity as well.

I'm not too happy with the bridge design either. It's so "Barbie's Spaceship," and it looks like all the fancy flashing lights that mean nothing, things that Roddenberry would've axed immediately, are there in abundance.

The casting, for the most part, seems uninspired, but I'm going to see it and give it a shot. I miss "Trek" and am willing to give it a fair shake.

Where was it built?

[Cyke]

"Enterprise" is it's own group of troubles. This is meant to be something within the established continuity, and if they're going to say that, they should stick to it.

They're not going to stick 100% to continuity, and it remains to be seen how much it will stick in. I don't think any show or movie has done that, to be frank with you. Heck, the movie itself starts out by violating continuity: there's no record of TNG-Era Spock going back to pre-TOS days, for example. That act in and of itself has a potential to change continuity, the way the Enterprise-E cast did in First Contact.

But I would have to ask: was it said in a TV show or movie that the Enterprise was built in space?

[Kaos]

They're not going to stick 100% to continuity, and it remains to be seen how much it will stick in. I don't think any show or movie has done that, to be frank with you. Heck, the movie itself starts out by violating continuity: there's no record of TNG-Era Spock going back to pre-TOS days, for example. That act in and of itself has a potential to change continuity, the way the Enterprise-E cast did in First Contact.

But I would have to ask: was it said in a TV show or movie that the Enterprise was built in space?

What's TOS?

[Ottmeister X]

I think it looks cool. I'll be just be looking for a good flick with loose continuity. It's not like the new movie has a lot of stiff competition with all of the previous Star Trek films, other than Khan. This movie looks like a step back in the right direction.

[Cyke]

What's TOS?

TOS stands for The Original Series.

[Kaos]

oh yea...duuuh....my bad.

[The Batman]

Nevermind.

[The Batman]

Visually, I thought this looked great. It's the first time, in a long time, that I got an "oh cool" feeling from Star Trek. My only real worry, and it's not a very big one given we don't know all that much about the story, is that this winds up being a "Kirk Begins" story with Jim Kirk being led by the hand into Starfleet, onto the Enterprise, and then, into the Big Chair.

But like I said, I can wait till I see the movie before I get too worried about that one.

[Captain Trips]

They're not going to stick 100% to continuity, and it remains to be seen how much it will stick in. I don't think any show or movie has done that, to be frank with you. Heck, the movie itself starts out by violating continuity: there's no record of TNG-Era Spock going back to pre-TOS days, for example. That act in and of itself has a potential to change continuity, the way the Enterprise-E cast did in First Contact.

But I would have to ask: was it said in a TV show or movie that the Enterprise was built in space?

Well, we see in the trailer that Kirk is on the Enterprise while Pike is sitting in the captain's chair. That is not in pre-established continuity. Personally, I wish they would just consider this a complete reboot and not try to tie it into any Trek continuity. There are tons of instances of mistakes in Trek continuity anyway, so just start fresh.

[Cyke]

Well, we see in the trailer that Kirk is on the Enterprise while Pike is sitting in the captain's chair. That is not in pre-established continuity. Personally, I wish they would just consider this a complete reboot and not try to tie it into any Trek continuity. There are tons of instances of mistakes in Trek continuity anyway, so just start fresh.

Continuity or not, I'm still going to watch this movie on opening night. Don't get me wrong, the Trekkie in me wants this to be in continuity. If it's a straight up reboot, the Trekkie in me would still try to shoehorn the movie into my personal continuity. But really, it doesn't matter much in the long run. If it's a reboot, that gets rid of dead weight. If it's in continuity, some gaffes will happen as they always do, and it's important to remember that sometimes gaffes happen in order to make the story flow, which is a legit reason to have gaffes.

My own personal desire: if this were a reboot-revival hybrid like Doctor Who, I'd be a happy man.

[Ilash]

It looks OK but I want to know how they're possibly going to live up to the Shatner/ Nimoy/ Kelley interaction of the original. And frankly, after watching this trailer, it seems like they're very much not going to.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Well, we see in the trailer that Kirk is on the Enterprise while Pike is sitting in the captain's chair. That is not in pre-established continuity. Personally, I wish they would just consider this a complete reboot and not try to tie it into any Trek continuity. There are tons of instances of mistakes in Trek continuity anyway, so just start fresh.

Well the "pre-established continuity" is probably having a captain named Pike being in command before Kirk, and a couple other things that someone may possibly remember.

As much as I love Star Trek and the continuity that goes with it (such as it is considering Trek never really kept up with itself) this movie started out messing with the timeline just by having Bones being on the Enterprise for the first mission, or having blue and red uniforms, or any other number of things.

I've kind of given up on continuity, this starts a new Trek universe, JJ-Trek perhaps. I only care if its good and gives me either other movies or a new tv show.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

continuity is only cool with me if there is a unified authorial or editorial thread keeping everything together. So I've enjoyed TOS and TNG but largely abandoned Trek after Roddenberry's death. Similar thing for me with Spiderman or Batman. I only care about continuity if it has a cohesive element to it, which superheroes and sci-fi often don't over the long haul. I'd rather Abrams jettisoned cotinuity for the sake of an interesting story.

I understand people wanting the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic to reflect the original in some way but I always thought that the dynamic, though lots of fun, was always remarkably hammy. I don't know if we want all the acting to be that ham-fisted. Then again, if they try to NUANCE the relationship that could suck even more. :) Either way this is the first Trek movie I think I want to see and might stand any chance of enjoying. I"m still trying to forget the movies after Trek 5 or 6 even happened.

[SnowTrooper]

I've never watched any episodes of The Original Series, or any other Star Trek TV show, but I do like some of the movies. I'm not a Trekkie in any way, but I cant wait for this movie. The combined involvement of JJ Abrams, Zachary Quinto, and Simon Pegg easily make this a must-see for me.

[Treqqor]

I do not see where this is drastically breaking with continuity.

- Is it that Spock is not laughing and smiling, like he did in the early episodes?
- Is it that he is "Vulcan" and not "Vulcanian", again, like early episodes.
- Why is Starfleet used instead of UESPA?
- Lithium engines instead of dilithium?
- James T Kirk? But it was James R Kirk onscreen on his tombstone.

People claim there are continuity violations with this movie when they happened daily on the shows. It is a miracle there was enough internal consistency as there was! Why make up unsupported claims that the movie does not not fit in the same timeline (the ship was built in San Francisco, for example, despite what others may believe. The animated series told us that, and has never been contradicted. It is now fully supported, it seems) boggles my mind.

If restricting continuity means a stale and less exciting script, then break a few rules. It is only a TV show. (Odd that I am saying this, I know)

No need to wipe the plate clean when some simple tweaks are all that is necessary. It's evolution, and it is needed. Or the series really will become the fossil others have believed it to already be.

:cool:

[Jmacq1]

They're not going to stick 100% to continuity, and it remains to be seen how much it will stick in. I don't think any show or movie has done that, to be frank with you. Heck, the movie itself starts out by violating continuity: there's no record of TNG-Era Spock going back to pre-TOS days, for example. That act in and of itself has a potential to change continuity, the way the Enterprise-E cast did in First Contact.

But I would have to ask: was it said in a TV show or movie that the Enterprise was built in space?

To the last question: I believe it was in a book, which conveniently is not considered canon (none of the Trek books are "officially" canon...it's the most profitable fanfic publishing series in the universe!)

To the first paragraph:

Rumormongering has it that the time-travel elements in this movie do indeed screw up the timeline/"birth" a new one. Thus, this becomes an "in-continuity backdoor reboot" once all is said and done. Or more accurately the new Trek franchise is us following the adventures of a parallel Trek universe to the TOS/TNG/Et Al....

Heck, maybe even a parallel Trek universe where Enterprise fits seamlessly.....

[KiFF86]

I hate Star Trek, I hate Trekkies........my last name is Tribble, yea I know like Star Trek I found out about that when I was nine.........and I will hurt the anyone that brings it up. As much as I hate Trek, this looks like it would be pretty good.

[gorthon616]

It looks fun, like Transformers fun.
I don't think it'll be anything more than that, no way will it compare to the older films, but I don't think it'll be a Crystal Skull debacle.

[Tobias March]

It looks fun, like Transformers fun.
I don't think it'll be anything more than that, no way will it compare to the older films, but I don't think it'll be a Crystal Skull debacle.

Those words sent a chill up my spine.

"I'll drive, you shoot!"

[Ontir]

I do not see where this is drastically breaking with continuity.

- Is it that Spock is not laughing and smiling, like he did in the early episodes?
- Is it that he is "Vulcan" and not "Vulcanian", again, like early episodes.
- Why is Starfleet used instead of UESPA?
- Lithium engines instead of dilithium?
- James T Kirk? But it was James R Kirk onscreen on his tombstone.

People claim there are continuity violations with this movie when they happened daily on the shows. It is a miracle there was enough internal consistency as there was! Why make up unsupported claims that the movie does not not fit in the same timeline (the ship was built in San Francisco, for example, despite what others may believe. The animated series told us that, and has never been contradicted. It is now fully supported, it seems) boggles my mind.

If restricting continuity means a stale and less exciting script, then break a few rules. It is only a TV show. (Odd that I am saying this, I know)

No need to wipe the plate clean when some simple tweaks are all that is necessary. It's evolution, and it is needed. Or the series really will become the fossil others have believed it to already be.

:cool:


I had the opportunity to meet and talk to DC Fontana just about 2 years ago, and she'd argue vociferously with your assertions!

[Ontir]

They're not going to stick 100% to continuity, and it remains to be seen how much it will stick in. I don't think any show or movie has done that, to be frank with you. Heck, the movie itself starts out by violating continuity: there's no record of TNG-Era Spock going back to pre-TOS days, for example. That act in and of itself has a potential to change continuity, the way the Enterprise-E cast did in First Contact.

But I would have to ask: was it said in a TV show or movie that the Enterprise was built in space?

I think it was in the series. What I recall was the parts being manufactured in Houston and the assembly being done, I want to say at Utopia Yards, in orbit. I'm a bad Trekkie, some of the minutia is slipping.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I think it was in the series. What I recall was the parts being manufactured in Houston and the assembly being done, I want to say at Utopia Yards, in orbit. I'm a bad Trekkie, some of the minutia is slipping.

According to Memory Alpha, there is no official info on how the Enterprise was created. The idea was that the parts were made on Earth and then assembled in space, but it never made it into any thing onscreen or spoken by characters.

[Rabid Trekkie]

If restricting continuity means a stale and less exciting script, then break a few rules. It is only a TV show. (Odd that I am saying this, I know)

Of course the converse of this can also be true. Like if the writers would have remembered what Scotty said when they found him in TNG, we would never have gotten Star Trek Generations. And my sanity would have been better for it.

[The Batman]

Of course the converse of this can also be true. Like if the writers would have remembered what Scotty said when they found him in TNG, we would never have gotten Star Trek Generations. And my sanity would have been better for it.

The Scotty in Generations was a Changeling. The Founders were working on taking over Earth for a very long time.

At least, that's how I explain it.

[rick]

I tend to think that us fans tend to get way to hung up on continuity and minutia.

I just want it to be a kick ass adventure with Kirk, and crew and I'm not even slightly worried about how it matches up with past Trek history.

Also, it is a time travel story, that is apparently where Nimoy comes into play.

[rick]

Here's a clean copy of the trailer...

Star Trek (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/large_trailer2.html)

[Cyke]

I tend to think that us fans tend to get way to hung up on continuity and minutia.

I just want it to be a kick ass adventure with Kirk, and crew and I'm not even slightly worried about how it matches up with past Trek history.

Also, it is a time travel story, that is apparently where Nimoy comes into play.

The tie-in prequel comic will supposedly show Nimoy-Spock on one last adventure involving the TNG/DS9/VOY-era heroes as he tries to hunt down Nero, the film's villain. Robert Orci, one of the film's writers, said the comic would connect the continuity between "present" Trek and the movie. Me being the purist, I certainly hope the comic becomes part of accepted Trek continuity.

[Cyke]

Little do people know that reimagining Star Trek could have take a different turn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEEEGWBUbvk&feature=related

[Asmith]

Also, it is a time travel story, that is apparently where Nimoy comes into play.

Now while there's certainly been one or two time travel stories in Star Trek that I've enjoyed, I just really wish they wouldn't. It's always seemed like they're failing to utilise their core concept everytime they do time travel.

It's all in the name, STAR Trek. 100,000 worlds and wonders to explore and they need to go back in time to spice up the stories? Poor writing!

Though it's not as bad as any story that involves the holodeck... Every single one of those holodeck stories tells the same tale: Man crosses cosmos to not look out window but play X-Box instead... Not really very inspiring.

[the goddamn batman]

That trailer killed what small amount of interest I had in this. Oh well.

[Cyke]

That trailer killed what small amount of interest I had in this. Oh well.

Admit it, you never had any amount of interest in this whatsoever.

I don't think you and I have ever liked the same thing ever, but I've learned to live with it :)

[the goddamn batman]

Admit it, you never had any amount of interest in this whatsoever.

Actually, I've always been a fan of Star Trek... shit, I even watched Voyager for a while. So yeah, I was totally interested.

But that trailer didn't hit any of the right notes for me.

I don't think you and I have ever liked the same thing ever, but I've learned to live with it :)

Really? Well, I'm not the most agreeable guy, so.

[Cyke]

Really? Well, I'm not the most agreeable guy, so.

Nope, seriously, I think every time I've read a post of yours here in the TV/Film board, you always had a negative opinion of something I liked. It's never been a bother for me, don't get me wrong, it's just something I've noticed.

...you're not... telepathic, are you?

[rick]

Little do people know that reimagining Star Trek could have take a different turn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEEEGWBUbvk&feature=related


That was just wrong.

[the goddamn batman]

Nope, seriously, I think every time I've read a post of yours here in the TV/Film board, you always had a negative opinion of something I liked.

Then you, sir, have terrible taste! :biggrin:

It's never been a bother for me, don't get me wrong, it's just something I've noticed.

...you're not... telepathic, are you?

No, I'm not telepathic, I just have very specific, individual and random taste.

Have you ever liked anything I liked or are we really batting 1000?

I assume we both like Star Trek?

[Jmacq1]

Now while there's certainly been one or two time travel stories in Star Trek that I've enjoyed, I just really wish they wouldn't. It's always seemed like they're failing to utilise their core concept everytime they do time travel.

It's all in the name, STAR Trek. 100,000 worlds and wonders to explore and they need to go back in time to spice up the stories? Poor writing!

Though it's not as bad as any story that involves the holodeck... Every single one of those holodeck stories tells the same tale: Man crosses cosmos to not look out window but play X-Box instead... Not really very inspiring.

Well, after a while it gets a little old hat to see just another somewhat earth-like world with somewhat earth-like inhabitants with funny latex attachments, and most of the rest of the worlds are going to be uninhabitable so it'll mostly be long-distance/orbital studies anyhow. Let's face it, the vast majority of what a scientific exploration ship is going to do on a day-to-day basis would be incredibly boring to most audiences.

As for the holodeck, while I agree in principle that it's somewhat silly, I saw it as TNG (and beyond's) method of replicating the feel of all those TOS stories where they found all those worlds that were exactly like Earth in a particular time period without resorting to the idiotic "Parallel development...fascinating, the odds of this are astronomical, yet this is the third one of these planets we've found this month!" trope.

[Captain Trips]

Here's another new image from the movie that is really going to screw with continuity:

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/photos/kirkspockbath.jpg


I keed! I keed!

However, I didn't realize that this is actually Leonard Nimoy as the older Spock. Interesting that it does seem like they rebooted the "future" of Trek as well, because that doesn't look like the older Spock I remember (unless it's just the lighting or something):

http://blogs.indystar.com/geek/graphics/StarTrekArena.jpg

EDIT: Ok, I read that that was supposed to be Nimoy's cameo, but maybe that's Sarek and Wynona is holding baby Spock or something.

[Cyke]

Then you, sir, have terrible taste! :biggrin:

I'll let you know that I'm quite happy with my tastes, thank you very much!



No, I'm not telepathic, I just have very specific, individual and random taste.

Have you ever liked anything I liked or are we really batting 1000?

I assume we both like Star Trek?

We're not batting 1000, but I'm pretty sure we're close to it.

Like, say, I do like Star Trek, but YOU watched Voyager. :)

[Nate Grey]

http://blogs.indystar.com/geek/graphics/StarTrekArena.jpg

EDIT: Ok, I read that that was supposed to be Nimoy's cameo, but maybe that's Sarek and Wynona is holding baby Spock or something.

Isn't that Ben Cross as Sarek?

Also, I always thought Spock was a test-tube baby. Then again, if that's true, that image doesn't exactly contradict it.

[the goddamn batman]

Like, say, I do like Star Trek, but YOU watched Voyager. :)

Oh I know, I've never been able to get that dirty feeling off, either.:redface: