Star Trek (2009)

[Kankel]

Well since somebody else started a thread about Star Trek, I figured I put this up for the loyal fans of the series.Yes, you are not dreaming looks like the director of Cloverfield, J.J. Abrams, wasn't done this year with just one movie and look what he came up with next.

http://www.paramount.com/startrek/

http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=startrek11

Enjoy!!

[Vexx]

Okay... I admit it. I'm a completely irrational Trekkie: that Paramount trailer had my heart in my throat for a few seconds. <sigh>

and it looks like they're going to be doing pre-Original Series stuff so that gives them some latitude (lots of Wild Frontier possiblities) other than not killing the iconic members of the crew. Cheers for Abrams - maybe he "gets it".

[Seditary]

Well the trailer wasn't too bad, though it of course didn't really show much.

Call me mildly optimistic, plus its set in a time with plenty of story possibilities.

[Samari]

Most Star Trek fans I've observed aren't too thrilled with the movie. From the trailer that is. The Enterprise wouldn't be build on Earth. That doesn't make sense in the Star Trek universe. The other ships before the U.S.S. Enterprise were even built in space. And the fact that humans are working on it seems even more far fetched. We have machines that build automobiles in this day and age, and that's set 200 years in the future. As you can tell, I'm a little skeptical about the upcoming film. Hopefully it's good.

[Potatochobit]

Without any of the TV actors its nothing but another sci-fi flick.

Not saying its going to be bad, but its just not the same thing.

You can stick this one right next to the transformers movie, which again, could have been
any mech show without the optimus prime skin.

[Bonta Kun]

Originally Posted by bluejazz87

Most Star Trek fans I've observed aren't too thrilled with the movie. From the trailer that is. The Enterprise wouldn't be build on Earth. That doesn't make sense in the Star Trek universe. The other ships before the U.S.S. Enterprise were even built in space. And the fact that humans are working on it seems even more far fetched. We have machines that build automobiles in this day and age, and that's set 200 years in the future. As you can tell, I'm a little skeptical about the upcoming film. Hopefully it's good.

yea I find that a little odd that its not built in a shipyard in orbit but hey what can ya do. Not really fussed tho as its a NEW TREKKIE FLICK!!! YAY!!!

altho gonna have to pull something special out of the bag in order to compete with catpains of past or even come close to how great they were.

[Zaris]

Regardless of how good or bad it is, it's still going to draw attention. There hasn't been Trek on the screens for some time now and people are awaiting to see the symbolic elements that make Star Trek Star Trek again - saucer sections, warp nacelles, and pointed ears. Yes, it could turn out to be a box office failure, but I wouldn't be surprised. And in the end, the name says it all. Star Trek. And the past has shown that name alone can draw crowds.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Bonta Kun

yea I find that a little odd that its not built in a shipyard in orbit but hey what can ya do. Not really fussed tho as its a NEW TREKKIE FLICK!!! YAY!!!

altho gonna have to pull something special out of the bag in order to compete with catpains of past or even come close to how great they were.

The film is supposed to be about the original crew when they first began their careers. So we'll be seeing different people play Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Zaris

Regardless of how good or bad it is, it's still going to draw attention. There hasn't been Trek on the screens for some time now and people are awaiting to see the symbolic elements that make Star Trek Star Trek again - saucer sections, warp nacelles, and pointed ears. Yes, it could turn out to be a box office failure, but I wouldn't be surprised. And in the end, the name says it all. Star Trek. And the past has shown that name alone can draw crowds.

True, but still, you don't want the legacy of Star Trek to be puked on if you're a fan.

[monster]

Is "Under Construction" the name (or at least the subtitle) of the movie?

[Vexx]

Hmmm, I didn't notice the background "possibly city" ... just figured it was some instantiation of Spacedock. That said... it may have been on the Moon in a large bubble colony (a more likely place if you *must* be in a gravity well --- though anti-gravs may remove that issue as well).

Ah well... we'll just have to wait and see.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by bluejazz87

True, but still, you don't want the legacy of Star Trek to be puked on if you're a fan.

The franchise has been puked on enough already....what's one more time?

Seriously though, I'm actually kind of disappointed in this. I can't speak for everybody but it's very tiring to see all these franchise "reboots" because the old formula got stagnant.

It may or not be great, won't really know until it's out. I'm still cringing at the thought of younger versions of the original crew. Just feels....wrong.

[Vexx]

That's because you *remember* them and perhaps grew up with them.
I've seen the Gregory Peck version of Moby Dick, for example -- that is iconic to me. The Picard, I mean Patrick Stewart version is well-acted and such... but it just isn't the Captain Ahab etched in my head. OTOH, for a younger person who hasn't seen the "old stuff" - Stewart's Ahab might be wonderous and will end up being the version etched in his head.

Whats another example... ummm, Hamlet. For most people from my father's era, John Barrymore is the penultimate Hamlet. However, for most-30somethings.... probably Gibson's Hamlet (which actually wasn't bad). Out of all the movie adaptations of Hamlet I've seen --- I did enjoy Gibson's version the best.

For me, Shatner, Nimoy, Doohan, Nichols, Kelley, Takei, and Koenig (et cetera) are the iconic representations of their characters. But I'm interested to see how these new actors take on their roles and whether they can move out of the shadows of the originals.

Now... I'd *RATHER* see the budgets spent on a lot of classic science fiction that lies wasting in the closet of potentiality.
Works by Clarke, Heinlein, stuff by Hogan, Brin, etc. some of which is quite mind-bending stuff.... hell, I'm still waiting for a proper Cthulhu movie

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by monstert

Is "Under Construction" the name (or at least the subtitle) of the movie?

It means the website is under construction.

[monster]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

It means the website is under construction.

Are you sure? Because the words are also shown in the trailer.

EDIT
To the post below: I see, well that's a first for me.

[NoSanninWa]

Originally Posted by monstert

Are you sure? Because the words are also shown in the trailer.

It is very likely just a comment that the movie is under construction and a bit of a pun in that they are showing the Enterprise under construction. It is rather doubtful that the movie will be named that way. They just don't want to tell us the movie's name yet since JJ Abrams loves secrecy.

[Slice of Life]

It means the movie, the Enterprise, and the Enterprise saga is "under construction".

The goggles! They do nothing! To see that the hull of the Enterprise seems to have been wielded together in manual labor made me lol. Well, makes sense. Human resources are cheap, because nobody gets paid! "We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." Yes, thank you Jean-Luc. I'm sure one has significantly bettered oneself as a welder after putting that ship together.

But I'm not too concerned at the moment. ST VI for example had Klingon dictionaries on paper and other BS and it was still a good movie.

[Solace]

I remember both Ahabs well. In the end it's a silly argument in my opinion, it's like arguing about who the best Bond was, or who played Scrooge better.

What my feeling was is that these aren't simply different takes on the same character, these are characters based on established timeline. They have an expectation to fill the shoes of their "adult" selves, and even if they pull off the mannerisms, voices, etc....it's just not going to feel right. Again, it's just semantics. People growing up now will probably not care, but for those who saw the way it was....well there's gonna be grumbling. Kinda like the old versus new Star Wars trilogy (and the various "tweaked" versions).

There's stories to tell from both sides (future and past) but the whole thing seems like a company meeting where everyone is saying "let's get back to basics" without actually understanding *why* Star Trek was so popular in the first place. There was plenty of great things from all the different series, and yes, plenty of bad. But personally I'm tired of prequels and reboots, and for once I'd just like to see a franchise move forward instead of trying to constantly reinvent it's roots.

[Slice of Life]

Eeeek. The Star Wars prequel lacked in the story department, to put it verrry nicely. If I expected ST 11 to be something like SW I then I wouldn't bother watching the new movie, as simple as that. But until getting more substantial information, I'm fine with a prequel and I also see no reason to mistrust the new cast.

It's not easy to always go on and on, because at some point everything feels same old, same old. The premise of Star Trek Enterprise had a lot of potential, maybe the greatest ever, it's just that they screwed it. So yeah for a prequel.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Solace

The franchise has been puked on enough already....what's one more time?

Seriously though, I'm actually kind of disappointed in this. I can't speak for everybody but it's very tiring to see all these franchise "reboots" because the old formula got stagnant.

It may or not be great, won't really know until it's out. I'm still cringing at the thought of younger versions of the original crew. Just feels....wrong.

How has it been puked on? By what? One series Enterprise? That's not even close to the amount of damage a new cast playing old characters once portrayed by other actors. A lot is on the line in that regard. At least everything else in the Star Trek universe thus far has maintained a level of consistency for the most part. In the teaser they're building the Enterprise on Earth...with humans...that right there deflates a lot of expectations.