Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Even More STAR TREK Movie Images Show Up Online, Along With A Sizable Hunk O' Details!!

Merrick here...
Earlier this week we got our first good look at J.J. Abrams' STAR TREK movie via images that were to accompany a cover article in Entertainment Weekly. That article, by Jeff Jensen, is now online, including a few images we haven't seen yet. HERE is a nice shot of Karl Urbones, HERE is a hero shot of PineKirk, and a different angle of Harold Sulu is HERE. The article also reveals many details of the film's storyline and production, a few of which are shared below.

** No longer are their signature Trek weapons boxy plastic toys, but sleek silver gizmos with spring-triggered barrels that revolve and glow in the transition from ''stun'' to ''kill.'' ** ''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.'' ** Star Trek's time-travel plot is set in motion when a Federation starship, the USS Kelvin, is attacked by a vicious Romulan (Eric Bana) desperately seeking one of the film's heroes. From there, the film then brings Kirk and Spock center stage and tracks the origins of their friendship and how they became officers aboard the Enterprise. ** The storytelling is newbie-friendly, but it slyly assimilates a wide range of Trek arcana, from doomed Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to Sulu's swordsmanship to classic lines like, ''I have been, and always shall be, your friend.'' ** The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.'' ** ...One other essential element in Team Abrams' conception of the new Trek: getting the old Spock. Abrams felt Nimoy's Obi-Wan-ish presence was so crucial, he told the studio he wouldn't move forward without him. ** Kirk spends much of Star Trek dressed in respectable black — space-cadet colors in Abrams' Trekverse ** Moviegoers will get a sneak peek when the first full trailer is released with the new James Bond flick on Nov. 14

There's much more to be gleaned from the article, and you can find it all...


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:46 a.m. CST


    by KillDozer

    there's nothing in the article that says Orci or Kurtzman were replaced, so I'll be skipping this movie. No way I'm going to pay to see anything from the writers of Transformers.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:48 a.m. CST

    I seriously like what he says about optimism.

    by DerLanghaarige

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Actually excited for this

    by RenoNevada2000

    After years of not giving a tinker's damn about TREK, I am actually looking forward to this. Although, Simon Pegg with dark hair looks like crap.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:51 a.m. CST

    I have beenn, and allways shall be

    by TheFunkyEnigma

    your bitch

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Star Trek 90210...

    by Ghostball

    Because naturally if you'd commissioned the most complicated piece of hardware ever devised by man, the first thing you'd do is sign up the Trek equivalent of Watchmen Babies to fly it.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:53 a.m. CST


    by TheJake

    Whatev. Talk to me about this again in April of 2009.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:54 a.m. CST

    Optimism will be in style after Obama wins...

    by Rindain

    ...perfect timing for Star Trek to make its resurgence!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST

    The new bridge still sucks

    by Pizza The Hut


  • Oct. 17, 2008, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Looks like Urban will nail Bones

    by O_Goncho


  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9 a.m. CST

    Some people really didn't understand TDK

    by TheLastCleric

    I keep reading words like nihilism being thrown around when describing TDK when in fact the film is unflinchingly optimistic about the human race, as illustrated by the entire ferryboat scene as well as Batman’s decision to sacrifice his own reputation to preserve hope in Gotham. The entire crux of the last few shots in TDK was about having our faith rewarded, which is hardly a bleak message.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST

    I like how they're already apologising for it

    by photoboy

    If Kurtzman and Orci are writing it then cries of heresy are likely to be the least of the criticisms. I can't wait to hear Kirk call Spock "Spork", because we all know the character of Kirk would resort to name calling for a cheap laugh.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Iron Man, Hulk, Spider-Man etc are not pessimistic

    by Rupee88

    Batman having a somewhat cynical tone doesn't mean is one movie and the exception not the rule. So Abrams distorts the truth to make himself seem like a hero who is bringing optimism back...weak.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Every new picture released looks worse & worse

    by Dick Bahls

    This is going to suck. If you really want to see it wait for it's premiere in the back of the discount dvd rack not soon after it's huge failure at the box office.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:20 a.m. CST

    "Before Kirk was born"?

    by GregoryHarbin

    The EW article says the Kelvin was attacked "before Kirk was born." Kirk was born in 2233, the UFP charter was only 70 years old at that point. The Kelvin doesn't look like it's nearly old enough to be an early 23rd century vessel. Should this be chalked up to bad copy-editing?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:25 a.m. CST

    There are 1000 ways to update the TOS bridge

    by Pizza The Hut

    ...into something really cool and modern, yet retro and TOS-ish, with many a nod to TOS. This new bridge is too much of a departure, and might as well be the look of another failed "Enterprise" series. If they wanted the uniforms and crew to be very close in style to TOS, then why not the friggen ship interior to at least some degree?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Spock! It's solid beef, baby!

    by Squashua

    Dis boy LOVE dat leftover roast beef!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Why is the MILF guy soing Sulu?

    by ricarleite

    I mean, isn't he too typecast to be on this and be taken seriously?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Shit, I wanna see Young Harry Mudd...

    by Kid Z

    ...and his bitchy-ass wife. "Harcourt Fenton Mudd! You've been drinking again!" "Shit... I am so outta here...think I'll go into space or somethin'."

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:33 a.m. CST

    I'm no Trekoid or whatever...


    So hopefully this will just be an enjoyable sci-fi fantasy film for me and not a moanfest about how wrong the uniforms are or how crap the casts hair is!<P>I loved the original old TV shows with Shats and Nimoy but the moaning is Transformersish and then some!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:36 a.m. CST


    by hoisin

    I'm talking about Star Trek on an Internet Forum. I'm NEVER going to get laid now.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:37 a.m. CST


    by Pizza The Hut

    I'm so sorry... It is the curse of Star Trek

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:39 a.m. CST

    The Bridge...

    by I Own You

    ...or what we can see of it... actually reminds me of the very early 70's concept drawings for the TMP bridge. And while the guys look young, I'm not going to get my panties in a knot over it, the Original actors weren't much older than them when the series started (that said, Chekov is too old looking, why is he even there?). [/trekkierant]

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Something which has been sorely missed...

    by CaptainWalker

    A world view where "We get it right." Bring on some optimism. Bring on November 14th

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:42 a.m. CST


    by enderandrew

    Perhaps Abrams missed the point with TDK. In an extremely dark world, Batman made sacrifices to preserve optimism. And perhaps he missed the ferry scene.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:57 a.m. CST

    The iBridge by Apple

    by EriamJH

    TOS forever, baby!!!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:03 a.m. CST

    I'm actually a little psyched

    by kafka07

    and I'm starting to think this was the best thing for them to do with Trek next, using the original characters. They've pretty much exhausted the Next Generation. And the Deep Space Nine and Enterprise shows sucked.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:05 a.m. CST


    by Uridium

    They just look too young to me. Kirk looks 14 on the bridge picture. Maybe its StarFleet Academy version of SpaceCamp.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Talk of

    by quantize

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:07 a.m. CST


    by quantize

    all fine so long as it's not served via a big dose of 90210 cyborgs... he's way off mark using TDK as an example though...

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:09 a.m. CST

    Daddy like

    by richievanderlow

    I love the new Bridge. I didn't want to see something that is trying to be too faithful. Looks like JJ is taking someplace we haven't been with Trek before, and I like that approach a lot. I'm less concerned about their age but if they can make me believe that they are these characters. They'll age as sequels come anyway.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:14 a.m. CST

    About Christopher Pike


    I wonder if we'll see his fate in JJ's STAR TREK???? Because the episode where he is captured by those aliens with the big heads, and when he falls in love is, IMO, the greatest STAR TREK episode ever.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:15 a.m. CST

    I'm really pessimistic

    by sean bean

    that they will mess up the optimism

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:23 a.m. CST

    What's there to be pessimistic about?

    by Pdorwick

    Christ, what a bunch of predictable whiners. (Sadly, what's also predictable are people like me who complain about the whiners.)<br><br>How can you possibly even begin to judge anything when you haven't seen any footage or trailers? I wish everyone would just fuckin' relax!!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Hang on,

    by sean bean

    the UK gets Quantum of Solace on October 31 - does this mean we miss out on the Trek trailer?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Since when did Deep Space Nine suck?

    by Johnny Smith

    For my money, it was the best of the bunch.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:33 a.m. CST

    The plot...

    by Heckles

    So, this rogue Romulan crew goes back in time to kill Kirk. They go back too far and kill George Kirk on the USS Kelvin. Then they focus on the right target, James T. Future Spock feels a disturbance in the timeline, goes back and tells his erstwhile self of the nefarious plot against his soon-to-be BFF. The time travel twist means JJ can piss all over the accepted timeline. Not that it's a bad thing.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:36 a.m. CST

    Each pic = more enthusiasm!

    by thot

    The EW pics were strange. They looked photoshopped and surreal. The screenshots look much better and give us a better idea of how things really will appear. I'm glad Spock's eyebrows and hair don't look, in the movie, as they do on that horrid EW cover! The rest of the cast look good. Urban is remarkable as a young McCoy. It'll be interesting to see how Pine does Kirk! Looking good so far.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:36 a.m. CST

    Stills look great, cut the shit fanboys

    by Spacesheik

    Nothing to bitch about here.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST

    So is this fucking up canon or what?

    by Gungan Slayer

    I'm tired of all these fucking reboots and shit. Star Trek has deep and rich canon, why the fuck do these asswipes have to go in and screw everything up and make up their own shit? Want to stick with the original crew? Fine, I don't give a shit, but at least play by the rules that have already been established in the universe. And for fuck's sake, call it something other than just "Star Trek"

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Can't wait for this.

    by dr sauch

    This will be fantastic, JJ has my full trust.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Something doesn't sit right with me.......

    by ChiefRoberts

    I mean I hope its good, I really do! I'm no hardcore trekkie or anything but something about this film doesn't look right to me.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Smart filmmaking?

    by EverythingEverywhereStinks

    What they should have done is simply change all the names and terminology, and not bother making the ships even look remotely familiar. Then they could release it as the first entry in a brand new science fantasy franchise. That strategy would probably work a hundred times better than telling people that the stuff they've been fans of for the last forty years is now meaningless.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:47 a.m. CST

    I'm optimistic

    by JethroBodine

    I thought Battlestar Galactica was going to suck really bad, so much so that I skipped out on watching it all together for the first 2 seasons. I was urged to watch it's reboot and was plesantly suprised. I'm hopeful that this is just as much of a suprise.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:48 a.m. CST

    WINNER: EverythingEverywhereStinks

    by Gungan Slayer

    FUCKING CORRECT My friend. This is just coming across as a hip and cool bastardization of Star Trek and it fucking pisses me off. Just rename everything and come up with your own new series. People flock to whatever JJ puts his hame on. I dare say this is giving me a worse vibe than "Enterprise." The bridge here looks like a fucking Apple store, and I'm fucking TIRED of time travel stories. and how convenient for them to use time travel, so they can wipe out and erase all of the previous established Star Trek time line. Screw you JJ Abrams. Keep your shit on TV.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Where I CHILLAX!

    by DatoMan413

    Know what? They need to hire Charley Murphy and the guys who did those promos and have them do a series! LMAO!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:52 a.m. CST

    I'm looking forwrad to it.

    by rev_skarekroe

    This is clearly the Star Trek equivalent of Casino Royale - something for those of us who stopped caring about the franchise years ago. That the continuity-porn Trekkies can't stop bitching seems like a good thing to me.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Could this Star Trek movie have parallels to Obama?

    by IAmJack'sUserID

    All class and youth and no actual substance? Shows promise but fails to deliver on said promise? <p></p> Raising flame shields!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:13 a.m. CST


    by Pizza The Hut

    The iBridge... lol... exactly. Now where will the Apple logo or product placement be? :-)

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Trek movies box office=not good,

    by akiraclass

    So of course they're going to shake things up. Why would anyone put $150 million or more into a picture that has exactly the same characters/vibe/etc. of a proven LOSER at the box office? Comments like 'Kirk was born in 2233, the UFP charter was only 70 years old at that point. The Kelvin doesn't look like it's nearly old enough to be an early 23rd century vessel' Are EXACTLY the things that I (and 99.9% of the moviegoing public) DON'T CARE ABOUT. At all.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:19 a.m. CST


    by Bruce Leroy

    This is looking great. I can't believe it but I'm actually very excited about this movie now. With every image that gets released the film looks better and does the cast. Karl Urban as Bones in particular. i

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:28 a.m. CST


    by Dick Bahls

    That's exactly what this is. Abercrombie ad rejects pouting & posing for the cameras & JJ slaps the name Star Trek on it. Basterdazation at its worst.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Chris Pine

    by djtelesca

    I recently saw Chris Pine in the indy movie "Bottleschock". He was really good in it - I think he'll be an excellent Kirk.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Is this even going to break even at the box office?

    by I AM ROCKO

    I mean Trek films Box Office wise are only average and the Nemesis bombed even with all those Trekkies out there. The whole reboot/old crew/JJ Abrams thing will add what maybe $15 mill to the opening weekend? Oh yes- the more images I see, the more information I hear the disinterested I become. Positive reviews and a kick arse trailer may bring me to the cinema, but deffo not on opening weekend.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Why Didn't J.J. Abrams Get A Set Of Balls?


    It would have been more courageous to have slightly modified the 60's Enterprise bridge set rather than totally make it over like we see here. How the fuck is this supposed to fit in with the continuity now? The bridge looks more advanced than the one seen in Star Trek the motion can that be? There are loads of concept artists I know of that could have updated the old 60's sets without losing their identity. Mostly everything could have been kept, but tweaks and modifications to the visual displays and some further detailing in the paneling would have pulled it off. This is lazy design. One other thing...the reason why Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto look more like their characters is because more attention was given to their hair and make up. Uhura would look more Uhura'ish if she had the 60's hairstyle so would Checkov and Scotty. They've made no attempt to try and make the rest of the cast look retro. Retro isn't bad if the story can engage the audience and make them invest in that universe. As far as I'm concerned the makers of this film got cold feet when faced with these decisions and played it safe. Modernize everything so most people will buy what they see on screen and fuck the fans who when were hoping for something a little more special. Mr.Abrams might be the golden boy to many, but he just another Hollywood hack who is clueless about the source material and has limited imagination on how to realise it.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:54 a.m. CST

    I get the feeling this....

    by medicinaluser

    will not blow people away and get a new source of fandom for the franchise like they are hoping. <BR><BR> Most trekkies wont see it as the Shat is not in it and if he were most non trekkies would not see it as he represents all that is awful with "trekdom". <BR><BR> Hope they just kill the franchise for a few years and then come back afresh with all new characters and storys a true reboot and not just a rehash of the old.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:55 a.m. CST


    by Shigeru

    "Kirk was born in 2233, the UFP charter was only 70 years old at that point. The Kelvin doesn't look like it's nearly old enough to be an early 23rd century vessel"<br><br>Go fuck yourself.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:55 a.m. CST

    The "this will suck!" crowd are

    by Powers Boothe

    fucking annoying. Just piss off already! The "we hate everything" mentality on this site is incredibly tiresome.<p>This and Watchmen are the two 2009 films I'm most excited about. Finally, a Star Trek film that doesn't look like it cost $30 million to make!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Stop nitpicking visuals

    by BizarroJerry

    If you want to complain about this film going against canon or whatever, don't focus on what it LOOKS like. It's going to look different than the old show. If the background of every character is changed and important events in Star Trek's fictional history are rewritten, maybe some complaining is in order. But, don't complain about the shape of a phaser or the ship being the "wrong" color. Those are superficial things. Just worry about the story! I mean, some people are complaining so much about Kirk wearing a black shirt in those pictures that the producers had to explain it. He can't change his shirt?? Yeesh.<p>I don't know if I like them telling us old fans will be upset by a certain scene. But again, it sounds like its cuz the timeline's being tampered with. I don't really like the idea of a time travel story, but at least it explains some things.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:19 p.m. CST

    The "this will suck!" crowd are right on.

    by Dick Bahls

    This a 150mil + box office bomb in the making.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:21 p.m. CST

    What I have problems with...

    by Gungan Slayer

    Look, here's one of the main problems I have: Star Trek is not just any franchise. We're talking about a franchise here that spans decades, has ten movies, five TV series, an animated series, and tons of video games, books and comics. You can't just go in there and mow all of that down with a new movie like this, and I don't give rat's ass even if your name is JJ Abrams. You don't just do that. It's wrong. Yes, obviously a series of this magnitude has the tendency to grow stale, but you can revive interest in it in many ways other than just rebooting it and taking everything else and throwing it out the window. They did the same with Planet of the Apes and The Pink Panther. It fucking pisses me off. You can still draw new audiences by playing in the preexisting rules of the universe. and all these people telling Trekkies to shut up: You guys need to shut the hell up. Look, I'm not even a Trekkie, hell, I don't even like Star Trek that much, but this new movie shit has really been pissing me off.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:22 p.m. CST

    I'm sure the timeline tampering...

    by rev_skarekroe just a way to reboot the whole thing without having to worry about continuity stuff. Since the timeline's been dicked around with, the new films will take place in a parallel universe to the old tv show.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Dorkdom still going strong, I see.

    by Zug

    Who frikkin' cares if it looks different from the old show? Are they supposed to use paper-machie rocks for the planets they land on too? Jesus fucking Christ. It looks close to the original--the ships look similar, the bridge is similar enough, the uniforms are similar enough. This movie may suck, but it won't be because they didn't emulate the old show in exacting detail like the Brady Bunch Movie or something. Fuck.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Don't get your nuts in a bunch Trekkies!

    by alienindisguise

    It's just a sci-fi flick. Get over it!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:23 p.m. CST


    by BizarroJerry

    I went into far too many details about the ages of the new actors vs the old actors in another talkback. But, the bottom line was this. On average the actors are a little younger. But Pine is only about 4 years younger than Shatner was back in 1965. Most of the others are within no more than a few years of the originals. And did someone here say Chekov looks too old in these pictures? The actor is actually about 19 years old. The original show's Chekov was supposed to be the youngest of them, but Koenig was actually 30.<p>Besides, people looked older back then. And I'm serious. Take a look at a 40 year old in 1960 and a 40 year old now. One'll look much older.<p>Just give it a chance and lighten up, people. I'd like to at least HOPE it's good. Ease up on the cynicism.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Attention To Details...

    by Bubba Foom

    I know how JJ and crew keep saying they're so stoked to do Trek right; they say how the attention to detail in this movie with characters and canon is the first best thing they can do for fans. Then why are young Kirk's eyes blue? Granted, that's piddling, but still... Kirk's (nee Shatner) eyes are brown.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:27 p.m. CST

    what's this shit?

    by mrbong

    why is Kirk in all black? wasn't it yellow or orange or gold in the original?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST


    by Ky-El

    When did Dexter become Captain of the Enterprise. I don't like the way every pic has Pine looking devilishly evil. Kirk is confident and smarmy, not slyly evil.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Yep, I'm still talkin' here...

    by BizarroJerry

    First of all, I have yet to really see any confirmations that this film completely rips into established continuity. Maybe before the crew joined the Enterprise circa the TV show, they met before.<p>Any info from guide books, novels, or anything other than the actually episodes and films themselves are not "canon". Even The Star Trek Chronology, a book that many people take their dates from, calls some of the dating "conjecture". Some TV episodes later established some things firmly and forced the later edition to change them. We don't really know what this story is about!<p>And if we can have six people playing James Bonds, why on earth can't we have two Kirks? Personally, I'd like to give them a chance of allowing these characters to exist beyond that years of the TV show and movies so they don't simply die and become forgotten.

  • Because otherwise you'd be Christian fundamentalists. So get your panties in wads all you want about Kirk's eye color and how tall Sulu has to be and where the goddamn restrooms are on level 4 of the Enterprise. You're saving us all from fundamentalist theocracy.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Still waiting...

    by TheBloop

    For this site to review the new Anaconda Movie starring David Hasslecock. Come on guys, the banner ads make it look awesome!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Then why are young Kirk's eyes blue, Bubba Foom?

    by m00kiedood

    Because Pike's eyes are blue.<P> Are Uhura's cup sizes to scale? What about the space between Spock's eyebrows? Bones' shoulders seem a bit wide too.<p> For that matter, I'm pretty sure Pike isn't wearing a girdle in that shot.<p> And for Christ's sake, Simon Pegg's Scotty has 5 fingers on both hands! JJ oughta grow a pair and dissect one of those!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST

    whoops Pike should be Pine

    by m00kiedood


  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:45 p.m. CST

    The small details don't really bother me...

    by Gungan Slayer

    shit like the size of objects, location of chairs and crap like that doesn't bother me at all. Neither does Kirk's black shirt, I mean, wtf, it's just a shirt. The reason why the bridge design does bother me slightly is because it is really in no way reminiscent of the original show at all. That does bother me. What really bothers me about this project though, is that it appears to really just give an open middle finger to everything previously established by the franchise, in terms of story, timeline, etc. Obviously, my concerns might be premature, and I'll have to see the film to find out first, BUT, by the indications I'm getting, my fears are justified.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:47 p.m. CST

    This is the nail in the coffin

    by MOTHdevil

    At the end of the day, this is still "Star Trek." You can pack it full of short skirts, Bay explosions, and all manner of whirly gigs, bells, and whistles, but it doesn't change the fact that it's "a movie based on that show with Dr. Spock." This could be the Citizen Kane of sci-fi, but it's still has the albatross of "Star Trek" around its neck, and "Star Trek" will NEVER appeal to masses, no matter how much lipstick you put on it. I don't envy the job Paramounts marketing department is going to have in front of it. This movie is going to kill a lot of careers.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 12:57 p.m. CST

    To Zug


    Obviously some people do care like myself. Why do you take the lowest common denominator in regards to what people want to see retained from the 60's show? Obviously paper mache rocks are not high on the agenda for anyone. As you have pointed out the exterior of the Enterprise and the Starfleet costumes look similar to the original and I agree they have done a great job of updating them without losing the essence of what they were. The Enterprise bridge set does not do a good job of conveying the sixties design with a modern slant. It looks completely and utterly different and considering Mr."no balls" Abrams wanted to avoid the satirical Galaxy Quest look he's managed to do it anyway

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST

    The Reason it grates...

    by Krazeyivan

    Its understandable why the total disregard for canon has pissed people off. Hell imagine a reboot of a Live Star Wars - Episode IV Instead of lightsabres you had phase blades, but they did not just appear at the touch of a button they had to power up over a few seconds, they make a different noise etc - Even Vader is now clad in a sexy Pink number to appease the metro sexuals around now. If your a fan of any show that gets rebooted and who's knows too many geek facts about it - you would end up throwing a fit and probably burn the screen down. I will grade what I see when I see it, if its shit I'll not defend it, the only problems I can see so far (from what images I have seen) is the Steve Jobs worshipping Bridge, on the plus side 1 or 2 of the cast look ok from the stills. The last 2 previous Star Trek films suffered from very Lazy writing, failure to tap the history that was there (Why no Q!!) - Amazed those stories got by the fucking delivery guy!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:08 p.m. CST

    remember the cloverfield mystery hype?


    well, this is the opposite approach. they are going to show us everything. i can't tell if that means it will be great or suck like clover did. all i know is it kinda looks like the lost in space remake, which as we all know..suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Serious question

    by zappaman

    When you trekkies or trekkers or whatever it is you call yourselves are beating off...who do you think of Kirk or Spock? If you give a shit about this, you are either a child, gay, or 37 years old and living with your mommy.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Dear Trekkies: REAL LIFE has already interfered with Trek canon-

    by akiraclass

    Unless we had some Eugenics wars or launched Khan into space a few years back and I missed it on the news. Please, please, please get a grip and move on.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST



    You say those things like they're meant to be insults? If the people responding here with valid concerns are children then be proud that they can debate without insulting others like you. Gay? Last time I checked this page you were the first person to bring up the subject of guys beating off! Wanna come clean about your sexuality sweetheart? As for being 37 and living with your mother there's no shame in that if you have her living with you because she's become old and infirm. No shame in coming back home to your parents for a while after a messed up marriage or difficult divorce. Nothing wrong with being a handicapped 37 year old who needs parental care. You my friend are an arsehole. Thanks for adding nothing to this talkback.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST


    by cutest_of_borg

    Arguably Trek is the epitome of geek boy fandom. If you don't understand why a reimagining of TREK is a big deal you shouldn't be posting. Unless of course you are attempting to inject humor with your tired insult (which I suspect). If that is the case - go fuck yourself.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    zappaman, which reminds me...

    by Pizza The Hut

    There's an mp3 out there called "Kirk and Spock" that is funny as hell. Made several years ago with sound bytes from various TOS episodes, it makes it sound like they're having gay sex, and then Scotty walks in and... lol... it's too funny!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:41 p.m. CST


    by Sgt.Steiner

    "Case in point: The Enterprise still has a saucer front section and pronged rear engines, but now comes tricked out with credibility-enhancing details." Who knew that the Enterprise we know and love had credibility issues? Plus, Kirk started on the fucking Farragut, not the Enterprise! It's Roddenberry! It's history! It's not just a fucking brand name! And saying you're not making a movie "for the fans" is truly some insulting bullshit! I really had high hope because Abrams is indeed a talented guy, but I am beginning to have some setious doubts. Nimoy and Pegg are good calls, though. But, still, this whole "let's retrofit the Mona Lisa" approach is fucking disturbing.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:42 p.m. CST

    DSN, SNG, Enterpoop, Voyage all STINO

    by SingingHatchet

    Star Trek In Name Only. Maybe Abrams is STINO too.... All hail TOS!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Oh, and enough with the Obama crap

    by SingingHatchet

    Don't be fooled by the hype. If you want socialism/Marxism, then Obama is your guy. But I am not optimistic about socialism.... history has been a great teacher about what happens to societies that follow Marx...

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:44 p.m. CST


    by SingingHatchet

    But Abrams has gotta eat.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:54 p.m. CST


    by BadMrWonka

    just kidding, I don't care...

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Sgt.Steiner -- "Star Trek" is absolutely just a brand name

    by m00kiedood

    Always has been. An identifiable brand that they kept going and renewing because it could attract attention in a competitive market for viewer attention, and make money.<p> Just like any other brand in any other market. I'm sure that the discussion boards on the Volkswagen sites went all ballistic when they re-imagined and re-launched the Beetle, and that they were full of VW fans jerking themselve into a righteous fury.<p> We saw it with all the Bond fan boys freaking out over the color of Daniel Craig's hair. Happens all the time, whenever a brand is refreshed.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Sgt. Steiner...

    by akiraclass

    It's not history, and it IS a brand name. It's been fun entertainment, but dear lord in heaven, if they don't talk about how Kirk started on the Farragut then what-it's not Star Trek? How is it insulting if they're trying to bring on some NEW fans and the way they alienate you is by not mentioning what fictitious ship a fictitious character was on before his fictitious mission on a 40-year old television show? Are you listening to yourself?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST


    by IAmJack'sUserID


  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by soup74

    i was excited to see this new sci-fi movie "star trek" from the producer of "cloverfield." <br><br>now you're telling me it was based off of a T.V. Show? So you mean Lost, correct?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:24 p.m. CST

    I get it. Hell hath no fury...

    by Devil'sOwn

    Like a Trekster who can't roll with the new. I can understand the dismay. And... I'm sorry. Maybe some of you will get your wish. Maybe this will be a spectacualar failure and fall back into the grave to putrify once and for all. But you may want to prepare youselves, for the slim chance that this could be big.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    This movie looks like it was made by someone who is......

    by Dick Bahls

    either a child, gay, or 37 years old and living with their mommy.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:31 p.m. CST

    So far, Sulu looks like the weakest link.

    by Royston Lodge

    I like John Cho, but I really fear he's too old for Sulu. Not only is Sulu younger, but George Takei was really younger when he first played Sulu. The actor playing this prequel Sulu should be barely out of high school by all rights.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:38 p.m. CST

    (Sigh.) Does anybody know...

    by Devil'sOwn

    About a good movie news site? No, seriously. Does anybody know about a really good movie news site where the posts aren't by greasy little cretins indulging their compulsion to be smug?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST


    by Geekgasm

    They are never going to turn a profit on this. $150 million production budget, another $75 - $100 million in promotion, and the biggest grossing Star Trek movie to date made, what? $125 million worldwide? and Star Trek has never been a bigger meh in the public consciousness than over the last 5 years? I mean, why not just burn piles of cash? THe end result will be the same. This thing could well be the "Speed Racer" of 2009.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST

    I have loved trek since i was 14

    by electric_sheep

    but the world has moved on since the original vision. There have been too many revisions, too much time travel bullshit and prequel crap to do this. There are so many stories that could be told on the big screen for $150 million other than this bullshit with 14 yr old looking mother fuckers and pointless old Spock new Spock revisionism. We live in a dark and post-modern age, our present has moved beyond the future that trek set in the 60's in many regards. Time to move on, tell a new tale and abandon this bullshit.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:50 p.m. CST

    To m00kiedood


    I think it's a bad analogy using the re-imagined relaunched VW Beetle as an example of refreshing brands when comparing it to Trek. Yes Trek is a brand and so is the classical VW Beetle. Each has a history and each has it's hard core fans.Volkswagen traditionalists will have complained about the design changes to their beloved car, but those changes were implemented for real world reasons...manufacturing costs, fuel economy, better safety features etc. Designs move forward due to the different consumer demands placed on them. In Trek's case there are no consumer demands just expectations to fulfill. Yes the film makers have to target a mainstream audience in order to make money back and of course some compromises have to be made in order to do that, but it seems like one of their goals to revitalize the Trek brand was to update the tech so that it fell in line with current real world beliefs on where technology will go in the future. We all know that the sixties view of the future was off, but to radically change the bridge of the Enterprise so much was that really necessary? I think the bridge is an important back drop that should have been given more thought. It's an iconic piece of the Star Trek universe not just a set, it's their version of the Batcave. How many Dark Knight fans would you see cry out blasphemy if they painted the cave pink and put an neon lights in it? It would all be fine and dandy if the storyline was taking place beyond the TNG universe, but it isn't. This tech is supposed to slot nicely into the continuity of the original show as far as we know. Their job description should have been about retrofitting not complete modernization. Even if the designers didn't give a shit about what the fans thought they should have paid a little bit of respect to those who came before them you know like designers who first came up with this stuff and made them so memorable in the first place. What would Matt Jefferies think?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 2:54 p.m. CST

    I'd much prefer a third Space Odyssey flick...

    by Royston Lodge

    After all, a third Space Odyssey flick (based on 2061: Odyssey Three of course) wouldn't be hampered by Star Trek's cheesy 60s trappings. The only stumbling block would be who do you get to play the 100+year-old Dr. Floyd, and could you put enough makeup on Keir Dullea to make him look young again?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:01 p.m. CST

    What would Matt Jefferies think?

    by Geekgasm

    Obviously they don't care. Along with about half the people posting in this thread, who will have to run to Wikipedia to look him up before they come back and talk about how they're sure he would have loved the "updating" with these "fresh, wonderful, cutting edge designs" or whatever expressions vacant people use to try to sound informed.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Harold aint even GAY

    by LarryTate

    how could they do this????

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:13 p.m. CST


    by akiraclass

    Actually Matt Jeffries might have been honored that his initial Enterprise design has lasted all these years-I think that's part of my bigger point in my earlier posts: the Enterprise looks like the Enterprise, we've got red, gold and blue shirts and MINISKIRTS for crying out loud, and people are complaining about Farraguts and UFP charters and all kinds of nonsense. Abrams must be laughing his ass off because it seems what some people want is the 1960s show on the big screen-which would flop like no film has flopped before.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:22 p.m. CST

    akiraclass.....what people want is new ideas

    by electric_sheep

    new visions, and relevant allegory. Not scrappy re-interpretations of old old 60's modernist sciffy

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:34 p.m. CST



    ..looks far too young to be the captain-that pic of him on the bridge? He looks like a 16 year old having a sulk after mom hid the car keys. He portrays absol no gravitas. Also makes me think of the DS9 episode where a bunch of cadets (Red Squad) take over a defiant class ship-the guy in charge there was a lil bitch trying to fill daddies pants (I get that same vibe from the bridge picture). Regardless of what you think of Shatners acting ability, he was without doubt THE big guy on the bridge! In the standing group shot he doesn't even stand out, they should have went for someone about Urbans age to make a diffrence in the crew. Pine better have the acting chops like a-I really hope he doesn't have one of those whiny preppie voices......

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Karl Urban...

    by Forsakyn

    I'm seriously impressed how much he has captured Bone's attitude in just pictures alone. McCoy was always my favorite Star Trek character, so I'm glad to see Urban looking like he's got it down. Granted, only seeing the film itself will tell me, but Urban is still the only actor in those pictures that immediately reminds me of the original.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:38 p.m. CST



    Yeah who knows what Mr.Jefferies would have thought it would have been interesting to have had his take on all of this. I see no evidence of his bridge set work being carried through in this design. Yeah it's all very nice the red, yellow and blue costumes, but the point is the bridge, they didn't even attempt to try and "bridge" the gaps. Why does wishing for a bridge that looks like an updated version of the sixties set have to mean we want a new Star Trek film that looks outdated and exactly like the original series? Quite clearly we're not saying that, but those who prefer this design over previous ones choose to generalize and categorize those of us do not like it.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:38 p.m. CST

    OK, fuck it

    by mrbong

    fine, if it's that much of an issue to notice, forget i ever mentioned that Kirk wore some bright colour and not black. fuck it, Gibson put the Scots in kilts 300 years early in Braveheart, and yet the intellectuals who vote for Oscars gave it one or two. fuck it man, just fuck it, let Kirk wear whatever colour he fucking wants then. bascially, i am just an average fan. i have more or less enjoyed every ST i have seen, which is limited to the original, the next generation thingie and the films. the one where they fucked about with the Whales was tiresome at times, and the one where they fucked about visiting God and singing row row row your fucking boat was a bit fucking shitty to say the least. as i was one of the dumb mother fuckers stupid enough to pay fucking money and give up two fucking hours on that fourth Indy fucker, well, if it fucking occurs to me to be a good fucking idea to see the new Star Trek fucker when it's out (and when is it fucking out, by the by?), i will. you guys do whatever the fuck you like, really.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:50 p.m. CST


    by FrodoFraggins

    There's no way in hell I'm gonna pay to see a Trek movie. I understand them abandoning the entire look of the enterprise bridge and frankly don't give a shit. But it sounds like they are changing canon storywise, and I'm not sure what the hell for. Personally I don't understand why they feel the need to go back to this period of time. Especially with shatner and nimoy still alive.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Man. These Trekerrians are brutal.

    by Devil'sOwn

    And they always seemed so nice and forward thinking in those documentaries. But post some pictures of the reboot, and they be wildin'! Cursin' poor J.J. and cryin' like they just saw their moms as the star attraction in a donkey show! When I first heard Abrams was gonna do this project, My response was "Why?" Personally, they coulda left it in the crypt it was mouldering in and I woulda been smooth and groovy. But the pictures give me hope that a hot mess 'o Trek could be resurrected for a whole new generation. I am firmly in the camp that says "Hell yeah!" And before you say I don't get it, I'll have to disagree and say I do. Every cheesy cgi'd book adaptation, every Marvel misfire, every unnecessary horror remake, oh yeah, I get it. But to me, these updates aren't that blasphemous. A trailer will be helpful. I really have to believe in this case NEW BLOOD is needed. That's the way of the world, sunshine.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Well spoken, Devil's Own.

    by akiraclass

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Your Trek is Old

    by DOGSOUP

    This Trek is the new hotness. You have no say in the matter.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:18 p.m. CST

    so... the character Sulu is Korean now?

    by the power of GREYSKULL

    jus sayin - he ain't Japanese - that's fo DAMN sure!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Long live the New Hotness!

    by Devil'sOwn

    Embrace the new, or cling to your old, limp yesterday and be forsaken.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:28 p.m. CST

    PITCHPERFECT -- consumer demand shapes everything

    by m00kiedood

    This all about changing to meet consumer demand, and real world reasons too.<P> The problem you are having is that you are not the consumer they are targeting this towards. And the fact is that are exponentially fewer of you than there are of the consumers this film is targeting.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:35 p.m. CST

    If they're changing much, they should have

    by kabong

    gone with all new characters, setting, etc.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:39 p.m. CST


    by BizarroJerry

    will someone show me or give me a link to the actual, official, confirmed details of what the real plot is. Maybe parts of the script? An interview? A snippet of dialogue? You don't know how it's going to affect continuity when you don't know anything about the story beyond pictures. Is there an old episode that says, "Nice to meet you Spock. I'm Jim Kirk. We've never met before being posted to the Enterprise together. Also, I have never set foot on the Enterprise prior to becoming its Captain." Stop bitching about "canon" when you don't know a damn thing about the plot!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:54 p.m. CST

    If it's a good film then job done Fuck anal canon

    by G100

    It's a big budget sci-fi action movie that might be good or might not. It's problem is it has to deal with the "weight" of overzelous trekkies.<p> <p>And those trekkies might do well to remember that of those Trek Movies we've already had some of them were only average to poor even if they did stick to "canon".<p> <p>It doesn't look too terrible so far (and I'm sure the effects at least will be pretty damn good) but until we hear from someone who's seen some of the Movie with the acting and atmosphere more evident than a few teaser pics it's still far too early too tell TBH.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 4:55 p.m. CST

    oh yeah - ENOUGH about the bridge already!

    by the power of GREYSKULL

    if you think updating the bridge design on a reboot is a bad idea, I got two words for ya: <p> Battlestar Galactica <p> Yes it's unfortunate that Apple's designers (who show a tendency to rip off 60's and 70's designs btw) have become so prevalent in the mainstream, but I GUARANTEE you 99% of the people in the audience watching this movie will own ipods, so just DEAL WITH IT. <p> Mark my words, this movie will do better than all the previous "crossover" Trek films - even the one with the whales. The Obama people are spot on - people WANT to go see an optimistic flick about the future and for that reason alone, this will do well. <p> If they piss off the fanbois, too friggin bad - there weren't enough of them to float the previous two (admittedly shit) Trek films and even tho it's a bit too trendy right now, a reboot is EXACTLY what this franchise needs. <p> Too bad about some of the casting, tho - I think a lot of people are going to have a hard time assimilating the actors they know with the characters they know - and the majority of "non-Tekkie" mainstream are familiar with the Kirk/Spock trek and NOTHING ELSE. <p> The guy that said Smallville Trek is spot on - but that's a pretty spectacularly successful show isn't it, despite being utter crap?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST

    There's no shame in our game.

    by Devil'sOwn

    We're all geeks here. But it takes a talkback like this to remind me there are degrees. Some of us are like little geek monks trying to live in harmony with the larger geek universe. Then there are the radical fundamentalist geeks who declare a jihad on anyone and anything that doesn't line up with their particular sensibilities. Which is kind of a pisser. Aren't we all just seeking entertainment? The cold hard reality is very few of these movies are ever going to be life-changing, transcendent experiences. If movie Optimus Prime isn't the same kind of semi as the 80s toy was, can't ya just let it slide? Just a thought. Well, I'm goin' to isn' There's a controversy a-brewin' about Jeff Bridges being cast as Papa Smurf In the upcoming feature film!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 5:44 p.m. CST



    If I'm not the consumer they are targeting this for then who are the consumers? Why does this film have the name Star Trek? Most kids couldn't give a flying fuck about the continuing adventures of Star Trek so surely they are counting on loyal fans and people who have enjoyed the franchise to support this? So what you're saying is they are trying to make a hip young film for teens who will go out to see a any kind of blockbuster movie at the multiplex right? Then why bother with the partial attempts at visual continuity? Why not have them wear black leather and change their genders or colour? Obviously they are trying to attract some of it's potential audience who are familiar with the old stuff and they've done a half hearted attempt at it design wise.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 5:50 p.m. CST



    Nobody's declared death to J.J. Abrams and his followers on here so don't you think Jihad was a bit strong?

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 6 p.m. CST

    I apologize to Keith Urban...

    by Bill Clay

    He definitely has pulled off Bones. He looks like he's channeling Deforest Kelly in those photos. Now if they would just get Kirk out of that black suit and into a proper Star Fleet uniform!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Isnt Keith Urban a Country Singer?

    by DOGSOUP

    Karl Urban.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 6:24 p.m. CST

    I am all for a reboot

    by Geekgasm

    if this was actually a reboot. But they had to drag Nimoy into it, had to try to have it all ways - "oh, its a prequel, but not quite, and its definitely not a reboot, except for all the things we don't like that we're changing, so it sort of it, but we're not willing to say it, except when we are". If you like the concept but you're embarrassed about the details, but do a ground-up reboot of the whole damn thing and stop picking and choosing the stuff you're not embarrassed by. Have the balls to wipe the slate clean and you will eliminated 90% of the canon/continuity/its-not-like-it-used-to-be shit. Abrams, et al, have brought this on themselves and that's more, I REITERATE - THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THIS MAKES ITS BANK BACK. With the money they've spent and the audience that's out there for this, there is no way its going to break even, unless President Obama gives it huge government subsidizing because its "optimistic". What it won't be is "successful".

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Perhaps, PITCHPERFECT.

    by Devil'sOwn

    My anology was a bit broad. All I can say is that I am sometimes taken aback by the vehemence with which some of these fans respond. I seriously underestimated the wrath of Trekkies. The intensity of contempt is at times almost palpable. And that in turn makes others, like myself, want to respond with like nastiness. A failure on my part to not "rise above it", or at least, to elaborate with care.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 7:02 p.m. CST


    by Geekgasm

    Why would anybody hotly defend a film that isn't out yet and that nobody has even seen? The contemptuous Trekkies at least have their 42 year love affair with a known commodity to fear the pissing all over of. People who are so sure this film is going to embody all their hopes and dreams for the Future of All Things Trek are basing it on a dozen pictures that have been in the public domain for about 24 hours. That kind of blind faith is generally only found in the Republican Party.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 7:15 p.m. CST


    by darthwaz1

    How can they have Kirk and crew fighting Romulans? that kills the continuity. Remember "Balance of Terror"? No one had ever seen a romulan face-to-face, so when they finally got a look through the viewscreen, and saw that they looked just like Vulcans, the crew became racist against Spock, thinking he was one of them. If they fight the Eric Bana Romulan in this it will totally fuck the established canon.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Geekgasm (love the name).

    by Devil'sOwn

    I don't know about hotly defending, but I do see quite a bit of hotly persecuting. I don't recall any blind faith, just some optimism. Your recall is colored by your bias. And enough with the political bullshit, dude. That's lame.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 7:22 p.m. CST

    not to mention...

    by darthwaz1

    how many times can you use time travel in trek without killing it as a plot point. Add up all the times it's been done throughout all the tv series' and movies...time travel has been done to death in trek by this point.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Man Don't You really Get Tired.......

    by Real Deal

    Of guys that say " This will really suck! " when they know next to nothing about the film. By the way I like what I've seen so far of the new bridge. But I'm willing to say I don't know yet because we've only seen a little corner of it. About cannon well we knew they had to do something different because of all the time that has pasted, Shatner & Nimoy ( much as I love those two ) are too old to carry this anymore. The old bridge or anything remotely like it would have looked dumb now. Just look at what they did with the remaster. They could fix the out side FX but couldn't do much about those pieces of wrinkled paper, stuck in frames, in front of a light bulb. I welcome a bit of a reboot. They have to to make it relevant to today. I think Abrams ( and this is just a feeling ) has the right take on this from what I've read and I think it'll do well. Very well!

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Re: darthwaz1

    by Real Deal

    They did say someone was screwing with the timeline. And I'm sorry but I don't think that the fact that this story has time travel in it is enough to disqualify the film! Plus it's the only way you'll get Nimoy in it one more time. I'm defending the film right now because none of us know for sure and saying " This will suck " is just horse shit! By the way I like " Fringe " a lot so I think there's a good chance this team of people will do a good job. But you know we just won't know for sure until it hits the theaters.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Can't wait.

    by Christopher3

    Such a huge fan.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Spock and Kirk are Lovers....

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    ..and Picard is there love child... I have a bad feeling about this... Why do they feel the need to redefine TOS? There was nothing wrong with that brand of Trek! JJ should have fucked with the NG or Enterprise, not Kirk and Co...

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:16 p.m. CST


    by Mockingbuddha

    The Neo-cons just turned Amerika into a socialist state a couple of weeks ago you idiot. If Obama is the first US pres of a socialist state, It's baby-bushies fault! Hilarious!!! I love Star Trek and hope the movie is good, but whatever happens happens baby.

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 10:43 p.m. CST


    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

  • Oct. 17, 2008, 11:53 p.m. CST

    It just had to be fucking time travel

    by Gungan Slayer

    How many times have we dealt with this shit?

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 12:31 a.m. CST

    gregory harbin

    by slkboxrman

    i guess u cant read or ur blind and felt up the braille version where in the EW article does it say the kelvin is attacked before kirk was born.... get glasses alice......and for all u retards that apparently didnt read it either, this is a there is no CANON to follow.....digest this and move nothing has to happen the way it did before , not one thing..

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 1:18 a.m. CST

    YES! If it's nothing like TDK it will be great.

    by Lashlarue


  • Oct. 18, 2008, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Re: slkboxrman

    by xavier masterson

    It says it right on the first page of the EW article. The caption under the picture of the USS Kelvin reads: "THE USS KELVIN Before Kirk is even born, a Romulan attack on a starship launches the plot for the new movie". Perhaps it is you who should look into getting a pair of glasses. Not that I actually give a shit when Kirk was born or if the ship looks old enough or whatthefuckever.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 3:30 a.m. CST


    by pigshit

    Jeff Bridges would make a gook Papa Smurf

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 3:43 a.m. CST

    I'm down with the Devil'sown bra...

    by menstrual_blitz

    ...not everyone on this sit has to be a cynic. And look at what movie where talking about here. Cynicism and star trek are oxymorons.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 5:34 a.m. CST

    Yeah, slkboxrman....

    by GregoryHarbin

    Way to call me out. Maybe read the article before attacking me? It's not like I made my post up. Imagine how much less stupid you'd look if you just hadn't responded at all....<p> Now, I'd love to see someone with an actual theory to explain the 'before Kirk was born' oddity.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 6:05 a.m. CST

    Lain is showering ...

    by Lain Of The Net

    ...when the curtain is pulled back and she realizes that the past few years has been a dream. So the phasers are different ...makes mine more valuable in time. November 14th huh. Well my bride to be likes Bond so we will be going. Not kidding anyone ...I have reservations about the film but are we going??? Oh yeah.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST

    At 36, am I just way more elderly than I've realized, or...

    by Boromir

    does this cast look like they're all about 19, and starring in another of those sleek shows for geeks and teen sophisticates on The CW?

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 9:04 a.m. CST


    by mrbong

    the new version IS SHIT which is why it is getting canned. the only people who sort of liked it were critics who presumably got nice payola to praise it. the whole remake was fucking stupid, especially making Starbuck a woman. fuck the remake of BG, fuck it right off our screens and out of our memories.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 9:06 a.m. CST


    by Earthquake WestCoast

    1. This film does not mess up continuity! The Time traveling Romulans ARE THE ONES WHO MESS UP THE CONTINUITY. Once they do, then everything that came before (TOS, TNG, MOVIES) are changed forever. GET USED TO IT! 2. Main stream audiences will probably enjoy this Star Trek film for the first time in a long dam time. Not since Star Trek IV has a mainstream audience actually went to see a star trek film. 3. If this film gets teenage girls to go see it, then consider it a blockbuster. You need the teenage girl crowd to make it a blockbuster. If teenage girls didn't go see TDK, then that film WOULD NOT of made the money it did.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 10 a.m. CST

    Re : mrbong

    by Real Deal

    Gosh! How could you be so wrong about everything! I think the new version of BFG will be remembered as long if not longer than the original. A very good show.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Bleh Trek

    by Caerdwyn

    My beef is that this is yet another remake/reboot, rather than being something fresh in the Trek universe. It's a "fresh take" on Trek, but not anything new... it's Kirk, Spock, Bones, etc. It also looks like someone went nuts with the glass and fiber-optics on the Apple Store bridge.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Re : Caerdwyn

    by Real Deal

    Sigh! You've seen a few pictures and discriptions and you know all about it? Uh yeah. And you know what? I like the look of the bridge so far. We've actually seen very little of it!

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Mr Bong

    by pumaman

    Has obviously never seen Battlestar Galactia otherwise he'd realise that he's talking out of his flabby arse. The show is everything a Sci Fi tv show should be and more. It will go down in history as one of the all time best.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 10:30 a.m. CST


    by waldo

    Seem to be, at least of late, deeply conservative. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't treks creator accused of being very, VERY liberal? Using the shows story lines to bring up subject matter {civil rights, vietnam} that at the time was considered too polarizing. I could be mistaken about this although I sure hope I'm not. Obama/Biden o8!!

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 10:33 a.m. CST

    on the other hand Geekgasm...

    by crankyoldguy

    "Why would anybody hotly defend a film that isn't out yet and that nobody has even seen?" Well....why would anyone bash and bash-again a film that isn't our yet and nobody has ever seen? I'm willing to give the new version a shot. I showed my little boy the pics and he didn't say it was people in dress-up; he said, "Young Spock." A little kid could figure that out, just like he thought "older Indy is cool." Yes, this new Trek cast does look young, because we saw the original cast age over six of their films as well as other TV for, especially, Shatner. Also, and I've noticed this. '60s TV males and females, even when young, looked more like men and women than boys and girls (check out the Wild Wild West and other shows of the era for this), rather than today's WB to CW to an ever-worse-than-the-original 90210 crap. On the other hand the Supernatural brothers may have boyish smirks and such but still come off as men, unlike the boys in shows like the crapfest called Gossip Girl (if I could blow it up like the old SCTV did to videos in the 80s, I would). So unlike the fundamentalist Trek mentality (good analogy, that one). And TNG, by it's second-season was on its way and had some excellent episodes. DS9 with its rich supporting cast was even better from about Season 3 through 6. Voyager, you got me - watchable usually, but only a few stand-out eps and Enterprise, just the Coto final season, really.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 10:58 a.m. CST



    Where does it say that a difference in taste equals deep conservatism? I'm a very liberal person, but that doesn't mean I have to like everything you do. There is one aspect of the design I didn't like that doesn't make me a hard core traditionalist who hates change. Again why do people on these talk backs always speak for other people and talk in superlatives and absolutes? You're either one or the other? Why can't you just say what you want to say without being labeled?

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Re : waldo

    by Real Deal

    Yes you're mistaken Most " Trekies follow progresive liberal viewpoints. I've been one since I watched ST premere in 1966 and I'm very much in favor of Obama. I think most ST fans would tell you the same.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    About The Age Thing.....

    by Real Deal

    Chris pine is 28. Shatner was 37 when he did kirk playing a 33-34 year old. Not alot of difference really. As a matter of fact Shatner's age when he did Kirk could be considered on the outside edge of young. And Kirk was supposed to be a young hotshot ( that says 30 to me ). That puts Pine closer to the real age.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 12:20 p.m. CST


    by waldo

    I lumped all trek fans together. I just became confused by some of the posts lately. I'm not trying to speak in absolutes, just opinion.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Actually the Shat was 35 when he first

    by crankyoldguy

    filmed episodes; He was 37-38 for the final season. Nimoy in the same age range. Both were born in March, too, both Aries end of it if that stuff matter for ya. From Memory Alpha -- At 31 years of age in 2264, he was promoted to Captain. Not only the youngest captain in the fleet's history at that time, Kirk was slated to command one of the twelve Constitution-class starships, the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). So Shatner was actually four years older and Pine is three years younger. I do not think he "looks 16." He looks young, yes, especially if you're in your 40s or 50s and a Trek fan, but that makes all of us in that range older than Shatner was when he started, so there you go.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 12:58 p.m. CST

    It's not hard to predict this movie now

    by matineer

    because we know JJ Abrams style. So far it's not looking like a 60's TV show, but it has similarities to nightime TV dramas of the "OO's"; the CW/ Smallville cast, the lighting, the bridge set equivalent of those plasma screen filled headquarters rooms for FBI, CIA, CSI in every action movie or cop show. When fans saw the Superman suit for SR -- dirtied up, speedo style -- it displayed a certain view of the character. These stills seem to emphasize flash over substance, to me anyway. As for the age issue, they seem to be doing a SW prequel type move to expand the audience. But does anybody want a 25 year old Kirk? Regardless of how old they are they look very young. Shatner and Nimoy did not. They had more varied experience, too, but that was a different time. I'll give this a shot but I expect soap opera, sexiness, much more action than usual. As for the bridge design, what makes the 60's style so bad? Painted wood or painted titanium, who can tell the difference? How old is a fork? Should that be changed? And this isn't "new". New would be a new concept and characters. I'll five it a try. If it doesn't work, Star Trek will get many more tries. It's not going anywhere.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 1:22 p.m. CST

    LOL! Re : crankyoldguy

    by Real Deal

    Yup! I'm 55 now and people look younger every year! LOL!

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Re : matineer

    by Real Deal

    About the bridge the old one looked fanstastic in it's day but now that I have the Star Trek remastered set on my 53" HDTV it's not like watching it on my parent's old B & W 23" RCA. You can see the woodgrain in the bridge door underneath the paint! Also I wasn't kidding about the wrinkled paper in front of a lightbulb. In " Tommorrow is Yesterday " you can see the upper screens need someone to come by and smooth out the paper. I love the remastered FX by the way. Definately gives TOS a breath of fresh air.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 1:40 p.m. CST

    romulan bad guys

    by Staldo

    aren't romulans and vulcans supposed to be 3 times stronger than humans? I know they live in an age of reason and laser weapons and whatnot, but there really should be more asskicking with the level of physical power those people possess.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Continuity vs. Continuity

    by OneBuckFilms

    From what I can gather, there are 2 kinds of Continuity, or "Canon" in question here: - Design/Visual continuity - Story Continuity The Visual continuity is certainly broken, perhaps by necessity given the aims of the film. I'm fine with that. It is not without precedent, STAR TREK: TMP did this. Story Continuity looks like a little bit of a gray area, specifically with the Romulans appearing before they should. However, these Romulans are from the future, and are attempting to change history. Whereas I suspect the damage will be partially fixed, there is room to shift Star Trek history without invalidating the majority of the Original Series, movies or the rest of future history. I believe one of the writers has stated that when there is a break in continuity, there is a logical explanation. So this looks like it alters story continuity via an alternate timeline without invalidating established history. My concern, as a Trek fan, is that we get a good story, an entertaining movie and a good representation of the original crew.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Romulans Kicking Ass

    by OneBuckFilms

    I think we'll see that.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Any Nimoy Pics?

    by Mike Hunt

    He hasn't played the character in 17 years. I'd like to see how he looks as Spock in this movie?

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Vulcans are stronger, not necessarally Romulans

    by I Dunno

    Yeah, they're related but they're not exactly the same.

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Comic books have reboots, why not Trek?

    by eXcommunicated

    I am starting to like this idea. Why not look at the previous 10 movies and 4 series as "Universe 1" and everything from this new movie forward as "Universe 2"? For serial guise!

  • Oct. 18, 2008, 11:55 p.m. CST

    TheLastCleric about TDK

    by Smerdyakov

    TDK generates FAKE optimism because you know in real life one of those boats would have blown up. And Batman Sacrifices nothing because the cops can't catch him and everybody thinks he's freak anyway.

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 5:22 a.m. CST

    Here's what is DUMB on the Bridge...

    by Big Dumb Ape

    Why the fuck would you have a crewman STANDING at a floor mounted console that's planted literally NEXT to the CAPTAIN'S chair?<p>Look, even in Abrams version starships get into fights, right? That means people and things get tossed around rather viciously (cue extras rocking back and forth in mismatched timing) which means that crewman -- sexy in her short skirt and all -- is gonna get quickly tossed on her ass. And if the ship was hit by phaser fire or whatever, granted that you'd always run a risk of an explosion or some debris suddenly flying around the bridge, but you certainly wouldn't want a heavy free-standing console that could pin or impale someone PLANTED RIGHT NEXT TO THE CAPTAIN since he's only the most fucking important person on the ship, not to mention the one person you'd MOST want to see protected.<p>As an old Trek fan who remembers watching the original as a young kid when it first aired, I'll check this out. But I'd don't care how much you try to spin it, based on that one still that bridge set looks like total ASS.

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 7:32 a.m. CST


    by quantize

    that'll be 'normal' people who snigger like the boring twats they are at sci-fi and tune out if it the moment vaguely threatens to be intelligent... you can bet your JJ goofy money on it.

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 8:59 a.m. CST

    This film is do or die for the franchise.

    by rbatty024

    I think it's a good move. Get rid of all of the crap associated with the last two series and start fresh. I don't particularly care about continuity either. Trek has been consistently inconsistent about it's continuity from the start. What's warp ten again? It depends on what episode you watch. <p> If this film sucks then they should just give up on the franchise. I love the first three series but Trek hasn't been interesting in a very long time.

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 9:07 a.m. CST

    How do we even know this is the bridge of the Enterprise?

    by Mike Hunt

    And not some other ship? I read previously that Kirk doesn't even take command of the Enterprise until the final scene of the movie. I also read that Capt. Pike commands the Enterprise for most of the scenes that take place aboard that ship.

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Lucas raped my

    by nukethefridge

    hang on..which one is this again?? Hang on..don't care

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST

    The Dark Knight is bleak?

    by Die_Hardest

    I thought the Dark Knight had a pretty hopeful ending. Maybe I'm stupid. Also, at the time of the original series, isn't the Enterprise supposed to be the best ship in Starfleet? It seems strange that the version of it from 20 years before would be more high tech. Just a thought.

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 6:02 p.m. CST


    by Die_Hardest

    Assuming that it isn't the same Enterprise. But, again, if it is the same Enterprise how could it still be the most advanced ship in the fleet 20 years later?

  • Oct. 19, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    The Bridge...


    Looks like cheesy shit. Any of you basement dwelling nipple dicked cocksuckers have a problem with that you can do yourself and everyone else here a favor and spray your gray matter on a wall somewhere.<p> Oh, and to the douche who brought up Battlestar Craptacular, Go Fuck yourself with that boring, soap opera bullshit. Scratch that, why don't you go masturbate to your pics. of the ever manly Kara Thrace or better yet the pouting super douche Lee Adama.<p> Rant over<p> Now that that's out of the way, I'm liking the uniforms but not the bridge. Too questarian for me. Of course it matters not, for the ignoramuses who wrote the script are a far greater threat to "Star Trek"

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 7 a.m. CST

    by Nasty_Nick

    The Bridge is quite flashy for a "realisitc approach". If they removed a few uneeded glass panels with Circut boards drawn on them it would be a start. It doesn't seem to match pictures of the shuttle and corridor interior we saw a few months back. The uniforms are a bit too stylised too with the Arrow head pattern. Beyond that though I like what I see and look forward to seeing a Trailer of this stuff in motion.

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 8:35 a.m. CST

    The real question is will it be Star Trek...

    by quantize

    If JJ didn't get the heart of the show and characters right then it will be doomed to suffer the same fate as Superman Returns..which seems to garner less affection with each day...people are right to be concerned with the look and the tone, but that doesn't mean he hasn't got the spirit and the interaction between the characters wrong...

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Too early...

    by Stunt Vocalist 709

    I've loved TOS since it first aired. But I don't mind a re-telling/rebooting of it's universe. What will matter to me is the quality of the story telling. I am encouraged by most of the photos, especially the ship shots. The bridge? Not sure yet: only the one shot to judge by at this point and it's not a full shot of the bridge. Someone was right to point out the design elements that came from the pilot. I like that. Apple? I have no problem with that. Why? Yet again, someone was right to point out that Apple owes much of it's pseudo '60's future/retro look to ST-TOS. So I have no problem with that. Still shots of the cast are only hints of how they will actually portray the characters. What will make it successful to me will be the quality of the story and how it is told: Script. Acting. Well-directed/edited action scenes. Realistic(for the genre) effects. Music Score. So far, nobody outside the production knows how this will play out. I'm hoping for the best. Trailers are better hints, but still only hints. Once I've actually seen the movie, then I'll know for sure. No point in getting worked up or trashing it yet. It's just too early to know. I'm willing to give it an open-minded chance.

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Time travel point...

    by Stunt Vocalist 709

    About the controversy about the photo with the caption: "THE USS KELVIN Before Kirk is even born, a Romulan attack on a starship launches the plot for the new movie". From what I understand, the Kelvin is under attack in order to abduct a "hero" of the movie. It's possible that would be the 'old' Spock. Perhaps the U.S.S. Kelvin in this shot may be from the future. (relative to the young Kirk/crew's time period) Which means it travels back in time. The attack in this photo could have taken place during the Kelvin's visit to the past, before Kirk was born. Yet another reason not to get all stressed out before actually seeing the movie.

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 2:43 p.m. CST


    by Stunt Vocalist 709

    I read your post right after I wrote my previous post, which may answer your question. Just a theory, but it seems sound. Check it out and let me know what you think...

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 5:53 p.m. CST


    by makavelious

    I'll definitely pass this one!!!

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 6:59 p.m. CST

    PITCHPERFECT and gungan slayer...

    by menstrual_blitz

    This new bridge is oval shaped, the captains chair is in the correct spot behind the navigation and helm, science station is correct, even the door is behind to the left of the captain. It's all the same layout!!!

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 7:08 p.m. CST

    For all you people who "know" star trek...

    by menstrual_blitz

    The writers of this film have already mentioned the Next Gen episode "Yesterdays" enterprise (one of the most acclaimed episodes ever) as a huge influence on this new story. Now, if all of you out there complaining about continuity and the new design of the bridge would just think about Yesterdays Enterprise and how time travel effected our heroes and their environment, you'll see that all this bitching and moaning is a waste of time. Cannon is safe and sound people. To spell it out for all the trekkies; remembering the Next Gen episode mentioned above, it would be like seeing the Enterprise D bridge after the Enterprise C went through the time rift and saying "What the fuck happened to the bridge? and what's Tasha Yar doing there and why is Wesley Crusher an actual officer, this totally shits on next gen cannon." UNDERSTAND PEOPLE.

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 7:12 p.m. CST


    by menstrual_blitz

    ...this is the key to understanding what's being shown to us here.

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 9:12 p.m. CST

    This won't hold a candle...

    by GeorgieBoy

    ... to the wonder we felt when we first saw the Enterprise on the big screen. That look on Kirk's face, the music, and the awe inspiring moment when we saw her will never be equaled. Expect this to be on par with Nemesis (ie, slam-bang-action with capitol ships that zip around like gnats.)

  • Oct. 20, 2008, 9:23 p.m. CST


    by Jaka

    Is what those pictures gave me. I've been saying since the day this was announced that I'd not have anything to do with it. I'm now making it my "mission" to be sure that I can disuade as many people as possible from seeing it. As a fan of the series for nearly 30 of my years on this planet, I'm insulted. That's about as simply as I can state it.