Star Trek XI trailer

I have just seen the german version of the new Star Trek movie's trailer at a german yellow press webpage.

Well I am so dissappointed. This is so not Star Trek.

Honestly, this reminds me of a preview of any kind of SciFi pure action movie.

What does a car and a motorbike do in a Star Trek movie?

Call me a prude, if you will, but why has Uhura (I guess it's her) to pull off her uniform top and what for do we need a sex scene in the movie? Does Kirk 'finally' do it with Uhura? Is Star Trek now nothing more than pure mainstream entertainment? I had so high hopes for this movie, but right now, my expectations are as low as never before.

I am massively dissappointed... This'll be the end of the franchise as we have known it for so long, and I fear that the new re-boot of Star Trek will be nothing for me.

Edit: On youtube there's the same material, but in english.

I assume that much was said about Ron Moores's Battlestar Galactica...and yet look at the success


The Great Reformatting of Star Trek is here. much as many of us Old Timers might not like it, it may save the franchise, which in the long run will save trek.

Trek has many iterations from Classic (TOS), to pedantic (later TNG, season seven I'm looking at you), creative if dark (DS9), to Insipid (Voyager and Enterprise, except season 4, I really looking at you).

If you must, think of it as alternate timeline if it helps, but I'm willing to give it a spin,,,and I've watched the show since the late 70's .

It's pretty. It's fast. It's full of action. It shows a kid shouting "I am James Tiberius Kirk". It has the Enteprise in it.

It looks sooo much not like Trek.

I am not the type to cling to old Trek for the sake of it (actually, I am so much not this that I don't like TOS, but like almost all of the other series, bar a few unfortunate episodes or seasons).
I don't care much if the Enterprise is painted blue, if Tchekov meets Kirk before the sacrosaint canon says so, or if Amanda Grayson changes hair colour.
But I do mind if I see Trek survive at the price of becoming a sort of Star Wars where the Force and lightsabers relabeled as mind melds and phasers.

I know trailers are deceptive, but what this one shows me seems to be a movie made by someone who thought "My, the ships in Star Trek are cool! I will do a movie with them! What are the name of the main characters of the favourite season so I can drop them in the script to appeal to Trekkies ?"

We had Kirk riding in Generations and climbing in ST V, and these are far from being my favourite movies. I'm a bit afraid of what a movie where Kirk drives has to offer.
(Note: this comment is a joke, but my concerns are genuine)

I think I am quite positive after seeing it. Actually that's an understatement, I think I had a nerdgasm LOL. Sorry I am just not finding that much negative to say about it. Visually it is doing something Trek has FAILED to do for a long time, send a shiver down the back of my spine of how outstandingly epic and huge it really is.

Plot wise, we will have to wait and see.

Future of trek: Who knows, but then it was practically dead anyway, so with luck this could be the spark of life it needs!

PS: If you haven't seen it, watch it in HD from Apples site.. visually, it will make your jaw drop.. even though you will have to freeze frame it just to see how awesome it is! :D

for the life of me I'm trying to figure out the incredibly huge asymetrical buildings in the background

Ok, I'm starting this post before I watch the trailer (a friend at work told me that there was a new one, and I knew it would be posted here).

From the sound of it, it's heavy on action, not so heavy on Trek stuff.

Ok, Going to look now::rolleyes:



:eek:
So actiony! Sorta like a Mission Impossible looking movie, in space, with alien races from GR's classic show.

But, I know I'm going to watch it!

Oh, And I think those bulidings in the night shot are some sorta shipyard, BC.

I'm inclined to think so...but judging from the distance on the horizon, they are archology size

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BouncyCaitian

I'm inclined to think so...but judging from the distance on the horizon, they are archology size

---

Yeah, they just look like arcologies. They do sort of resemble some of Soleri's original designs, too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cut

What does a car and a motorbike do in a Star Trek movie?

---

Provide exposition-through-action of Kirk's character?

Quote:

---

Call me a prude, if you will, but why has Uhura (I guess it's her) to pull off her uniform top and what for do we need a sex scene in the movie?

---

Because it's Kirk, dammit! He has sex! With women! Did anyone really think he never made a pass at her over five years?

Quote:

---

I am massively dissappointed... This'll be the end of the franchise as we have known it for so long, and I fear that the new re-boot of Star Trek will be nothing for me.

---

Look, I think Fringe sucks, but it wasn't as bad as Voyager. Trek's been through a lot worse than another aesthetic refitting.

Hi guys,
just popping in to say a quick "Hello" and "Merry Xmas" to everyone before I return to exile. :)

Just on those buildings, I just watched the Season 4 DS9 episodes Homefront and Paradise Lost yesterday and I swear you could see them in the background at one stage (in France, I think). I'll have to have another look tonight...but I'm positive I remember them off to the left of the Eiffel Tower in one establishing shot.

Re: the trailer. AWESOME!

I'm so excited about this ST movie - more than any for years, actually. Just to reassure those who are concerned...hey, you can never tell anything about a film's story or plot from a trailer. Go watch a trailer for Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country or First Contact and you'll find the same thing. Lots of action sequences, explosions and combat, and precious little about the story.

I personally love the look, how they've managed to blend TOS-style with less dorky visuals.

Anyway...see you guys in a while. :)

I'm excited. Honestly the biggest problem I had with Star Trek was complete utopia, having more fighting with Spock and Kirk makes sense early on - he was an anomoly in StarFleet to begin with on a human ship. We know there was animosity between the logical Vulcans and the radical humans. I'm glad Pike is going to be in it briefly, and I am very excited that this might boost the franchise into something other than what it has been recently. Honestly, the new stuff I have liked because its better than going back and watching the original BSG or ST that I can't hardly watch anymore - but loved growing up.

I'm excited. I might be let down, but I'm trying to stay optimistic.

and when I saw the buildings...I was reminded of this artists work

http://www.chrisfoss.net/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Because it's Kirk, dammit! He has sex! With women! Did anyone really think he never made a pass at her over five years?

---

No he wouldn't because he was her commanding officer.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarriorKnight

No he wouldn't because he was her commanding officer.:)

---

That hasn't stopped him before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarriorKnight

No he wouldn't because he was her commanding officer.:)

---

this is true...but If what I'm guessing is going on with the black uniform....he might not be at the time of the movie (sorta a evaluation period). and that leaves his Horndogness a loop hole. but I digress.

Anyway, new film has potential

and for those thinking I'm being a bit over the top....remember...this is hollywood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

That hasn't stopped him before...

---

True,but that seemed like some kind of anomoly.He obvously had the hots for Rand but never acted on them(even when under the effects of the Psi 2000 virus).It seems like when they are further away from his "inner circle"he wound "indulge himself",but if they were close,like Rand & Uhura,he was hands off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BouncyCaitian

I assume that much was said about Ron Moores's Battlestar Galactica...and yet look at the success


The Great Reformatting of Star Trek is here. much as many of us Old Timers might not like it, it may save the franchise, which in the long run will save trek.

Trek has many iterations from Classic (TOS), to pedantic (later TNG, season seven I'm looking at you), creative if dark (DS9), to Insipid (Voyager and Enterprise, except season 4, I really looking at you).

If you must, think of it as alternate timeline if it helps, but I'm willing to give it a spin,,,and I've watched the show since the late 70's .

---

Frankly, I loved the trailer. It has given me new hope.

To be honest, though, I still have a few misgivings. And those center on the fact that (a) it involves time-travel and (b) Nimoy is in it, playing Spock.

Nimoy shouldn't be in it -- at least, not playing Spock. And the fact that they went for the deus ex machina of time travel in the outset doesn't bode well.

This should be a complete re-boot. The future hasn't happened yet. Anyone could die. And yet now, we see Spock as an old man.

So the ret-conning begins even before the movie is released.

Still...I must say, I like that trailer. It does look awesome.

Seen the second trailer. Can't say I'm overly thrilled.

Please tell me that was a smaller vessel being built on the ground and NOT Enterprise herself. I thought she was contructed in the orbit-based San Francisco Fleet Yards, NOT in San Francisco groundside. Of course that would explain why the workers first trailer weren't wearing airtight suits. I don't mind she was built piece by piece on the ground and later transported up to the orbital drydock facility to begin final assembly.

The part where the boy took a joyride in an "antique" ICE car was okay, except when he answered the cop by giving his full name, including middle name. Not many of us would give out our middle name unless it is simple like Mary Jo or Billy Bob. "James Tiberius Kirk" is a mouthful for a typical kid, about as typical a kid could be who just took a car out for a joyride.

As for the part where Uhura strip to her undies, I don't know if that's to answer every fans' question about Starfleet Regulation Bra. :p

As I have said it before, this is for the next generation of Trek fans, as if the film speaks, "This is not your father's Star Trek." Nevertheless, I hope that JJ Abrams would inject some intelligence that I have enjoyed in Star Trek mainly in TOS.

P.S. I kinda like the new textile approach to the old TOS uniform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REG

I thought she was contructed in the orbit-based San Francisco Fleet Yards, NOT in San Francisco groundside.

---

Nope. Strictly canon-speaking, there's no information about whether or not the Enterprise was built in orbit or on the ground. Just that it had something to do with San Francisco.

(True, we first SAW the NX in an orbital station, but there's no proof it was even assembled there, just that it was apparently finished there. Plus for those who don't "believe" in Enterprise... they can't use arguments based on it, anyway.) ;)

Fanon, sure, but... fanon ain't real. (People forget that a lot, and it's led to a lot of unfortunately unnecessary complaining.)

I like the trailer for the new film but one can never judge a movie by the trailer. I've seen many great trailers only to be disappointed in the actual film. I'd rather remain skeptical & be pleasantly surprised than be excited & get disappointed.

Good points Fo2 - we have to ignore the fanon, it often gets palmed off as 'true' even though it is no such thing! Even if it does make more sense for it to have been built in space, and we do see orbital spacedock shipyards in the canon! :D

In the words of Master Yoda, we must "Unlearn" what we know about Trek; this is a NEW version of our show. Where the ship is built will be the least of the changes in store for us. Who knows what STXII (if it is filmed) will have in store for us? Khan is a woman? Harry Mudd a charming urbane swindler? Tribbles as dangerous threats to your biosphere? Klingons as warriors, not schemeing soldiers (oh wait, they better do this one or lose ALL the fans) Trills, Betazoids, Caitians and Deltans all Fed members before TOS?

It's all about to change, for better or for worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky

Tribbles as dangerous threats to your biosphere?

---

They were!

Quote:

---

Klingons as warriors, not schemeing soldiers (oh wait, they better do this one or lose ALL the fans)

---

Klingons scheme in TNG and DS9 at least as often as they do in TOS. They were just more hypocritical about it.

Quote:

---

Trills, Betazoids, Caitians and Deltans all Fed members before TOS?

---

Actually, the Trill were known to the Federation by the TOS era, and very well may have been a member.

CANON: WEIRDER THAN YOU THINK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by First of Two

(True, we first SAW the NX in an orbital station, but there's no proof it was even assembled there, just that it was apparently finished there. Plus for those who don't "believe" in Enterprise... they can't use arguments based on it, anyway.) ;)

---

Interesting statement. So, by that logic, they're going to assemble it groundside short of finishing and launch it so they can finish it in orbit?

Maybe that's what we should have done to the existing ISS, you know instead of sending one module at a time. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whether the canon doesn't prove where the Enterprise is being assembled, it would make more sense to have such a vessel constructed in space anyway. Unless it is like Voyager, with landing struts and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky

In the words of Master Yoda, we must "Unlearn" what we know about Trek; this is a NEW version of our show.

---

Does that mean we must learn the new warp theory?

It's like rewriting Einstein's theory of relativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REG

Does that mean we must learn the new warp theory?

It's like rewriting Einstein's theory of relativity.

---

Considering the old warp theory was "We have magic technobabble crystals that make us go fast," that shouldn't be too hard. Maybe they could work in the Alcubierre thing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REG

Interesting statement. So, by that logic, they're going to assemble it groundside short of finishing and launch it so they can finish it in orbit?

Maybe that's what we should have done to the existing ISS, you know instead of sending one module at a time. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

---

The word you're reaching for (because you evidently haven't considered it here) is "antigravity."

TOS has it. We don't. Otherwise, yeah, we probably would have assembled more of the ISS on the ground. We launch it in pieces because of weight/cost concerns, not because it's easier or better to do it that way. It's not.

If you have built maintenance docks in space, but not yet built full "drydocks" then it might be easier to build the ship as much as possible on the ground, then do the "shakedown" once you've launched it.

After all, today we primarily build ships on dry land, not in the ocean where they belong... and once ships are launched into the water for the first time, they're often not completely "finished."

(Incidentally, there's at least one Star Trek book that has a ship being mainly constructed on the ground. The one I remember best was built on DS9-Era Bajor. And that was an Ambassador-Class.)

I have to agree with TK on the warp theory. They just took the idea of a ship running on _____ (coal, fuel etc), and replaced it with dilithium. They ran out at just the right time to add drama, and sometimes they found fuel in unexpected places (like a necklace).

I still have trouble accepting Trills before NG: In "The Host" no one had any idea about the symbiotic relationship going on with Trills. Infact, the Hosts don't even seem to be the same species as Jadzia at all, and neither does the symbiote look remotely like Dax!

But, this isn't about me. :p

I know there is controversy over this built on the ground/built in orbit. I just wonder why they would build it on the ground; seems like alot of trouble getting it into orbit in the first place. once again, imho.

But First of Two has a good point: we build perfectly sea worthy ships right here on dry land, then run them out to sea. It's hard to build a ship while it's floating in the ocean. Maybe it's easier to build a ship on Earth, then take it into orbit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by First of Two

The word you're reaching for (because you evidently haven't considered it here) is "antigravity."

---

Oh, like SDF-1 in Robotech/Macross? Did y'all remember what happened to that ship's anti-grav? :p:p:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by First of Two

(Incidentally, there's at least one Star Trek book that has a ship being mainly constructed on the ground. The one I remember best was built on DS9-Era Bajor. And that was an Ambassador-Class.)

---

Yeah, I stopped reading Trek novels back in the early 90's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky

But First of Two has a good point: we build perfectly sea worthy ships right here on dry land, then run them out to sea. It's hard to build a ship while it's floating in the ocean. Maybe it's easier to build a ship on Earth, then take it into orbit.

---

On dry land near water. Not like you're going to fully construct carrier Carl Vinson in Death Valley.

So, does that means Enterprise will have similar landing struts as Voyager? I mean if anti-grav tech is that good in the 22nd Century, then why not have Enterprise planetary landing capability?

The only other plausible rationale I may accept is that they're building BOTH the Enteprise and her drydock facility and will launch both of them into orbit.

Yeah but that analogy is a little flawed Reg.. You likewise wouldn't build the Enterprise in the Himalayas, as getting resources there would be nigh on impossible, for little net gain! :D

it's quite possible that it's being built in a special cradle, that will facilitate her launch and or go up with her, but it doesn't need too: just because it can launch from / e lifted/carried from Earth, doesn't mean it can 'land' with ease.. The shape of the Enterprise alone would preclude her ability to land!

Voyager's footies don't support its mass. They couldn't. They'd be crushed. They add a minor amount of stability and ground contact to a craft to give it the desired landing capability, supplementing the antigravs.

They also provide for a convenient surface access point. IIRC, the feet had steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

Yeah but that analogy is a little flawed Reg.. You likewise wouldn't build the Enterprise in the Himalayas, as getting resources there would be nigh on impossible, for little net gain! :D

---

Actually, you could just transport stuff down.

Blow by Blow analysis of Trailer

Looks like we were wrong about Kirk & Uhura.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/19/trek...iler-analysis/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BouncyCaitian

Blow by Blow analysis of Trailer

Looks like we were wrong about Kirk & Uhura.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/19/trek...iler-analysis/

---

Very interesting. Thanks, Bouncy.

Yes, it was enligtening. Some scenes now make more sense.

Others now make less sense....

 

And now we know where all the "Kirk loves green chicks" jokes come from.

I noticed the Cannon alerts on some of the scenes. While those are interesting points, I don't think that they apply anymore. Still, they are neat little nit-picks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky

I noticed the Cannon alerts on some of the scenes. While those are interesting points, I don't think that they apply anymore.

---

Dude, they have Nimoy playing Old Spock.

So, and Syler is playing YOUNG Spock. It doesn't mean that they are the same Spock that you've seen in TOS and the movies: It's just an older version of Spock.
Having Nimoy play him is really just a hook for the fans. imho

At least, that's how I'm taking it until I actually see the movie.