Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

LoquaciousMuse chimes in on the 25 minutes or so of JJ Abrams STAR TREK that was screened in New York tonight

Hey folks, Harry here... in the Big Apple. Yup, I was here checking this very same footage out with my own pair of eyeballs and I have to say - it is looking EVEN better - and for the first time, I'm on Chris Pine's bandwagon. I'm very curious to see the rest of his re-imagining of Captain James T Kirk's beginnings. I have an early flight, so I'm going to crash, but I'll be writing my full impressions very very soon. For now - here's the Loquacious Muse, who did not come up to chat with me. Dagnabbit.

I know Harry was there, but in case you want some outside opinions, here is one! Wasn't sure who to send it to. If you use this, call me LoquaciousMuse. Well, I'm sold. I was mad at Star Trek earlier this year for not having a real presence at Comic Con. Because that's how I roll. But I can't deny the truth that JJ just knocked my socks off. There was a screening tonight on the west side of NYC of four scenes from the new Trek film with JJ Abrams on hand to talk a little about the film and present each scene. Things got started with the President of Paramount Film Group, John Lesher. He introduced the trailer, then JJ. After joking around for a second with Lescher, JJ came right out and said it - "I've never been a fan of Star Trek" Someone in the back booed (but a good natured boo) to which JJ responded that he knows, he just never quite got it and that's the truth. He had a friend in elementary school who tried to pull him in, but it didn't work. He always felt like he wasn't really Kirk, but he wasn't really Spock either - that he was just an observer who couldn't relate to these characters. But when the studio asked him to produce a new Star Trek film, he found himself saying yes, albeit without really knowing why - he didn't even know there were numerous Trek films already made, but he said yes nonetheless. He got together with his usual suspects including Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci, a huge Trekker, and Bryan Burk, who had never seen a piece of Trek in his life. Together, they came up with a story they all loved. When JJ read the script by Orci & Kurtzman, he saw in it the reason he got into making movies in the first place and was jealous of whoever got to direct it. Naturally one thing led to another and JJ says that now, thanks to this experience, he does consider himself a Trekker. He was excited to make a Trek that felt real, legitimate, & relatable, grounded in the reality of our world, and that the amazing cast really pulls it off. Then the scenes began. In the first clip, we meet Kirk at a futuristic bar (with Slusho mix for sale and menus containing moving pictures!) hitting on Uhura with a terribly ugly alien sitting in between them at the bar, just chilling out. Their flirting is adorable and the chemistry great. And right off the bat, the vibe seems perfect. Futuristic, but still slightly mod. An awesome bar fight ensues with a cadet who is a little too protective over Uhura, then a bloodied up Kirk meets Bruce Greenwood's Pike in a sweet scene that ended up giving me goosebumps at the end. Needless to say, by the end of their conversation Kirk has a new direction in life and already JJ is spot on with combining our real world with the Trek universe. The next scene involves Bones sneaking Kirk onto the Enterprise. Again, great scene. Here we begin to see Kirk transform from troubled, semi-bumbling youth into what he eventually becomes. Can't wait to see this progression fully played out. Here we got to meet Chekov & Spock. Even though I don't really know what they were like on the original show, they seemed great to me. The interior of the ship looks beyond cool, Eric Bana is unrecognizable and Megan from Felicity is part of the crew! Again, I got goosebumps, but this time from a very cool and sudden reveal of sorts. This is about the point when I remembered how awesome JJ is and I should never have doubted him in the first place. The next scene featured Old Spock, Kirk & Scotty. Before we watched, JJ stressed how great Leonard Nimoy was to work with. On to the scene - Spock travels back in time for one reason or another and here we meet Scotty, who is funny and delightful and makes me smile cause it's Simon Pegg and he does no wrong in my book. There are some very cool moments here that I won't give away, but I will say they deal with the time travel well and I don't think fans will be disappointed. Before showing us the final scene, JJ comments on how good Eric Bana is in the film, managing to be both relatable and scary. He also lets us know that this next scene features a red shirt and if we know what that means, we "know what we're about to see." And sure enough we do! A badass action sequence follows, complete with superfluous Red Shirt meeting his maker in what seems like a pretty horrific way to go out, and Sulu busting out some expert fencing. The action is suspenseful, well edited and fun. Overall, I think this movie is going to rock. The music is perfect, the aliens look great, the tone seems just right. This is coming from the perspective of someone who was never really a Trek fan, so make of my opinion what you will, but I will be there opening weekend. And now I leave you with a couple lines I quite enjoyed for reasons humorous and sentimental. "The complexities of human pranks escape me" - Spock thinking Kirk being made First Officer is a joke "Careful with the ship. She's brand new." - Pike to Spock, after he makes him temporary captain of the Enterprise. I'm really looking forward to this one! You won me over, JJ, you trickster, you.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Dawsons Trek is First

    by DOGSOUP

    and Last. Way last.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:45 p.m. CST


    by Kingdaddy

    I'm gonna go take the Cleveland Browns to the Super Bowl. The Depp pic is fake btw...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:48 p.m. CST


    by superzero

    I totally agree about the whole not being a Trek fan but being totally amped for this thing. JJ does action very well and the cast looks fantastic.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Jeez, stop posting 'first', you 12-year-old retards

    by gopher

    Talk about Trek instead

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Trailer looks like "Star Trek 90210"

    by Monkey Man Zero

    The crew is just a bit too dreamy and the overly dramatic dive from the all just leaves a bad taste for me.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Trailer looks fun as hell.

    by Se7en

    I'm there.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:57 p.m. CST

    here's the deal...

    by Stugart

    Star Trek works well when... just like any other good movie, it has a good fucking story to tell. What we have here is a movie that looks full of action, looks overly shinny, and well.. the beginning of the trailer looks exceptionally lame. However, all of this can and probably will be forgotten if the movie has a good story, and if it feels like Star Trek... the later being something I am also extremely worried about after seeing this trailer.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:58 p.m. CST

    You Mean, There's a Bar

    by Star Hump

    and a fight breaks out? How daringly original! In all my years of watching movies, I've never once watched a scene set in a bar where a fight breaks out. That's brilliant! I tell ya, this JJ Abrams guy is a visionary! A trailblazer! He's directing scenes where no scenes have gone before! And, wait, what? Time travel too? No way! In a Star Trek movie? Get outta here! Welcome to the Suck.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, midnight CST

    So are they saving the Shatner cameo

    by Series7

    For the end?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:01 a.m. CST

    star hump

    by unkempt_sock

    is a huge dicksucking cockmouth

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:01 a.m. CST


    by Stugart

    like most people on here.. I badly want to know what type of role Leonard Nimoy plays in this movie. For whatever reason I originally thought his presence would be central to the film but I'm feeling like that might be a bit misguided. I really fucking hope he isn't being used as some stupid extended cameo bit.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Star Trek, 90210

    by Undead03

    "he found himself saying yes, albeit without really knowing why - he didn't even know there were numerous Trek films already made" Complete and utter bullshit, and a total lie. Maybe if he could figure out how to END any of his stupid stories, it might be worth seeing. As it is, he's made Star Trek, 90210.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Remember this well....

    by conspiracy

    Harry is the same guy who LOVED SW Ep.1, cried over the last Indy film, and I think even liked Transformers...color me unconvinced...that trailer was pure Ass Chum.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:08 a.m. CST

    to undead03

    by loquaciousmuse

    It doesn't make...a whole lot of sense that he wouldn't have known there were a ton of Star Trek movies previously, but that's what he said! A huge theater of people heard it along with me.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:10 a.m. CST

    Chekov & Spock. Even though I don't really know what they were l

    by KnarftheIndecent

    I was gonna write a bunch of stuff and then decided not to because what is the point? This is the way things are done now for the most part, forget art and less than lazy storytelling and just throw stuff into a blender and hope that the splatters make enough cash.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:12 a.m. CST


    by JustinSane

    ...that's my theory. Spock going back in time rearranges the timeline and Kirk is alive when he returns. The final scene is between Old Kirk and Old Spock. That would be the best way to end this film, in my opinion.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:13 a.m. CST

    HAR, HAR. Star Trek 90210. Comedy Gold!

    by Lamerz

    Stupid mother fuckers.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Dogsoup fucks his whore mother

    by Lamerz

    First posters eat dick.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:16 a.m. CST

    I've watched it again and again...

    by Bud666 the theater, on you tube, and now in Glorious™ Quicktime™ and I just can't bring myself to like it. Believe me, I wish I could like it. I wish it was the second coming of Star Trek. I just don't think it will be. <p> Really, I don't even mind the Dawson casting or the fact that it's a reboot. I agree that Trek needs a shot in the arm. I just think you can satisfy the old nitpicker fans and make some new ones at the same time. <p> An example is the scene with the classic car. This is what I call a Stupid Trailer Scene. Any possible kick the scene has is just for the trailer. If this is actually in the movie, it's not like someone in the audience (who hasn't see the trailer) isn't going to guess who's doing the driving. I mean, unless you stroke out and wander into the wrong theater, you know that you came to see Star Trek. It's a pointless scene that is already a snore now...imagine what it will be like after you've seen it about fifty times and sit through it again opening night. <p> If you wanted to have a Little Kirk scene, why not have him playing around or getting into some kind of mischief on some kind of scaffolding...close shots so you don't really get the full frame of reference. Then some security goon grabs the kid, maybe kid makes a few good slips to show that he has some spunk before a couple more pin him down. A commanding voice calls out "What have you got there?" to which they answer "An intruder, Captain April." Then you do the stupid "What's your name, son?" with answer followed by a pull back to show the Enterprise under construction. Sure, most people don't know or give a flying flip about who Captain April is but you'd have a few thousands geeks who'd dig something more along the lines of that then a silly grand theft auto scene that really has no relation to the universe you're about to inhabit for the next couple hours. And even though it would be mostly meaningless to the rest of the audience, it could still be shot in such a way to be thrilling, exciting, etc. <p> On the positive side, I will say that it looks like a sfx extravaganza and sometimes those are worth the price of admission in and of themselves. That is really all I'm planning on getting out of the movie. If I get more, that's great.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:17 a.m. CST

    Star hump eats Dogsoup's mom's dick

    by Lamerz

    That is all.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:18 a.m. CST

    JJ Magic???

    by Le Phantom

    Can JJ magically make all of the shitty Trek movies after Trek 6 disappear??? Which would also mean that the iconic James T. kirk didn't die like Wile E. Fucking Coyote in a Next Gen piece of shit movie?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Unaware of any "Trek" movies...

    by conspiracy

    So now on top of being highly over rated and self important, JJ is also a full blown retard or just fucking liar?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:20 a.m. CST

    I saw the Trailer - From Meh to Goosebumps

    by gad

    You know, actually growing up with Star Trek it's one of those things that I am emotionally attached to. First run viewing in the 60's it was the best thing on the TV and then when Syndication came along and we could see them everyday it just burned into my brain. I've seen my share of Crap Star Trek, wasted chances to do something outstanding and crap that was just thrown together for the guaranteed bucks and nothing more. I had no faith at all in this effort and even that first teaser that showed them building the Enterprise while it took my breath away I still hardened my heart to it, it couldn't possibly be any good, too many times fooled. I went to see Quantum today and saw that trailer for Star Trek and you know, a tear welled up and I was a kid again watching the coolest thing ever and seeing the characters I know. I have to believe it's going to be good now, maybe I'm like Charlie Brown trying to kick that football which Lucy will pull up at the last minute once again but I don't think so. This looks awesome, it doesn't look like 90210 or Melrose Place to me, it looks like young Kirk and young Spock and there's Sulu and everyone else. You snarky oh so cool kids can be oh so smart in your own minds and say it's Melrose Place or whatever, amuse yourselves. But for me, Hell ya I'm going to be there in line the first day. And heck yeah I was watching it when it first came out just like I was actually waiting in line for Star Wars in 77 - there's always the chance that a movie or a show will fill you with wonder and joy and it looks like this will be one of those infrequent times. I'm looking forward to it.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:22 a.m. CST

    Kirk as a kid

    by andrew1911uk

    It's worth remembering that this isn't the first time Kirk has been represented as an angry kid...The books Final Frontier and Best Destiny (both by Diane Carey, who's written some of the best ST fiction out there) show the young Kirk's upbringing as less than idyllic. <br><br>Sure, this version ignores a lot of the bck story, but the hints I've heard in this version that outline Kirk's father, George, give me hope that JJ and Co have at least done some research into the non canon fiction that's out there. <br><br>

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:24 a.m. CST

    Oh..and once more...just for fun...

    by conspiracy

    Orci and Kurtzman are the SECOND worst writers in the entertainment business. In fact only those tools who brought you "Disaster Movie" are worse...but at least you know they know it. Orci and Kurtzman just suck..and suck hard and long...I Wonder which Trek Crew Member will get to utter "My Bad"?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:33 a.m. CST


    by superzero

    Well said my friend, well said.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:35 a.m. CST

    No squid in Star Trek?!?!

    by Thrillho77

    No ticket from ME!!!!!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:36 a.m. CST

    PUSSY AND ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Illuminate

    The Star Trek movies always looked like a second rate version of Star Wars when it came to scale. That LOSER-ASSHOLE Rick Berman BUTT FUCKED us for an entire decade after TNG went off the air. The only idiots who are complaining are those who do not like the summer blockbuster. Which is like saying you don't like to get presents on Christmas. You can go and watch your pathetic bullshit faggety ass dramatic films that no one watches you fucking pussy.. When Enterprise the series came out Rick Berman said that Archer would be like Captain Kirk. The rebel who gets plenty of pussy at every space port. Man was he a liar. He proved that he is a square ass fart. I am now a fan of JJ Abrams since, he kept kirk a rebel and he is getting to sleep with hot women. If you are complaining about the sex than you are a closet fagget who wants a dick up your ass plus, you don't know Star Trek. I have seen every episode of the old Trek, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and I love this trailer. This is the old TV show the way it should have been on the big screen. I want Kirk to kick butt, sleep with plenty of women and then give the order to hit light speed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope they have an R-Rated version but, that is asking to much. I'm happy but, I hope they push the sex and violence as far as it will go on an pg-13 rating to show how James T. Kirk is on the big screen vs. what they couldn't show on the small screen. It was on the TV show but, was seriously lacking in the previous films.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:37 a.m. CST

    LoquaciousMuse lost me here...

    by Bob Loblaw Law Blog

    "Here we got to meet Chekov & Spock. Even though I don't really know what they were like on the original show, they seemed great to me."<p>Are you kidding me? I mean... are you absolutely kidding me?<p>How can you not "really know what they were like on the original show?" I can give you a pass (kind of) on Chekov... but Spock?<p>Seriously, I understand that some people aren't Trekkies. That's fine. Some people aren't Star Wars fans, but they still know who Darth Vader or Han Solo is... and what they're like.<p>I'm looking forward to Harry's review. I want to know how an actual STAR TREK fan felt about these scenes.<p>I also pray to God that somehow Harry might have something to show at BNAT in a couple weeks. That would kick ass.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:38 a.m. CST

    to loquaciousmuse

    by Undead03

    Just because he said it doesn't make it true. Like bush. And trust me, I happen to know for a fact it's a lie.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:38 a.m. CST

    So... leak?

    by JonRD463

    So... when are we going to see that camera phone bootleg we're all expecting? What, are they frisking people before letting them into the screening. There's been several of these screenings already and so far, no sign of anything.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:39 a.m. CST


    by Bob Loblaw Law Blog

    You speak the truth, my friend. BEST DESTINY is one of the best Star Trek books I've ever read. Fantastic.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Conspiracy buttfucks Rick Berman

    by Lamerz

    Waaaah. Orci and Kurtzmann raped my childhood with a transforming Optimus Prime dildo. "My bad" it says upon insertion.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:41 a.m. CST

    re: Bob Loblaw

    by loquaciousmuse

    I know who Spock is, certainly, but as I've never seen any of the original series, I can't really judge how accurate Zach Quinto's performance is all. I'm rather young and sent the review in so people could read what someone thought who really doesn't have a huge frame of reference. I'm very interested in what Harry thinks too! I hope it looks as good to Trek fans as it did to me.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:43 a.m. CST

    Bad lines already?

    by BlindOgre

    "I Wonder which Trek Crew Member will get to utter "My Bad"?" Well, in the trailer, Pine/Kirk does say "Buckle Up" - on a ship with no seat belts and some of the crew standing at their posts...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:44 a.m. CST


    by Bob Loblaw Law Blog

    Not to judge you, buddy... I really mean that... but how in the hell did that happen? I mean, I'm from a tiny, tiny town... and TOS was rerun ALL the time. How did you ever get by without seeing a single episode? It blows my mind!!<p>That said... I do appreciate that you took the time to report what you saw! The fact that you'd never seen a TOS episode blows my mind... but I'm sure you're still a cool guy. No disrespect!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Something about Avatar fucking our eyeballs in 2009...

    by Lamerz

    I hope it does, and I hope trek kicks muthafuckin ass

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:45 a.m. CST

    BO - shut the fuck up

    by Lamerz

    Its a fucking expression

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:46 a.m. CST

    I love...

    by MichaelCorleone

    How so many of you folks are saying stuff like "I read such and such book and that's not how it happened on this date" or the argument dealing with the Enterprise being built on Earth. I think this might sound familiar...Get a life! You folks can't seem to get it through your skull that this isn't the same continuity and never was going to be. The Trek you knew is gone, The folks put in charge of it either left for better jobs or lost it because of shit television writing. Everything you know or think you know is now irrelevant, so please stop talking like you're the authority on this subject.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:48 a.m. CST

    bob loblaw

    by loquaciousmuse

    haha actually I'm a girl if that provides any explanation. i watched plenty of TNG as a kid, but never the original! my geek pedigree is pretty good otherwise. just gotta work on the Trek. i have been meaning to finally see Wrath of Khan as i've been told it's a travesty that i haven't seen it yet. but yeah, this write up was definitely from a non fan point of view - sorry to offend anyone!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:49 a.m. CST

    PUSSY AND ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Illuminate

    In all honesty Picard always came off like a fagget. I liked the fact that he was serious about be a captain but, that is no reason to go fagget on us. Even though Roddenberry created him, Picard was boring compared to Kirk. Picard would rather pretend the hot women are not there and then go to his room, drink tea while he while he cums all over the photo of Diana. Kirk will let Diana lick his balls and but fucking a klingon chick on the bridge. Kirk was Han Solo before Han Solo came out in Star Wars and JJ is reminding us of that. I thought MI-3 was a second rate/watered down/less stylized version of MI-2. MI-2 is still one of the top money making films of all time But, it looks like his sophmore outing is going to be better. JJ will not let us down. I saw how pissed off he was on E.T. or Access Hollywood when that twit got pregnent on Alias so, you know he is a Director who takes things seriously.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:53 a.m. CST


    by Bob Loblaw Law Blog

    Nah, don't sweat it! You've offended no one. That's cool that you kept up with TNG as a kid. I think you'd really dig TOS. I love both series, but TOS is just a little closer to my heart, as the stories were so good (even the cheesy 60s effects are endearing in their own right!).<p> Definitely see The Wrath of Khan when you get a chance. It's still one of the best Trek films. You'll love it. Be sure to watch The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country too, if you haven't.<p>Again, thanks for the post. You're still cool, even if you haven't seen TOS. Thanks for giving us the scoop and all... very awesome of you!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:55 a.m. CST

    Wrath is by far the best film up to now

    by Lamerz


  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:55 a.m. CST

    Now all we need is that shitbird DANNYGLOVERS DICKHEAD

    by I am the Terminator

    to way in with his expert opinion.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:58 a.m. CST

    PUSSY AND ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Illuminate

    In all honesty Picard always came off like a fagget. I liked the fact that he was serious about be a Captain since those who take things seriously accomplish more. But, that is no reason to go fagget on us. Even though Roddenberry created him, Picard was boring compared to Kirk. Picard would rather pretend the hot women are not there and then go to his room, drink tea while he while he cums all over the photo of Diana Troy. Kirk will let Diana Troy lick his balls while ass bucking a klingon chick on the bridge. Kirk was Han Solo before Han Solo came out in Star Wars and JJ is reminding us of that. I thought MI-3 was a second rate/watered down/less stylized version of MI-2. MI-2 is still one of the top money making films of all time. But, it looks like his sophmore outing is going to be better. JJ will not let us down. I saw how pissed off he was on E.T. or Access Hollywood when that twit: Jennifer Garner got pregnent on his action show so, you know he is a Director who takes things seriously. I am glad Garner faded off since you know now how serious she took her role on Alias when she up and got pregnant and let it screw up the show. Back to JJ he is the man.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:59 a.m. CST


    by Dominic-Vobiscum

    Even if he didn't know about any of the Trek movies or cannon (and I call bullshit on that too. I'm as far from a Trekker as you can get and I've still seen all of the movies), why in god's name would he throw that out there?<br><br> "Hey, I'm completely unqualified to be making this movie, but they offered it to me so I said, 'What the fuck? WHY NOT?!'"<br><br> I suppose it's better than paying lip service to the fans, but to me it just smacks of someone who has no investment in the project other than in the form of a paycheck.<br><br> Why should I waste my time and money watching your movie when you're just a hired gun as opposed to someone who actively lobbied to get control of a prime piece of geek real estate that they love and cherish?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:03 a.m. CST

    That trailer looks like a Bay commercial

    by I am the Terminator

    in an ILM wrapper. I half expect Megan Fox to jump out of a transporter with nothing but a lens flare blocking her crotch.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:08 a.m. CST

    PUSSY AND ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by I am the Terminator

    What are two things Illuminate will never have?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:08 a.m. CST


    by Series7

    Yeah I agree with that. I hope the Shat man is in it.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:08 a.m. CST

    Who complains about a diamond

    by Illuminate

    I am the Terminator said, "in an ILM wrapper. I half expect Megan Fox to jump out of a transporter with nothing but a lens flare blocking her crotch." And you are complaining about what? I show you hope that you were making a compliment because what you described is something I want to see! : ) I hope she makes a cameo.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:10 a.m. CST

    Could someone make the Star Trek 90210 joke again?

    by Zarles

    I haven't heard it nearly enough times. Were any of you even born when the original version of that show was on? Just curious.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Enterprise being built on Earth...

    by Bud666

    I do want to go on record as saying that I've never had a problem with that, even if it is (and I don't know if it is or not) goofy from a scientific perspective. I think it's because when I was a kid and first heard the ship was supposed to have been built in San Francisco, I imagined it being built on Earth. This is before TMP and the idea of spacedocks had entered my juvenile brain. <p> As a canon geek Star Trek fan, I really don't mind certain changes being made in the interest of the aforementioned shot in the arm to a dead franchise. I would've had just like to seen some of the material produced over the last forty years have a little more relevance in the production. Some people my not get that but it's fun with you see some bit of minutia you've picked up from being a fan get a small moment of play in a project. It's like Easter Eggs in a DVD - it takes nothing away from those not in the know and adds an extra level of enjoyment for the hardcores. Sure, that kind of thing can be overdone too but remember that it's the hardcore Trek geeks who will see a good Trek film again and again and again. I just don't see the reason to (possibly) alienate them. <p> With this being a time traveling storyline, it's quite possible (even probable) that something will be in the final product to pay lip service to the idea that this ain't your Daddy's Star Trek because of the those temporal events. What I expect from Orci and Kurtzman is that said lip service will be somewhat lazy and stupid and far from clever. I don't mind changes for the better...changes just for the sake of changes don't do much for me. <p> As always, I will be happy if I'm wrong and enjoy the movie. I'm not at all committed to hating it...I just figure I probably will.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Lamerz Needs some Valium.

    by BlindOgre

    "BO - shut the * up. by Lamerz... Its a *ing expression" I know it's a expression. It's still a bit funny... especially from a character that drives a 'vette into a quarry... Lighten up. That's an expression, too :) Remember: Valium = Better living though chemistry! :)

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:12 a.m. CST


    by Illuminate

    by I am the Terminator, the only person who is a loser with women is you you fagget. You are the one complaining about the hot women and ILM look. Why don't you go watch a European film that no one would see. I can't stand fagget ass cock suckers who don't like hot women and cool ass action. Guys like you are fucking losers who don't deserve to be on these boards. Have fun swallowing cum you fucking fag.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Star Trek: The Motion Sickness

    by WriteFromLeft

    Will someone PLEASE give J.J. a tripod. Not every shot has to dolly, pivot and spin. It doesn't heighten the drama; it makes you reach for the Dramamine.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:17 a.m. CST


    by Dominic-Vobiscum

    How's that dissertation coming along?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:18 a.m. CST

    BO - it's FUCK, not *

    by Lamerz

    yeah. Screw valium, vic FTW!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:19 a.m. CST


    by I am the Terminator

    do you really want to be throwing around homophobic insults when you are openly declaring your man love for JJ?<P>Why don't you go suck a fat JJ!<P>NEW AND IMPROVED!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:20 a.m. CST

    The trek timeline is off...

    by BlindOgre

    Given the level of civilization demonstrated in this discussion by some, it is doubtful that we will advance very much in the next couple of centuries. Good thing we have such movies to distract us with false hope. :)

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:24 a.m. CST


    by Illuminate

    Dominic-Vobiscum, lol, I can be more formal but, these are message boards so, I try to be straight forward. : ) Oh, I hope that they show us how Spock is in a relationship and how more things are on his planet. THEY BETTER IGNORE all the BULLSHIT that was created on the tv show "Enterprise" about Vulcans. All that shit was Berman's idea and it came way after Roddenberry's death. Vulcan's holding humanity back, thinking about it made me almost shit and puke at the same time next to my computer.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:26 a.m. CST


    by I am the Terminator


  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:26 a.m. CST

    by I am the Terminator

    by Illuminate

    Why are you still talking, you have already baried yourself you fucking moron. Your earlier posts are still here that show you complaining about hot chicks and a bad ass ILM look. You are such a jack ass fagget and we all know it. ha ha

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:28 a.m. CST

    Lamerz point of view...

    by BlindOgre

    I know Lamerz is trolling, but... I do feel it's a bit unfair that I cannot possibly share Lamerz's point of view. This is largely due to the fact that I have a spine that prevents me from walking about with my head up my arse. Have a nice day :)

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:28 a.m. CST

    by I am the Terminator

    by Illuminate

    ok, maybe I am being to hard. sorry man. I am sure you didn't mean things that way.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:29 a.m. CST


    by I am the Terminator

    why do you keep using homophobic slurs? what about your man love for JJ?<P>LOL

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:30 a.m. CST

    by I am the Terminator

    by Illuminate

    Hmm, I take it back. Everyone is welcome to read your previous comments and judge for themselves.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:30 a.m. CST


    by I am the Terminator

    you can't even spell them right.<P>LOL

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:32 a.m. CST


    by I am the Terminator

    Hmm, I don't take it back. Everyone is welcome to read my previous comments and judge that they are AWESOME!<P>NEW AND IMPROVED!<P>LOLZERS!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Wait...So you're telling me...

    by chaplinatemyshoe

    ...the reviewer wasn't a Trek fan and Abrams wasn't a Trek fan, so the movie is going to ROCK MY FACE! Why am I not buying this? What's with all the qualifiers of not being a Trek fan?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST

    Never underestimate...

    by BiggusDickus

    ...the power of The Shat<p.He'll be there at the end, buddy. Count on it.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST

    by I am the Terminator

    by Illuminate

    hey, you jack ass wanna be english teacher, those are typos I have shit to do. lol I will spell check and type slower when I am making letters with my cum all over your future wifes ass. : )

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:43 a.m. CST


    by BlindOgre

    "What's with all the qualifiers of not being a Trek fan?" Two facets - some will see it as hedging against getting things wrong. Others will see it as the work not being thoroughly blinded and bridled by cannon. It's tempting to stay on the rails of cannon, but generally more rewarding to stray a bit off the well beaten path... As I told my young apprentice at work: "I value the fresh perspective of youth - It's usually good for a laugh." :)

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:25 a.m. CST

    "...I remembered how awesome JJ is..."

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    Geezus, at the end of the screening did you all line up to suck JJ's dick?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:33 a.m. CST

    I don't really know what they were like on the original show, th

    by alucardvsdracula

    Hmmmmm. Animal? Vegetable? Mineral? PLANT.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Glad they hired someone who didnt get it

    by Player 1

    To be honest, I'm glad they hired a director who 'didn't get' Trek. Anyone who 'got Trek' for the past few years was boring as batshit in my book. Oh and by the way...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:47 a.m. CST


    by Player 1


  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:53 a.m. CST

    spoiler tags on the article?

    by RokurGepta


  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:16 a.m. CST

    "Trek is something that some people might expect to be a kind of

    by u.k. star

    That's a quote from J J, sorry if it's already up, but after 2 days of posting on the trailer talkback to people who just seem intent on assuming they can predict an entire movie on a 2 minute trailer aimed at the "non Trek" audience I'm not reading a whole talkback again. Especially as I'm trying to avoid some of the spoilers. "Trek is something that some people might expect to be a kind of low energy experience. I'm hoping people who see the action here, who maybe have pre judged what Trek is, will open their eyes a little wider and say 'oh, that's not what I thought it was going to be.'" All here

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:18 a.m. CST

    No matter

    by The McPoyle Clan

    how good or bad this turns out to be, after the last decade or so, there's nowhere to go but up. Paramount's not going to kill the franchise, so if JJ fails, it will be someone else's turn. Bond turned it around, so will ST, eventually.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Have you seen the trailer in HD?

    by photoboy

    Now that I've had the chance to watch something that isn't a pixellated piece of shit I'm even more against this movie.<br><br> For starters, it's clear Abrams wants to make Star Wars movies. That's why Kirk is a farmboy who races fast vehicles in the desert and dreams of leaving to go to the Academy and then fighting the [Romulan] Empire.<br><br> Then we have Kurtzman and Orci bringing their A-game from TINO, and having Kirk sneaking around on the floor of Uhura's quarters watching her get undressed. This is supposed to be James T Kirk, the guy who can even get robot women to sleep with him. Why have they made him into a pervert?<br><br> It looks like Abrams & Co have given this film the same treatment that Abrams gave to his Superman script where Luth-Or was a fucking Kryptonian. This won't be as big a train wreck as TINO, but it won't be far off.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:24 a.m. CST

    Slusho?! So it happens on the same universe as Cloverfield?

    by ricarleite

    So I guess the monster loses! Yaaay!!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:24 a.m. CST

    i am a trekkie

    by bacci40

    fuck this trekker shit...proof positive to me that the above review is made by a plant, who has been told by the studio "dont say trekkie, it pisses off the fans" why? cuz it makes it sound like we all wanna fuck kirk? alot of us did...or at least fuck the chicks he got to fuck...oh, and abrams is using the kring line....ya, jj never heard of star trek movies the same way that kring never picked up a comic book or heard of everyone in hollywood an idiot savant? fuck, zack snyder cant put two sentences together without sounding like a stoner from malibu, and everyone else has never even been to the that is gonna bring me into the film

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:25 a.m. CST

    From the New York Times:

    by kwisatzhaderach

    'Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman were cautious about taking on “Transformers,” after being offered the assignment by Steven Spielberg. “We wanted to make sure that he really wanted a character story,” Mr. Orci said, “and it wouldn’t just be a giant toy commercial.”'

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:31 a.m. CST

    PLAYER 1

    by JonRD463

    WRONG! It's: CAPTAIN... JEAN-LUC PEECARD OFTHEU.S.S. ... EN-TER-PRISE (repeat ad nausium(

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:37 a.m. CST

    "I have an early flight, so I'm going to crash"

    by theycallmemrglass

    Knock on fucking wood, man. As the Joker says, poor choice of words...Have a safe trip.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:48 a.m. CST

    "This is a treatment of Star Trek with.....

    by u.k. star

    .......action and comedy and romance and adventure, as opposed to a rather talky geekfest." People need to realise it aint the "fans" that need to be sold. They will, mostly, be there whatever happens. It is the rest of the world, that far bigger audience, that wouldn't pay to watch a Star Trek Movie if it was the last movie ever made. That would feel so uncool if they went to see it for free. The fans, we're worth about $75m $140m worldwide TOTAL box offce. That's it. They're hoping it makes that on opening weekend in the U.S alone for pity's sake!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:50 a.m. CST


    by hank quinlan

    Sounds just as lame and uninspired as MI3. Orci and Kurtzman are the epitome of whats wrong in Hollywood. They write bland mediocrity and are considered the best guys out there. With the paychecks to prove it. They only wrote one real hit: Transformers. And what a wonderful film that was. Wanna know how bad of writers they are? They took the Kobayshi-Maru Scenario, the wonderful story and character moment from Khan (THE greatest Trek tale) and made it literal. Why? Because they can't think of a great moment on their own. They just rip off Meyer and Co. who did make the iconic Trek. "Hey JJ! You know that awesome moment from ST2? Lets just do THAT!" "Sweet, guys! That's what I did in Lost. Like I would show a cool character flashback. And then next season when I ran out of cool ideas, I'd just do THE EXACT SAME story again. Maybe from a different perspective. So there was zero suspense. We're the SHIT!" And the trailer was cutty. And didn't have one great line or moment. Bana looked lame visualwise. At least the bad guy in Nemesis looked cool. And how cluttered and dull (not mention CGI) was Starfleet Academy. Hey Im no mondo Trek guy. Loved the Meyer movies. Parts of 4. Dug TNG the show. Hated the TNG movies. This should be cool. But it will be MI3. Thats the level these guys write on. It's cool. They've got the great jobs and the millions of bucks. I'm sure they aren't worried about me. But one day...can karma kick in and SOMEONE notice the emperor has no clothes?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:54 a.m. CST

    Calm down, Trekkies!

    by joergn

    After some shitty sequels ("Nemesis" still give me goosebumps for all the wrong reasons), a clusterfuck series (they ended "ST:Enterprise" on a high note, didn´t they?) and years of...nothing, someone´s doing something with the franchise and all you do is just bitching? You´re really a bunch of ungrateful dickheads!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:08 a.m. CST

    JJ has made the perfect Trek movie...

    by bongo123

    I've shown this trailer to my girl/f, workmates and mates all of whom have no love for anything trek and think of its fans as nothing but a bunch of sad bastards (reading these talkbacks, I tend to agree).. after watching this trailer, everyone has said "FUCK! looks cool" and will be going to see it next summer, that to me says JJ knows exactly what he’s doing, he’s bringing in the type of people the diehard fans would alienate and in doing so ensure this film makes a shitload of cash and thus give us the inevitable sequels’.. which in my book, is fucking great news regardless of what you think of the bloody bridge or the uniforms as personally i can’t get enough of spaceships beating the shit out each other be it in Starwars, Serenity or This

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:20 a.m. CST

    hank quinlan

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Wise words. This is what happens when fans take control of a franchise, total and utter fanwank. If you're 15 or under this film will be 'cool'. If you're over 15 it will be shit.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Now trailer is in Quicktime

    by theycallmemrglass

    it still doesnt quite blow me away. I like the Spock and kirk origins but any of the classic Spock and Kirk character. Apart from the daredevil attitude of Kirk, I dont see any other resemblence in character to get me excited. Same with Spock who looks all too emotional. Yes, he's half human but he comes across as fully human in the trailer. Only Scotty looks perfectly in character with the classic. But the whole look is str trek and feels star trek, that gets me excited desite my reservations.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:02 a.m. CST


    by Praetor

    Kudos to Trek for featuring the nastiest space vessel since Babylon 5's Shadows re point 1.41 in the trailer and action scenes.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Problem with the Spock scene

    by Heckles

    So the TNG-era Spock shows up once the younger Spock fires him off the ship. Nimoy's version introduces him to Scotty, gives him a recipe for super-cool transporter technology and then makes an exit. Really? That's hit? Tell me again why it was too hard for Shatner to be in this? By the way, I firmly believe that Shatner made his way onto a green screen and filmed a scene or two for this. The backlash has to be staged. JJ loves the viral marketing. I totally expect to see the erstwhile Kirk before the credits roll. Believe it.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:05 a.m. CST

    I Just Saw The HD Version Of The Trek Trailer & It's Horrible

    by Media Messiah

    This film has bomb wrtten all over it!!!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:06 a.m. CST

    That is to say...

    by Heckles

    Nimoy-Spock shows up once Kirk is fired from the 1701 to an icy planet/moon of some sort.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:10 a.m. CST

    Abrams isn't a trek fan??

    by BendersShinyAss

    neither was the guy who made nemesis..... Trailer still looks fantastic.... altho the enterprise being built ON earth is completely false. it was built at the utopia planetia shipyards above mars. and it was first commanded by robert april before chris pike took command and then kirk

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:12 a.m. CST

    You ignorant cunts, it's all spin.

    by Heckles

    Spin, spin, spin. Banter is fun, but the vast majority of the people posting here will see this movie. There will be plenty of people involved that are trying desperately to get non-Trek people to see this shit. So what? If anyone has ever liked Trek in any incarnation, I say make this flick widely available to anyone and everyone. Then, in this glorious post-Rick Berman era we might get a worthwhile Trek project on TV. With Galactica moving on there will be a perfect void. Hell, what if Ron Moore stepped up with new Trek? His work on DS9 was the last best effort we've seen. But this is the 'net, so keep on bitching. No such thing as bad press.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Fuck this 'never was a Trek fan' schtick..fuck OFF

    by quantize

    he keeps repeating this shit...but now he is now he's wiped his arse on it? Im hoping against all hope this Star Trek will be great, but Abrahms has done some fucking SHIT that people seem to choke down with glee.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:17 a.m. CST

    Dammit, let me pull my nerd hat on.

    by Heckles

    The plaque of the original Enterprise, that is to say NCC-1701, stated: 'Starship Class, San Fransisco.Calif'. Enterprise-D was bult on Utopia Plaetia. <br> Not to mention Robert April was never mentioned in an episode. He's technically non-cannon. <br> Man, years and years later, this trivial info never leaves you I guess.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:19 a.m. CST

    upon further reasearch...

    by BendersShinyAss

    turns ot the enterprise wasn't built at the utopia planetia shipyards but the san fransico ship yards in geo sync orbit NOT ON EARTH. <p> The mars shipyards is where next gen ships were built. call me a hardcore nerd, but one thing i always loved was the solid foundation star trek's universe had. EVERYTHING was covered. <p> that said, I always had issues with star destroyers in the prequels being able to enter planet atmosphere.... but im over that now. hopefully there's a damn good reason for the enterprise being built on earth and for kirk to be watching it's construction.... he did always have a strange love affair with that ship - claiming it was his one true love and laying blame for all his failed relationships <p> i love star trek....

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:20 a.m. CST

    "Megan from Felicity is part of the crew!...

    by Carl XVI Gustaf

    ...Again, I got goosebumps" Put that on the cover!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:24 a.m. CST

    I don't want to nitpick this movie to shit

    by Heckles

    And I meant to say Utopia Planetia before. Damn this beer. The original plaque was pretty simple. Did they ever mentioned it was built in space? And does it really matter? The Enterprise might be a curse. Kirk lost everything for it, eventually his life. Picard went nuts. Tried to blow two of them up, more than once. Captain Garrett of the 1701-C ate shit. 1701-B, well, who knows. But his first mission he managed to get the biggest name in the fleet killed... allegedly.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:26 a.m. CST

    Damn You Michael Bay


    Damn You Michael Bay

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Why do people keep trying to blame JJ ....

    by u.k. star

    .....for lost BECOMING crap? He created it, gave it a direction then went off to do other work. In his ABSENCE Lost got totally 100% lost. He even said himself he missed the "lock who went hunting boar". The good, early lost is a lot down o JJ. So when you have to keep saying he's a hack, or a loser or whatever you wanna call him, blame him for stuff that he's done o.k? Similar story with Alias by the way, created got started, gave a direction to then crashed and burned in other peoples' hands.... Logical hatred only please......

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:59 a.m. CST

    It's not about Abram's original work

    by photoboy

    He's good with new ideas and new shows. It's where he comes into something established like Superman or Star Trek and just completely fucks with things because he has to change them that causes problems. He should stick to making his own stuff, not hacking about with things he has no respect for.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:06 a.m. CST

    "I've never been a fan of Star Trek"

    by Gungan Slayer

    Oh great. Just fucking great. What a dumbass. This is something you don't admit until two years after the film comes out. Now you've given us even more of reason to hate this film. Seriously, is Abrams a dumbass? Star Trek was never that hard to understand. Ah fuck. I don't even know why I bother anymore. This movie is not intended for Trekkies. This movie is intended for the Sci-Fi audience. This movie is aiming at the tons of dumbass hipster teens who watch shit on tv (Abrams' TV Shows, among other shows). Dawson's Creek, Smallville, One Tree Hill, etc. etc. I'm not going to bash all these shows, and if you like them, that's fine, but it's not what I fucking what star trek to be. And I swear I'll be extremely pissed if this time travel shit [Time travel. Again. Sigh.] erases the star trek timeline. fuck jj abrams

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:07 a.m. CST


    by Gungan Slayer

    I meant to say that the movie is not intended for either Trekkies or Sci-Fi Audience. damn we need edit buttons

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:18 a.m. CST

    Just release it in December!

    by Mike Hunt

    Next summer will be WAY too competitive anyway!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Well, I suppose it's an interesting experiment

    by judderman

    To see what a Star Wars fan does with Star Trek. It's like Elvis people (ie Rockers) and Beatles people (ie Mods). You can't be both; you're either one or the other. Trekkies are the Mods of geekdom, Star Wars fans are Rockers. From what I've seen so far, it looks pretty good. Any clips of the score online? I don't know what this Giachhino guy can do with Trek, but if Pixar likes him he can't be that bad. Just realised: Jerry Goldsmith did the scores for Alien and Star Trek 1, James Horner did the scores for Aliens and Star Trek 2.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:33 a.m. CST

    u.k. star: "lock who went hunting boar".

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    It was Terry O'Quinn who said he missed the Locke who went hunting boar, and felt that the Lost writers had completely fucked the character.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:48 a.m. CST

    I am as close to a Star Trek fan as you can get...

    by blackmantis

    ...without being an actual trekker, and I am excited by what JJ has done. Star Trek got more and more insular and antiseptic with each new TV series. It needed an injection of new blood and ideas, and some balls. Watching the cleaned up version of the original series I was reminded of how 'sexy' it was for lack of a better word. It had some real swing and visceral verve that the later stuff just lacked. Hopefully JJ puts that back into Star Trek.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7 a.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    Read some of the posts on here and on the trailer talkback, they are very much explicitly about Abrams' and the show's he created. They are very clear in that they come accross as though he wrote and directed every single episode of both Alias and Lost AND as if he wrote, directed, edited and scored Cloverfield. Oh and JJ clearly said that stuff about Lock and the show's "lost" direction. If you say the other guy did too I will take your word for it, but so did JJ.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:07 a.m. CST

    Its sad

    by kwisatzhaderach

    to see so many fans tricked by fast cutting and flashy visuals. Trek was always about character and writing. Two things that will not be on display next summer.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Pretentious Asshole with Huge Ego Takes on Property


    That He wasn't into to Increase the Strength of his Namesake... Fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gotta love it. Trek Fans are going to be as burned by this as Halloween fans were with Rob Zombies entry. I feel you pain guys. <P> Ego's Suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Star wars AND Star Trek????????

    by u.k. star

    Every so often you meet some guy who proclaims that you can't love Star Wars AND Star Trek??? You like / love one or the other. Online you seem to read that 2 or 3 times a day. Who are these people. None of the ones I've met face to face have ever been able to explain why their parents would beat them if they said they kinda like both. None of them explained which particuular piece of obscure law, or scripture forbids this liking of the 2. Movie wise Star Trek is burried way back in Star wars' shadow, both in terms of production values and viewership. A lifetime gross for a Star Trek movie = a decent opening weekend for a Star Wars movie. But that's no reason to say you can only love one or the other. I know plenty of people who like both, and plenty of people who love both. The only difference is it was a long time before it seemed kinda uncool to be a Star Wars fan. Sure people thought there were some geeks who took it too far but EVERYONE had seen Star Wars hadn't they? everyone liked it, didn't they? Star Trek on the other hand that was just for nerds and 40 year old virgins who lived at their parent's homes. There was a long time when it was uncool to be a Star Trek "fan", but o.k to be a Star Wars fan. Never been a law that says you can only be one or other. Unless we're saying you can only be a "fanatic" of one or the other. There's no room in the cupboards for pointy ears, Kingon heads AND lightsabres? That i can see.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:23 a.m. CST

    This isn't for traditional Trekkies

    by CrazyGnome

    This is a re-boot to catch a larger audience. If you expect anything akin to the original movies, you will be disappointed. If the masses enjoy it, then Trekkie movie attendance will not matter very much. Yes, Mr. Obvious.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Did anyone ever notice...

    by BendersShinyAss

    ... how abrams' productions just never seem to have a clean ending. <p>'lost' is literally lost. (i just don't get that show at all) <p> MI3 turned into a brady bunch good time we all love each other slow motion wave into the sunset, complete with applause (damn that film was good until the last bit) <p> and cloverfield.... let down by a sudden turn towards blair witch (if anyone sees this tape, my name is joe. my girlfriend has a metal rod skewed through her shoulder but she can still help me to my feet) CLICK, BLANK. <p> Mr abrams if you're reading this.... please ensure star trek ends with a nice rounded closure. ta.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:36 a.m. CST


    by BendersShinyAss

    that's nonsense. I love star trek AND star wars. Those one or the other types are neither star trek nor star wars fans truly in their hearts. those types find something entirely obscure with both franchises. <p> upon your discovery that goldsmith and horner both interchanged their films..... well.... Goldsmith made the call. Horner was doing his daughter.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:45 a.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    You say "to see so many fans tricked by fast cutting and flashy visuals. Trek was always about character and writing. " Again as you haven't SEEn the movie you cannot know this, you can suspect it sure, but you can't Know. Movies are NOT tv hows. Seems obvious, but the typical Star Trek movie review has something along the lines of "feels like an extended tv episode" in it somewhere. Sorry to dissapoint you but a movie of this type needs the character and writing BUT it cannot survive without the "flash" as well. The show was about adventure as well as "the human condition" They through everythin their budget allowed at the tv shows and movies, do you honestly believe there wouldn't be a ton of effects AS WELL as the character stuff if they'd had the budget. It's the old tv sci-fi cliche, if there's just been a massive battle and loads of effects a clip show / talkfest is due next week, or if there's just been an episode full of deep chatter, or old clips then you know a big space battle / laser - phaser fight is coming next week. I have no idea whether this movie will be stisfying mentally as well as vissually. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT, and i am NOT going to judge it on a trailer very specifically cut to tell trek apathists / haters that the "cheap" all talk little action days are over, and that this film (which the audiences assumes will have lots of character / morale dilema because it is Star Trek) will also have action, a proper budget AND inhabbit a realm somewhere close to cool. Audiences NEED to be "taken in" or Trek is Dead. If the "fans" stay away and everyoone else shows up (moviegoers not entire world pop) then there's a major blockbuster right there. Say Iron man gross levels $580m+ well take away the $150 MAX "Fan" cash and we have a healthy $430m+ gross and a happy sequel at least. (No I'm not saying that's how much it will make, or that that is the target figure, although I'm sure everyone involved would like it to make that much or more.) There's a fan base out there, Paramount hopes most of them turn out. Paramount "knows" most of them will regardless of the level of fuss kicked up. Let's face it, reading net forums you'd think Transformers was a hated failure, but the grosses in cinemas AND more importantly on DVD show that far more people liked it than didn't. The challenge there was to get women, girls and people who wouldn't be interested to go see the movie. They succeeded. (this isn't a debate as to the quality / worth of the film itself. The 2nd transformers will tell us if having captured their audience they shift the story more in favour of the transformers to please those who felt cheated(?) or do more of the same.) Once again, reaction from people I know and from reading posts on various sites has been mostly positve from the non Trek audience. That's what is needed here. Let's hope the film is, if not perfect, theen FUN with a good stab at being Trek, but on a movie scale. In other words with the promise of a better sequel, and ALL fans (not just trekkies(ers) WANTING that sequel.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Star trek was in star wars shadow??

    by BendersShinyAss

    Wow. that's so wrong. Star Trek came out in the 60's. Lucas watched it before he made star wars. His whole speal about actually ripping flash gordon? bullshit. <p> in fact, Lucas himself reveals himself by laying claim that the transporter is just a filmmakers device to get them to another location. but he himself couldn't use such a device. but he did slip in that ships in the star wars universe have cloaking devises - although one was never seen. <p> he had light speed and hyperdrive. Well.... warpdrive and warp speed is a LOT faster than light speed. Yet it takes 70 years to cross a galaxy via warp. Lucas claims you can be on the other side of the galaxy "by now" ..... star wars always faultered a little with the science which star trek had absolutey down and tight! <p> it breaks down to this - Star wars was funded in part due to the prospect of a space film, like star trek only action and fantasy. Star trek was re-booted because star wars was such a massive hit. star wars couldn't go the distance, somewhat exausted by it's third film. star trek endured for 6 films, 2 more tv shows. 4 more films and another 2 tv shows. <p> i sound like a star wars hater. far from it

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:50 a.m. CST

    they through??

    by u.k. star

    Yikes that's some bad spelling. They Threw....... apologies for any other, headache inspired, errors.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:08 a.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    I'mm not trying to turn this into a personal argument or anything so please take this as intended. You seem to have both misread AND / or misinterpreted what I wrote. I said "Movie wise Star Trek is burried way back in Star wars' shadow, both in terms of production values and viewership." MOVIE WISE. So the fact that Trek was on TV before Star Wars is not rellevent. I also make it clear that I'm mainly refering to the money spent on making the films (motion picture excepted) aND the viewiing figures / grosses. There is no contest between Wars & Trek when it comes to box office, especially when it comes to international box office. No contest at all. You also kinda missinterpret what "shadow" means. It's simply a case which is bigger or more successfull. My English friends will know what I mean when i say that Everton fc are often referred to as being in Liverpool's shadow. Despite being the 4th most succcessfull Football club in England AND being an older club. This because Liverpool are the number ONE most successful Football club in England. Star Trek may have been 1st, and may be big but in movies Star wars is bigger.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:09 a.m. CST

    My Advice Lighten Up!

    by Real Deal

    Yes you're going to get it wither you want it or not! To all of the Star Trek fans quit being so jaded and stuck in a rut about this. Go see the movie and give it a chance. It might be a little different but over forty years have past so I would expect that. To all the people who hate Star Trek well you don't have to watch it so put a sock in it. I'm going to give this a chance. It loos good to me and I welcome as a long time trekker some changes or reboot because at this point I feel it's necessary.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:15 a.m. CST

    "Spock going back in time rearranges the timeline...

    by Kid Z

    ... and Kirk is alive when he returns. The final scene is between Old Kirk and Old Spock. The final scene is between Old Kirk and Old Spock. And then they share a deep, soulful kiss as they tear off each other's clothing. A long-delayed, elderly gay-porn scene ensues.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Wait now...

    by jackofhearts29

    These retards are in the MOVIE INDUSTRY (I know, no guarantee of brains there) and they had never heard that there had been OTHER Trek movies? Or do I hear the siren song of BULLSHIT coming from JJ and his minions?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:18 a.m. CST

    uk star

    by BendersShinyAss

    heh.... you're absolutely right. I wondewr how the weekedn gross would do if it was an original cast film that was coming out. star trek and star wars are just different entities. thus the true loyal fan base of either is what must be looked at. how many people saw clone wars? how many people saw enterprise? <p> talley ho old chap. watch those prats the liverpools

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:24 a.m. CST

    This movie will mark the Second Coming

    by Sithdan

    This is the movie that's going to define 2009! Fuck the Watchmen, J.J. knows what he's doing. After all, he produces the greatest drama in the history of television.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:29 a.m. CST

    "One ticket for Star Trek please?"

    by Major Hockshtetter

    That's what every windbag on this talkback is going to be saying come opening weekend and you all know it. This typhoon of grousing is deafening. And I say "One for...." because I can't believe you jagbags have loved ones that would actually be seen in public with ya'z all.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:41 a.m. CST

    How Do You Get The Heads Up On Screenings?

    by cowboyone

    I'm in NY and would LOVE to attend.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Of course on the other hand...

    by jackofhearts29

    ...not having heard of or seen 75% of the Trek movies could actually be considered a positive sign. Hey, a typhoon of grousing is what we come here for!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:44 a.m. CST

    Cone wars & Nemesis = $67m

    by u.k. star

    They both made about the same amount worldwide, which is not an awful lot. But as Clone Wars was an extended tv episode made to advertise a tv show and a ridiculous amount of toys I guess it claims a moral victory over a film that made the lowest amount for any Trek movie and led us to this new movie.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9 a.m. CST

    Best trailer I've seen for a space adventure in years

    by Jodet

    This movie is going to be fantastic....

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9 a.m. CST

    Best trailer I've seen for a space adventure in years

    by Jodet

    This movie is going to be fantastic....

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:01 a.m. CST

    LoquaciousMuse may be a perfectly nice young lady

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    but her review was clearly not written for the demographic on this site. <p> Referencing Felicity, admitting ignorance on the source material, and perpetually using phrases like "gave me goosebumps" and "this movie is going to rock" makes it hard for me to connect with her and her enthusiasm for this film--and further flames my fears that JJ and the suits sacrified quality to appease a larger demographic. <p> I understand this is a money making game, but it's foolish to try to attract a hoard of short-term fans who will eventually redirect their interests on a whimsy, while alienating a still-significant portion of loyal fans who still spend an insane amount of money anything related to the franchise...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:07 a.m. CST

    And I'm still pissed they shut down the Trek Experience

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    in Las Vegas. I fucking loved going to Quark's Bar.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:10 a.m. CST


    by Geekgasm

    that was just nauseating in its flagrant cocksuckery. "I forgot how AWESOME j.j. is!" Twelve year old girl much?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:14 a.m. CST

    what about the music

    by oscarmike

    any word on that

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:16 a.m. CST

    The only thing better than watching the trailer

    by Marillion

    is watching all the fan boys beat the shit out of each other arguing about it. <p> As for me? I love it and can't wait...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Notice The Elevator At Shipyard? Kirk Alive?

    by BojTrek

    Hey anyone notice at 55-57 seconds, on the left of Kirk it seems the elevator shaft graphics move away from the elevator. At first I thought it was supposed to be camera glare. What is it? A screw up? And I honestly feel that Shatner will be in the movie. This is the way to bring him back, a timelime change. I feel it is all push to get people to be so surprised when they see him.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Here's one explanation for everything

    by MasterShake

    Future Spock sees that his TOS era's Kirk wouldn't survive an attack by future Romulans, therefore he travels back in time to 20 or so years prior to the attack and leaks future tech to the Federation whichs it incorporates into the Enterpise, therefore explaining the newer high tech look. Future Spocks interference can explain any deviations from the TOS timeline.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Was at the screening last night, too...

    by MortGuffman

    ...and loved (for the most part) what I saw. Bear in mind that I have no idea how these scenes fit into the overall movie, but it looks great. And each character seems to have a purpose - ie, they don't just throw Sulu, Chekov and Uhura in there just to have them in there. I was disappointed there was no Q&A session, because I wanted to ask Abrams how he feels about the critics on the internet slamming this having only seen very little about it, and if his obsession with secrecy was fueled by his experience with the Superman script. And I came up with that question before I even knew Harry was going to be there! Would've been interesting....

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Oh, my favorite line?

    by MortGuffman

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Oh, my favorite line?

    by MortGuffman

    "Kirk to Enterprise." To me, that was like Daniel Craig saying "The name's Bond. James Bond" at the end of "Casino Royale."

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Mummy 3-$102,277,510; Indy 4-$317,023,851

    by conspiracy

    This clearly shows that even though JJ, Orci and crew are overrated and that this movie WILL suck hard and swallow, as does everything they touch...there is a market for Bad Movies with a known name, a rudimentary story, and loaded with pretty colored, silly CGI. Mouth breathers, Mt. Dew Swillers, WB watchers, Twilight readers, and those whom miss the The O.C. rejoice.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:35 a.m. CST

    re: Shut the Fuck up Donny & Geekgasm

    by loquaciousmuse

    You guys are right, I am a young girl who only watched TNG as a kid, but never the original series. I only sent in this write up because I am a huge fangirl who checks this site multiple times a day, but I've never really watched enough Star Trek to consider myself a Trekker/Trekkie. So if I was checking this site, I would want to know how the film looks to both someone who is a diehard Star Trek lover and how it looks to someone who isn't. As an obsessive Watchmen fan, I'm DYING to know how that movie is gonna play to fans and non-fans alike. I saw 25 minutes of Watchmen also, and loved it, but I have NO IDEA how someone who isn't obsessed with the source material would feel. I can only hope they love it as much as I do so that the movie will do well and get a whole new group of people to read the graphic novel. So, just for the record, I readily admit that I am a young girl who doesn't know anything about Star Trek and isn't a very good writer, but I sent in the write up to provide that very perspective. This movie is going to have the 18-24 non Trek fan crowd, it will. Now I'm looking forward to what Harry has to say, to see if it'll get the hardcore Trek fans to come opening weekend as well. I've thought since the beginning that JJ wasn't catering enough to the true fans, but I hope he proves me wrong. The movie looks so good, I would hate for Trek fans to be disappointed.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:43 a.m. CST

    JJ Abrams is a garden gnome but he's AWESOME!!!!!

    by Wonderthump

    AWESOME! AWESOME! AWESOME! Just had to get that out there. AWESOME!! AWESOME!!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Continuity/Cannon in Star Trek is dead...

    by Leafar the Lost

    ...and that is a good thing. Forget everything that you known. Its all been blown to hell. There is no such thing as canon in Star Trek. JJ Abrams decided to just try and make a good movie that everyone would like. He wasn't a Star Trek fan, because a true fan would fuck it up, just like Rick Berman did. I still hate him.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Star Trek

    by mach6

    I don't think it's fair to label everyone who wishes to see the new Trek movie adhere to the source material a "Trekkie", or criticize them for being unwilling to inject the series with fresh blood. I'd love to see this new attempt at Star Trek succeed, but from what I've seen so far, it looks like pandering to the tween crowd with its pretty faces, fast edits, shiny CGI, and banal dialogue. <br> <br> Frankly, I don't see how you can nearly completely abandon the source material, and still call this "Star Trek". For me, it isn't about being a fanboy, or critical of new ideas, but about the fact that Star Trek is an American cinematic and cultural icon--one does not need to be a rabid fan to recognize the impact of Star Trek on American culture. Why do basic elements need to be changed? Just for change's sake? For example, why does the Enterprise need to be built on the ground in Kansas? Does sticking to the source material for something as basic as this really prevent Abrams from taking Star Trek in a new direction, or is screwing around with the basic foundation of the world Gene Roddenberry created the the best Abrams can do in this regard? <br> <br> I would love to see a Trek movie about Kirk's youth, but this movie is shaping up to be an attempt at re-writing the history of Star Trek for no other reason than simple lack of creativity. IMO, you can change the actors, but you can't change the *characters*, and have it still be Star Trek; if Abrams is going to change the fundamental characteristics and history of the characters and events that Gene Roddenberry created, then this isn't Star Trek--it's a J.J. Abram's production based on Gene Roddenberry's 'Star Trek', and from what I've seen so far, it falls far from the mark.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:54 a.m. CST

    LoquaciousMuse, I didn't mean to come off as insulting,

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    Your writing was fine and your perspective is greatly appreciated. I just have my biases which generally make me skeptical. I find that many forms of entertainment that tend to seek (and draw) attention from younger females (who admittedly are considered one of the most lucrative markets in the entertainment industry) tend to dissatisfy me. Therefore, upon reading your review, my "nerd alarm" went off. <p> It is interesting to know how much JJ and Co. are playing to demographics other than the traditional ones associated with Star Trek. But, whether that makes it a LONG-TERM success for the franchise remains to be seen.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Optimus Prime Directive

    by bobjustbob

    What I'm hoping for is a good story, told well. A story that feels like it belongs in the Star Trek universe. I'm a casual Trek fan (enjoyed movies I, II and VI, don't care for the others, never followed any of the series other than TOS) so canon violations are something I'm not too concerned with. I'm even ok with some liberties with set/ship design.<p> What does concern me is the track record of those involved with making this movie. I disliked everything I've seen from them (THE ISLAND, TRANSFOMERS, MI:3, CLOVERFIELD.) And what I'm seen from the trailer (Peeping Tom-Tiberius, 'vette chase, bike-ride-after-getting-beat-up-in-a bar-hero-moment) and have read about from the screenings make me think that we're going to get more of the same from K&O&A. I have a feeling that those who enjoyed TRANSFOMERS will enjoy this film and those who didn’t enjoy TRANSFORMERS won’t.<p> I remain hopeful but still a skeptic…<p> As always, IMO and YMMV.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Easy there, fellas...

    by Bot-Bot

    Yeah, go ahead and hate based on snippets of reviews and a 2-minute trailer. I'm amazed that many presume that a 1960's TV show should be made into an epic masterpiece directed by a Kubrick-like visionary director with breathtaking literary writing and oscar-worthy performances. No one in Hollywood would ever live up to the yearnings of Trek fans it seems. I believe that the crew assembled to make this film is one of the finest in the film industry. It's probably the best you can do. Remember, Hollywood is a bank - they expect return when pouring millions into this franchise, so they're not going to give it to an art-house guy. Imagine sitting in a meeting making the decisions to reboot this franchise. Seriously, could you? Imagine how many different ideas were thrown around - probably thousands. Then imagine hiring an art department with hundreds of new creative ideas thrown into the mix. By the time filming starts over 1000 people are involved in making a movie of this scale. It's one huge well-oiled manufacturing process, and that's the reality of blockbuster filmmaking. It's a miracle that some great movies get made this way, and I think this film will pass the test. Think realistically when imagining your fantasy Star Trek movie.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Can you review a movie off a trailer?

    by CrazyGnome

    Can you tell its creative direction? How long does this film actually run? So % of it have we actually seen? I will buy a ticket because I will pay $10+ even if I just enjoy the bucket of popcorn. :) I will hope it does well thou. Geesh, there are a lot of "re-boots" lately.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Did I just read that Sulu fences in the film?

    by HoboCode

    Ummm...ok. Not so sure about that.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST

    mach 6

    by 420 Boylston St

    Thank you for expressing something a lot of the JJ nut suckers refuse to understand. There is nothing I'm seeing in this film which honors Star Trek or respect the work was done which spawn a phenomenon and our culture. The fact that Abrams isn't putting anything on the table makes this film a mindless summer teeny bopper romp of shit which insults the minds of the audience it's attempting to please. Hey, the teenyboppers are less sophisticated than the bunch when Die Hard, Aliens, and Terminator even Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan or ST VI: The Undiscovered Country was around. These idiots can't seem to understand they deserve some original and entertaining material not remake tv fodder! WAKE THE FUCK UP, Teeny bopper and JJ NUT SUCKERS! YOU DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Three franchises that NEEDED a fresh injection of blood:

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    Star Trek, James Bond and Godzilla. All three of those franchises had gotten stale by blindly repeating a tired formula under the guise of tradition. People are generally afriad of change so all three were attacked when they were given the reboot treatment with all new concepts. Look at "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace", "Godzilla: Final Wars" and this trailer. Is a shot of life worse than a slow death?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:56 a.m. CST

    re: hobocode & 420

    by loquaciousmuse

    Doesn't Sulu fence in the original show? I don't know much, but a Star Trek fan DID mention that to me when I asked why Sulu was fencing in the scene I saw. And to mach 6, 420 & others, I'm interested in what you guys will think after reading what Harry writes. Because while I'm young and female and yes was a die hard teeny bopper as a tween, I think I'm slightly more intelligent than that now. I am not a fan of Transformers or anything of that ilk and think this hoopla over Twilight is pretty hilarious. And while I do think Star Trek is somewhat catering to that young crowd, I wouldn't give up hope on it yet. What I really wanna know is what people familiar with the original series would want out of this movie and what it would need to stand a chance playing well to the original fans. I feel like I have a pretty good bullshit meter and while it's obvious the 18-24 demographic is gonna love this film, I'd like to think there was more to what I saw than simply catering to the most lucrative market. There was heart, wit & well developed characters in what I saw, on top of the fun, the cool fx & the action. And it just made me put the Wrath of Khan on the top of my netflix queue. Who's to say it won't cause a whole new generation to do that very same thing?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:03 a.m. CST

    420 Boylston St

    by mach6

    I agree with you. While I'll reserve final judgment for when the film is released, there's nothing in the trailer to suggest the level of intelligence or wit that Star Trek franchise deserves, or any original ideas, for that matter. Time travel, bar fights, reckless-youth-saddled-with-responsibility-learns-the-errors-of-his-ways, explosions, angst, more explosions--nothing new here but tired cliche`s from a director who inexplicably seems to take pride in not knowing or caring about iconic Star Trek history.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST

    So how did this guy deserve to see this???!?!

    by BlueMeenie

    "Even though I don't really know what they were like on the original show, they seemed great to me." How old are you twelve?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:17 a.m. CST


    by bma2192

    there are a LOT of pointless comments on here today...mostly about bashing other commenters instead of talking about the film... ok, I'll bash my OWN comment! Im game! I better not express my opinion or else Im gonna tell me off too! Thats right-- I said it! Dude, I SO got me so GOOD! I'll never have a comeback for me to get me back from THAT! heh heh! Trekster!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:23 a.m. CST


    by Paul Bucciarelli

    First of all, thank you for your review and even more so for keeping a civil tongue when al of these douchebags have sniped at you. You'll quickly learn that this site attracts a lot of frustrated arrested development cases that have nothing to do with the film industry but act like insiders. There's waaaay too much information out there these days prior to a movie's release. The result is assholes like mach 6, hobocode (fencing and botany were Sulu's hobbies in the original series) and 420 Boylston street that hate everything, declare everyone a plant and prejudge movies (Watchmen and Star Trek being the two most recent examples) and casting (everyone here has a short memory because ALL OF YOU decried Heath Ledger's casting as The Joker) before they are released. And Shut The Fuck Up Donny: Nerd alert? Dude, you're one too as am when it comes to this stuff so give it a rest with the talk of demographics. For the record, I saw the original series when it was first televised and I'm looking forward to it. If it sucks, I'm out ten bucks and two hours. Big fucking deal.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Nipples on the Enterprise!

    by kravmaguffin


  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Can't wait.

    by Christopher3

    Such a huge fan. One ticket for "Star Trek" please.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:26 a.m. CST

    You don't speak for me, Gungan Slayer

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    Nor does any other TBer who believes their fanboy wisdom supersedes that of the filmmakers. Your excruciating knowledge of all things Trek is a liability, and you are not the fans you think you are. Just try, for one brief instant, to enjoy what's being offered. Seriously! Do you go to a new restaurant, look at the menu, see they have chicken and start yelling, "I'VE HAD BETTER! THIS CHICKEN WILL SUCK AND IT'S TEH GHEY!!1!!" Probably.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:27 a.m. CST

    So much to say

    by u.k. star

    So I'll stick to a few. 1st. "still-significant portion of loyal fans who still spend an insane amount of money" Of course the fans of anything being made into a movie are always significant, but that significance can be seriously overstted at times, as in that sentence above. here's the deal Nemesis - worldwide box office - $67m. 1st contatc (most successfull of recent times by far) - Worldwide box office $142m. I'm sorry For a film that is looking to cost something like $150m to make that is a good start and nothing else. It's an acceptable (global release) opening weekend. 2nd Money. Sorry but it is NOT a dirty word, and just because a film has broader appeal does NOT instantly mean it is poorer in quality. If it did then NONE of the truly successful movies would be any good. As for assuming that a trailer full of quick cuts = a movie full of quick cuts??? What?? What is wrong with quick / fast ediioing? Nothing. It's a technique, like using handheld, or steadycam or a reverse zoom or a long sweeping arc. Any filming / editing technique can be poorly used or well used. Reference Spielberg's use of the "reverse zoom" (doly zoom) in Jaws vs Emmerich's ham fisted over use of the same in Godzilla. 3rd Language. It's the presumption to speak for ALL "fans" despite the fact that several "fans" have already expressed their support for or hopes for the film. 4th. "I have a feeling that those who enjoyed TRANSFOMERS will enjoy this film and those who didn’t enjoy TRANSFORMERS won’t. " Really? if your cash was on the line here wouldn't that make you sleep soundly tonight? A guarantee that the peoplewho liked Transformers will pay to see Trek? A sequal is a cast iron cert. Contrary to appearances on some forums far more people liked / loved transformers than hated it; far more. Significantly large numbers of the kind of people that were thought would never go. The people they molded the story to attract. Whether they have the cojones to make the transformers more central next time remains to be seen. I didn't know there was some kind of i.q test given out with films that people hate. Some way of knowing that everyone who likes a certain film, or type of film is an idiot, or has no sense of what a good film is. It's like some people have forgotten the film and movie thing. Raiders of the lost Ark is one of the best "movies" around. the Godfather part 2 (or 1) is one of the best "Films" around. Both well written, and directed and acted, but in tiotally different ways. For most people transformers was fun. They don't think it's Oscar material in terms of script and so on ( I assume) but they think it's fun, funny, exciting good to watch. It reminds me of Fraisier. The way him and his brother were so into fine cuisine and wine etc that they couldn't realise that sometimes the best, most delicious thing you can eat is a hamburger, or chips. Everyoone must have at least one film that they know is technically awful, that they just love, maybe because when they were a kid they loved it and now it's kinda embarassing but they still like it. Oh That thing that uses the Mummy and Indiana Jones as examples that "there is a market for Bad Movies with a known name".. should remember that those films had BIG Shoulders to stand on to reach their grosses. Star Trek, as shown numerous times) does not have that guaranteed movie audience. at it's, recent, best it'd be lucky to get to $100m US based on "fans" of previous movies alone. How hard is it to accept that the 1st real trailer for a ne Trek movie HAS to appeal to the people who would normally start txting on their mobiles, or having a final pre-movie conversation the second they realise the trailer is for another Star Trek movie (yawn another double tv episode on the big screen, with 3 effects scenes squeezed out of the budget.) The trailer HAS to attract the others, don't assume from this trailer that the usual Trek stuff has to be missing. Especially when mos of the people who've seen more of the movie insists that it IS there. Oh and I'm loving the Irony of using Aliens (sequel), Wrath of Khan (sequel) and Termiator (sued for "being based on another story"). I do get what you were trying to say though. We'reresorting to moaning about Sulu fencing now? (which he was a fan of in TOS and one of the still shots you get during the closing crdits is of him with a rapier, lord save me I can't believe I remember that I'll have to beat myself up for being a nerd now!) Talk about desperate to have a go But what do I know I like Star Trek AND Star Wars, I own several films by Kurosawa, Ford, Capra, Miyazaki, Scorsese, Hitchcock and others that I consider greats or giants of cinema, but I'm also able to own more than one Michael Bay film (no not the Island or *shudders* Pearl harbour, and think Superman Returns is both dull and illogical in the extreme. Oh I also like Shrek which apparently makes me some kind of heinous sell out who doesn't deserve to be allowed to watch pixar movies. (Whisper quietly, but a Bugs life is not that good even though the rest of their movies are mostly near perfection).

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Looks like an action film

    by matineer

    from the trailer. I didn't a Trek vibe from it. Very generic. Well done, but generic. Greenwood looked good. Not sure about the others. Kirk and Spock look very young. And Star Wars did SW as good as that will be done. Case in point; Lucas' Wampa at least looked like it could survive in snow and ice; that pink horror monster in the trailer looks like something from the 60's Gold Key Trek comic (which could be fun). The kids might like it. I am not inclined to go at this point. But if I get a movie pass as a gift. Maybe.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Sounds worse than ever

    by Dick Bahls

    After reading this joker's reveiw, who doesn't know anything about the original series, I will most definitely not be seeing this turd. Anyone I've spoken with who has even half a brain has said this looks like crap. They're trying to spin this big time. This is next year's "Speed Racer" for sure. They are getting desperate now, showing these particular scenes to try to drum up excitement for this "Starship Poopers" with the Star Trek name attached to it. They know this has a good shot of being the big failure of 2009 that everyone will be joking about.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:50 a.m. CST


    by Paul Bucciarelli

    Your Elvis/Beatles comparsion is ridiculous. I know tons of people, myself included, that love both. What did Ringo say when he was asked if he was a mod or a rocker? Class? Anyone?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, noon CST

    tribute to the original crew

    by BendersShinyAss

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:11 p.m. CST


    by mach6

    As a fan of the show, I for one would love to enjoy a reboot of Star Trek, and would certainly accept character modifications and liberties taken with cannon if it were intelligently written, and contained a single original idea. Unfortunately, Abrams doesn't seem to care about the franchise beyond his paycheck and back-end residuals, and the movie itself seems to be aimed squarely at the 'Tween imbecile market--the demographic that thinks character development, plot, and intelligent exposition are just the dull parts that they have to suffer through 'til the next round of explosions. <br> <br> I don't need to try and enjoy what's being offered when what is being offered insults my intelligence.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:16 p.m. CST

    "The next scene involves Bones sneaking Kirk onto the Enterprise

    by Royston Lodge

    ...and Kirk says, "your bra bomb had better work, Nerdlinger!" Another great scene.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Even though Harry Knowles humped...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...things as utterly detestable as The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, the new Indie movie, Transformers, Barack Liberalinsane Obama and even the third Matrix film...<p>...he also married and humped (...or humped and then married...?) his drop-dead gorgeous and beautiful Yoko. Maybe there is hope to some of his reviews? </p> Then again, Yoko could just be using the big guy for the fame and small fortune (just like George Lucas, Michael Bay, Barack Obama, et al uses their friends in the media for their purposes)? Anyway, I am hoping for the best...but preparing to be let down. If this film is good -- then I will be in for one helluva treat! If it is bad, I will NEVER again listen to Harry Knowles' selective opinion...ever. And I will realize that Yoko wanted him for a reason other than his personality or good looks. (Just kidding, Harry).

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:03 p.m. CST

    by u.k. star

    I've said this on Sunday, yesterday and today. I'll let the director himself say it this time. Courtesy of Empire online.... "Trek is something that some people might expect to be a kind of low energy experience. I'm hoping people who see the action here, who maybe have pre judged what Trek is, will open their eyes a little wider and say 'oh, that's not what I thought it was going to be.'" and a treatment of the world of Star Trek that I think is as intimate as the story is massive in scope. This is a treatment of Star Trek with action and comedy and romance and adventure, as opposed to a rather talky geekfest." Until I've SEEN the film, and found out otherwise I'll refrain from calling this a "turd" and so on. I can't think of a film, not the Lord of the Rings movies, not, the Matrix, X-Men (1 or 2), any of the Spidermen, Gladiator, Man on Fire - Dark Knight, Iron Man ANY film / movie you care to mention that has been released in the 10 years (roughly) that I've been a member here that hasn't been bashed, before during and after it's release. That wasn't going to suck / blow / bomb or whatever. That didn't have poor casting (x-men!) bad costume choices, was an act of blasphemy to it's source. blah blah blah. it reminds me of the tag from 12 monkeys... (re predicting the end of the world) it only takes one to be right. If you cry foul, plant, this will suck often enough, you'll be right a certain % of the time eh? This movie may suck, it may "rock", it will likely fall somewhere inbetwen with most movies. Nothing, Nothing about a tailored 2 minute trailer can give people a fully rounded idea of the movie as a whole. Case in point, trying to critque a "monster" for its ability to survive or not in an enviroment that we have no idea it acually lives in, comes from or has ever even seen before because there's no ccontext. Let alone taking into account the fact that we haven't even seen the whole monster so who knows what the whole thing looks like weather wise. Ditto the "peeping Tom" scene. Why is Kirk there in the 1st place? Don't know do ya? So all you know is he happens to find himself hiding where Uhura is getting undressed and takes a peek. Given that he's undressed it's pretty obvious that he's been caught unawares and is hiding, rather than sneaking around the ship trying to spy on th sexy ladies. Of course I don't Know. Why are so many people obsessed with this idea that Kirk never grew up, he was just kinda hatched at 27 a ready made hero? Or worse somehow born a hero and was practicaly perfect in every way from the day he said his 1st words. "Honour, truth & Justice for all!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:15 p.m. CST

    BTW, For All of the "Dawson's Trek" Comments...

    by MortGuffman

    ...only two cast members (Chris Pine, age 28, and Anton Yelchin, age 19) are under the age of 30. Cho and Urban are 36, Quinto is 31 and Seldana is 30.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:17 p.m. CST

    The dumbing down of Star Trek

    by mach6

    I'll say it once again: It isn't the treatment of 'action, comedy, romance and adventure' that I object to. All the incarnations of Star Trek had their share of these qualities. I don't even object to moving away from the continuity a bit, if it serves the story. But making change for change's sake more often than not underscores the fact that the writers couldn't come up with anything new or interesting. So far, Abram's Star Trek is shaping up to be one used-up cliche` after another. <br> <br> No, what I object to about what I've seen so from from this movie is the dumbing down of the high concepts that made Star Trek unique, in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator: people who think that sex, teen angst, and explosions are the epitome of modern cinema.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Star Trek never was that smart...

    by blackmantis

    In fact, the reason the original pilot "The Cage" was rejected was because it was too cerebral, so Roddenberry had to 'dumb it down' for mass consumption. And as science fiction, Star Trek is incredibly dated. Our real future will most likely look nothing like Star Trek. There is the very real possibility that by the 23rd century, human beings as we know them now will not exist. I like Trek, but it's fantasy, and to call it high-brow is an insult to brows.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Dumbing down????

    by u.k. star

    Sorry but what you say is just elitest. As mentioned above Trek was "Dumbed down" in order to survive. It was done in a clever way. Why do you assume that it can't be done in a clever way. Where is the "change for changes sake" you mention. I haven't seen it? You may assume schanges are made for the hell of t, but any changes I've seen seem to have a good reason, Or would expect to see why in the movie. Have you seen the movie to KNOW there are changes for changes sake? Please list them.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:42 p.m. CST



    Filmmaker Joseph 'McG' McGinty Nichol has been named Filmmaker of the Year by the heads of the CineAsia movie convention. <P> The Charlie's Angels director will pick up his prize at an awards ceremony in Macau on 11 December.<P> McG's latest movie, Terminator: Salvation, starring Christian Bale, is due for release in May 2009. <P>

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:50 p.m. CST

    its true you CAN'T love STAR TREK AND WARS....


    You can enjoy both of them, sure. But you only have room in your heart to truly LOVE one of the two.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Time travel...

    by Darth Macchio

    ...should only be used in Trek to have Kirk (Shattner) and Spock (Nimoy) go back in time and beat the shit out of this Pine-Kirk and Quinto-Spock people. Nothing like watching Nimoy-Spock toss Pegg-Scotty across the bridge while Shattner-Kirk knocks tooth after tooth out of Pine-Kirk's mouth. Shattner-Kirk then takes a particular glee pummeling Cho-Sulu into a broken pile of angst and Nimoy-Spock heartpunches Urban-Bones giving him that awesome dislocated shoulder-blade like in 'Jet Li's Fearless' which then shuts down Urban-Bones for good. And then, after thoroughly beating the remaining crew into submission, they whistle the TOS theme while setting self destruct on the JJ-Enterprise and then make a quick stop by JJ's office along with time-travel-rejuvenated Montalban-Kahn and proceed to remove each of JJ's teeth with a pair of eyebrow clippers dipped in a glass of the late Doohan-Scotty's urine.<p>Now that's a new Star Trek I'd wanna see!!!<p>.<p>.<p>All kidding aside I actually do hope this is me some good Trek! And for chrisssakes...reference DS9 for Trek hotties...or even TOS or Enterprise but stay far away from TNG. We don't need any weird looking blocky bodied creepy women who can barely act. And I love readheads!?! Thanks, cheers!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:07 p.m. CST

    For Blackmantis and u.k. star

    by mach6

    Blackmantis writes: "In fact, the reason the original pilot "The Cage" was rejected was because it was too cerebral, so Roddenberry had to 'dumb it down' for mass consumption". And yet despite this, much of what was "The Cage" was rolled over into the episode "The Menagerie", which ranks as one of the most popular and celebrated episodes of TOS, along with such cerebral offerings of "City on the Edge of Forever", and both were awarded the Hugo Award for best dramatic presentation. Star Trek was at its best when it was tackling political, cultural, and moral issues; to ignore this aspect of Star Trek in favor of mindless action and sexual gratification is indeed dumbing down the franchise. <br> <br> u.k. star asks, "Where is the "change for changes sake" you mention?" For starters, it appears that the Enterprise is inexplicably being built in what seems to be the middle of a corn field in Iowa, rather than in the famed San Francisco shipyards. There's no rational reason for making this change, except to "inspire" the young and troubled Kirk. Having the main characters serve together on the Enterprise as junior officers under Pike, for no other reason than to have them "come together" at the end to form the group we now know as the crew of the Enterprise. Weak.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:27 p.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    Not true at all I'm afraid. I know many people who loe both. Now if you'ree talking costume wearing, Klingon Speaking, Life sized StormTropper outfit fanaticism. maybe only 1 at a time, other than that I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. Oh when I was talking about being elitest before I meant things like sex, teen angst and explosions being things that cannot be in either a good movie or a great film. Several of the best movies have at least 2 of the 3, as well as many episodes of Trek. The usual problem in fact is that the budget constraints meant the balance was often askew as the (HORROR) "explosions" / action had to be cut down. See the trailer for 1st contact and how much action that suggests is in the film compared to the reality. See the entire final 1/3 and plenty of the 1st 2/3 of Casino royale's trailers and you'd think it was action packed, whereas much of the action in the film is IN the trailers! You can't judge from a trailer alone, and the idea that we re never allowed to see teen angst in a movie, let alone sex (it aint porn for God's sake) because it's perceived as dumbing down is laughable. I mean they were in uproar about that from the beginning of Pyscho. An unmarried couple, in the bedroom? in a state of "undress", Hitchcock is just dumbing down, (Choose equivilent term from over 40 years ago please), Cinema! The gratuitous vilonce of the dollars trilogy, with actual links between gunfire and the "victim" being shot! Terrible dumbing down of westerns! I am not for a second saying this will hit the heights of those classic movies (no doubt made by hacks) but a does of reality is needed here. See the film, then complain if needs be surely? The man has said "vthe world of Star Trek that I think is as intimate as the story is massive in scope". You're calling him liar because?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:29 p.m. CST


    by Wonderthump


  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:44 p.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by mach6

    I'll agree that one cannot judge a film by its previews--several examples come to mind. I remember the trailer for "Groundhog Day" looked completely insipid, and I was dragged against my will to see the movie. I now count it as one of my all-time favorites. Conversely, the trailer for Episode 1 had me drooling for weeks about what an awesome film it was going to be, and it took every ounce of will power to keep from walking out of the theater. <br> <br> As I said before, I'll reserve final judgement after seeing the film, but I have to admit that as yet, I'm not at all excited to see it. Nothing about this film, from the director, writers, cast, and plot, has increased my interest in the project beyond mere curiosity. From the trailer, It *looks* amazing, but given the apparent and often inexplicable divergence from the continuity of all we know of the universe that Gene Roddenberry created, it just won't sit well with long time fans like myself. I don't know who Abrams is making this film for, but it certainly isn't for people familiar with the franchise.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Spock's insignia inexplicably moves to the right in choking scen

    by riskebiz

    I watched the trailer and was incredulous that no one on set noticed that when filming the scene where Spock is choking Kirk that his insignia moves from the left to the right side of his uniform. WHO DOESN'T NOTICE THAT?!?! What a basic thing. Continuity editor ought to be fired.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:51 p.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    Well that isn't change for changes sake then is it? There's a pretty good reason right there. There are a few to pick from. From a movie point of view it grounds the whole thing. Makes it seem like it isn't too far away. a science point of view. If you can lift a superstructer into space with virtually no effort (anti gravity structual integrety and all that techno jazz) then surely it is safer to build the damn thing on a planet , in an atmosphere where people are not at risk of a ripped space suit and a horrible vacuum death? Famed shipyards? from TOS? Really? That's so important to you, rather than something that makes the whole thing seem more "real" more grounded? Was that the shipyard in the Motion Picture, where the refit was being done? Did that refit honestly look viable. Surley the only part of the original that could possibly still be there is the belly section. the disc, the nacelles the pylons the rest of it is all new. Refit my arse. Klingon heads anyone? changed just because they can afford the make up now? Checkov and Khan? Dude the list is probably endless. Having them all run itno each other? Because that's too hard for you to swallow? Even though the plot, you haven't read, and the film you haven't seen are clearly leading to them being manipulated together by the "time travel" storyline. that's so hard to get. Apart from anything else as captain of the ship you had to think he chose SOME of his crew, is it so hard for you to believe he may have met SOME of them before the tv show began? Anyway, neither of those is change for change's sake. Both germaine to the plot of film even from what's been released / said so far, let alone the from the film we have NOT even seen.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Please be good please be good

    by WaitingforAvengers

    I see everything that could go wrong, but I'm choosing to ignore it...I REALLY want a good Trek movie.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:18 p.m. CST



    There is probably a shot in between that jumps the 180 degree line to a different reverse of Kirk-- they skipped that and mashed the two singles of Spock together which would look funny jumping from one side of the line to the other, so instead they flopped one of the shots, which fucked up the continuity of the insignia but probably won't be like that in the film.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:25 p.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by mach6 writes, "Well that isn't change for changes sake then is it? There's a pretty good reason right there. There are a few to pick from. From a movie point of view it grounds the whole thing. Makes it seem like it isn't too far away." <br> <br> That's the problem. Rather take the existing framework, and build an interesting story around it, they've simply started with their own story, then attempt to shoehorn in the details, continuity or logic be damned. <br> <br> continues: "If you can lift a superstructer into space with virtually no effort (anti gravity structual integrety and all that techno jazz) then surely it is safer to build the damn thing on a planet , in an atmosphere where people are not at risk of a ripped space suit and a horrible vacuum death?" <br> <br> Well, if we're going to exist in a universe where there are anti-gravity and structural integrity systems, then it seems to me that the risk to construction crews would have been mitigated. For the record, I don't have a problem with them constructing it on earth, but it makes more sense to assemble it in space, much like we already do with the International Space Station. <br> <br> continues: "Famed shipyards? from TOS? Really? That's so important to you, rather than something that makes the whole thing seem more "real" more grounded?" <br> <br> Um, no--the famed Naval shipyards in San Francisco, where the best U.S. Navy vessels have been built since 1870. The whole point of having the U.S.S. Enterprise built there *was* to ground it in reality. <br> <br> concludes: "Having them all run itno each other? Because that's too hard for you to swallow? Even though the plot, you haven't read, and the film you haven't seen are clearly leading to them being manipulated together by the "time travel" storyline. that's so hard to get. Apart from anything else as captain of the ship you had to think he chose SOME of his crew, is it so hard for you to believe he may have met SOME of them before the tv show began? Anyway, neither of those is change for change's sake. Both germaine to the plot of film even from what's been released / said so far, let alone the from the film we have NOT even seen." <br> <br> I hope you're right, and the changes being made are part of a larger plot in which the time line is being / has been disrupted, but I won't hold my breath. From all accounts, Abrams is trying to re-invent the franchise at the expense of everything that came before. There's no reason at all why Abrams cannot do this reboot, stick to the established continuity framework, and make it exciting as well as intelligent.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:28 p.m. CST

    This is horrible...

    by NeonKnite70

    This will once and for all end the series.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:35 p.m. CST

    99% of TB'ers on this TB are...

    by CaptainBass

    CUNTS! I cannot believe the hate this flick is getting! I'm a big Trek fan, but not a convention-going-cornish-pasty-forehead-wearing geek about it! I've watched TOS, TNG, DS9 & Voyager but only about 4 episodes of Enterprise because it was just too painful (especially that Russell Watson intro song - who's bright idea was that?) and all the movies. Having now watched the trailer I am psyched-up to FUCK for this movie, regardless of the angsty young crew/Pegg's dodgy Scottish accent/unnecessary child Kirk! Quit your bitching about the breaks from canon, it really doesn't matter. This film is primarily for a new audience,and for the fans of the show who liked it but not to the point of obsession. Do you people actually realise how you are regarded by other, more 'normal' people? You should grow up, get a life, a girlfriend (in reality, not on the internet) and realise that change is inevitable. A reboot was going to come, if not now then sometime in the future. Trek is a lucrative property as it is, and making it more accessable means even more cash for the studio. That's what it boils down to in the end, making money. Not ensuring the happiness of some spotty sad-cases by making the same mistakes over and over again. They've done that and realised it was a big mistake. Wake the fuck up you smug wise-ass little nerds! Your opinions are meaningless to the studio and the rest of the non-sadcase population. As for the bitching about the Enterprise being built on Earth - why the hell not? Do you think that sea-going ships such as nuclear wessels (couldn't resist) are built out at sea? Sheesh! Bunch of twats, we've only seen the trailer, and you know you're all going to be there on opening night wanking to new Uhura's hot bod (probably the closest thing to sex as you'll all get) you spotty-nerdy-whining-basement-dwelling-klingon-speaking-loser-CUNTS!!!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Star Wars vs. Star Trek

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    I preferred Star Wars till the Prequels emerged, now I prefer TOS to either. Both franchises have some atrocious elements, but TOS has the benefit of characters who are good enough redeem awful material.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:38 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Don't buy it. This is a cynical concept, a film that will alienate fans who know better and casual audiences who don't. Exactly WHO is it appealing to?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:40 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Also, pot. Kettle. Black. That rant wasn't written by someone 'getting any.'

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Ha ha ha more splooge from a Harry gusher wannabe

    by kabong

    I don't want to see a movie about a semi-bumbling anything.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:48 p.m. CST

    This is the problem

    by comicgeekoidtoo

    For the record, I have no problem with the general concept, the actors, the vibe anything. I have a general problem with JJ as a filmmaker. Everything he does, he seems more concerned with how things play in the trailer than they do in the film. So often watching his films or TV, which I find mildly entertaining, I see scenes from the trailer and they feel off, like they were stuck in there, whether its MI III or Cloverfield, solely for the cool factor rather than being an interesting and intrinsic part of the story. For example, having the Enterprise built on Earth ONLY because its cool, not because building a ship of that size on the ground would make any sense. Its not that it bugs me overmuch, its just that hios work never hangs together well as a unified whole because of thinking like that, everything seems to be about the moment, and not about the work as a whole, and his films suffer for it. Invdividual moments ARE important, and for the layman, probably the only thing he knows how to communicate afterwards (THAT scene when THAT happened was cool etc) but the entire story has to hang together for the movie to work.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST

    So...will Scott Bakula cameo as...

    by Darth Macchio old Captain Archer? If they do, they better use the 'Enterprise' theme song which is both my cell phone ringer, the wav I use for every sound effect on any pc I use (the whole song too!), I've got a CD where I recorded that song over 500 times in mp3 (for my car cd player and my cd player alarm clock), plus I bought a 16gig mp3 player with both that song recorded over 300 times as well as the opening credits of 'Enterprise' clipped to run in a 2 hour loop. I don't know what they were thinking with that song but talk about GENIUS.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:57 p.m. CST


    by CaptainBass

    "Fans who know better"? You are just proving my point! It's no longer about the old fans, it about getting fresh arses on seats, and more of them than the regular Trek community can provide. It's fans who "know better" that were exactly what caused the problems in the franchise in the first place. No matter what the showmakers did, it was never good enough for you geeks and you almost killed it. If it wasn't for the reboot (and I'm not exactly a fan of J.J by any means, I find his stuff hit-or-miss) you wouldn't have anything. Except for internet fan-flix, which no doubt you and your little dweeb chums can sit round a monitor and circle-jerk to those, as they are the ultimate in nerd-porn! As for not getting any, no, not in the last 36 hours anyway...the rant was brought on by reading this TB and the trailer TB - you dweeb CUNTS are INFURIATING! Go get some stridex pads, cockbags!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    It shows. Reading a script by Roberto Orci is not exactly indoctrination into the Star Trek mythos, stupid. I'm no trekkie myself but at least I've seen every original Star Trek episode multiple times. I know what Star Trek is about. And it ain't about no Orci interpretation. <P> "My name is James Tiberius Kirk"? What a hack job this is gonna be.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Holy shit...

    by Darth Macchio

    ...who let in Barney Rubble?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Darth Macchio

    by CaptainBass

    You are really just at the wind-up aren't you? That song is terrible!!! It's like Gorgonzola cheese for the ears!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:07 p.m. CST

    This new cast is too old

    by Emperor_was_a_jerk

    If anything, they are too OLD. It takes place when they are in the academy- the future equivalent of the Armed Forces. Have you guys SEEN those kids in the Marines? Barely 18. What do you want? A bunch of 40 year olds in Starfleet? The actors have to be young. Especially since they will most likely be playing these roles for the next 40 years.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:09 p.m. CST

    CaptainBass... YOU RULE

    by Emperor_was_a_jerk

    You are damn awesome. SO SO SO RIGHT.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Paul Bucciarelli, I guess I didn't clarify

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    When I said nerd alert, I wasn't insinuating Ms. Muse was the nerd (in either a nice or derogatory matter). I was saying the nerd in me got defensive and alarmed. In retrospect, I admit I should have phrased it differently. <p> However, I think a discussion of the demographics for this film is valid, as it is reasonable to assume that it more than likely will (and probably did) have an effect on decisions as to how to address key elements as writing, directing, and casting. Will I go see it? Sure. I never said I wouldn't. I'm just saying I'm now going in a little more skeptical than before, because of my admitted preconceived notions of films that tend to cater to certain film demographics. <p> Of course I'm sure in the grand scheme of things this doesn't matter to you, but I was hoping to a.) make sure Ms. Muse didn't get the wrong impression from my initial comments, and b.) maybe have some discussions on the film that weren't just pure trolling. Based on your ire, I have apparently failed and should now live under a bridge. <p>

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:12 p.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    How? Seriously any of the stuff you're trying to say about my post . just how, why, wht? "they've simply started with their own story, then attempt to shoehorn in the details, continuity or logic be damned", Where? How many people of this potential $500m plus audience knows where the 60s's Enterprise was meant to be built. Where was it said that she was built in orbit above the American shipyards that's so important. The science of your argument for space building is just daft. Especially if you follow "continuity" and see how people are "fixing" ships in orbit or space stations in EVA suits, welding etc is dangerous enough without the added danger of a tear / burn on an EVA suit. That's just common sense. If they could build the space station on Earth and lift it up for virtually nothing they would, and they'd build it in no time, better, bigger and at a fraction of the cost. Why bother mining the astroid belt, or sending parts from Earth TO space, whn you can just build right there? There are more arguments, safety, cost, time and practucality wise for building on Earth. Even so, it doesn't even matter. Please remind me why it being built in space was such a big moment for you, in which episode / movie? as you say "Um, no--the famed Naval shipyards in San Francisco, where the best U.S. Navy vessels have been built since 1870. The whole point of having the U.S.S. Enterprise built there *was* to ground it in reality." The U.S navy has ben building ships in space since 1870? San Francisco is is space? What? Oh and you know it isn't being built in San francisco how? Finally "From all accounts, Abrams is trying to re-invent the franchise at the expense of everything that came before." Which accounts are these?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:17 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Then make something new, for God's sake. Don't half-ass it by appealing to old and new and getting neither.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:19 p.m. CST

    THANK YOU mach6

    by Gungan Slayer

    Well said. What you've just stated is one of the primary reasons why many people have reservations about this project. It seems that a lot of things have been changed just for the fuck of it. And I can't believe this Abrams douche wasn't even aware that there were multiple star trek movies. Where the fuck has he been? Lost in in some closet spending years trying to come up with "Lost"? Seriously, what the fuck.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Gungan Slayer

    by u.k. star

    A challenge! Earlier on this thread a challenge was laid down to list these changes made for no reason. So far only 2 have been pointed out, and the 1st one of those actually had a reason for the change in the statement! Can you please list all the changes that are there, just for the sake of it? Bearing in mind none of us has seen the movie, so none of us know the full reason behind most of anything

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:36 p.m. CST

    If they had called this movie "Space Trek"

    by kabong

    and made it about a ship, captain, and crew in Spacefleet, annoyed Star Trek fans would be limited to complaints that: 1)it's a copy of Star Trek and 2)they like Star Trek better.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:41 p.m. CST

    What most people don't get about Star Trek...

    by Newmark

    ...especially TNG, is that it's supposed to happen in a time when people EVOLVED. When people use their brains, not their fists, and diplomacy instead of blowing stuff up. When intellect has triumphed over people's emotions. Which obviously may seem boring or gay to some of TODAY's people. Now, if you take this and turn it into Star Wars to spice it up, it means you just didn't get it. It's like turning Shakespeare into a Bruckheimer movie.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:44 p.m. CST

    TRAILER SPOILERS (Gives some context)

    by bobjustbob

    SPOILERS SO BE WARNED: <p> <p> <p> <p> 1) The Corvette(intro): “The car is Kirk's uncle's (think Uncle Owen, only younger and more obnoxious). Kirk trashes the prized antique in an act of defiance following a bitter and heated argument re: his future.”<p> 2) Kirk making out(1:41): “She’s green.”<p> 3) Woman in pain(1:43): “Kirk’s mom on the Kelvin.” (Giving birth to JTK?)

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by CaptainBass

    By all means I would have had no objection to something new, but again, it's about the money. Anything other than a reboot without too much canon baggage probably wouldn't pull in the audience numbers they are looking for. I'm usually against remakes of 'classic' TV shows as 9 times out of 10 they are terrible, but Trek has grown beyond just TV and has had as many movies as a shit horror franchise. The reboot is necessary if Trek is to continue, either on the big screen or on TV.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST


    by CaptainBass

    Hope you weren't being I'll say thank you...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:52 p.m. CST

    You're kidding

    by u.k. star

    I guess the "we come in peace, shoot to kill" thing passed you by then huh? I also guess you've not actually read a lot of shakespeare. There is some nasty violence in some of his work. "I hope that when you see don't feel like you need to know anything about Star Trek". quote from J J. the reason. Old "fans" like myself. Worth in box office (Worldwide) between $75m & %150m At Best! Movies of this type / budget opening in May, hoping for at least $400m more like $500m+ i.e Iron Man (better than hope d for 0 $580m+. The extra $430m - $500m+ has to come from somewhere, and not being able to make a change that seems logical to the filmakers because a % of the smallest part of the audience thinks the ship shoulda been built in space, does not help there at all. Are we seriously saying we'd prefer no more Trek, cos that's the alternative. This movie is made for "future fans of Star Trek", like my kids, good luck to it, and I see no reason why older fans can't try to enjoy it too. Star Trek on the big screen with a real budget! At last!

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:18 p.m. CST

    How much deviation from canon purity

    by kabong

    should be tolerated? <P>

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:24 p.m. CST

    TIme to update this talkback

    by the_scream

    It's ancient and has become a lesson in wading through the pointless swearing and rants to actually find some considered comments. It's become an orgy of vulgarity at AICN.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:40 p.m. CST

    kabong & the_scream

    by CaptainBass

    Preferably not too much deviation, as long as it's still recognisable as Trek I'll have no problem. And I apologise for any offence my bad language may have caused, but I just got so riled by these uber-nerds I just couldn't stop myself! I've had a ciggie and calmed down now...honest...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:54 p.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    Like what? We know there are nobble headed Klingons in this film. It is unclear whether they are from now or the future, but is it "cannon" to have "human-Klingons" or cannon to just accept that Klingons have been and ever shall be nobble headed? you can get bogged down in it, what matters is to make an entertaining film, then hopefully a good film and to follow the fundamentals of the Trek universe, not the minutae of it. If you want NEW fans in sufficient number you have to make it accessable, AND cool. Star Trek was cool back in the day, people get lost in the noble message and wheter this button is the right colour and forget it was COOL. Kirk getting laid every other week, with Spock being all noble, a black woman who wasn't a maid or some such. Trek was cool. Good lord how did it come to the state where it is the antithesis of cool. People have to be able to think they can buy tickets for this movie and it won't matter if they've never seen Trek, don't know where or when the ship was built. That is gonna ruin the movie for you. Hell that 24 decks, 26 decks thing must have killed 1st contact for you guys then huh? did you have to force yourself to sit through the rest of the Wrath of Khan after Khan recognised Checkov? Or the whole yooou can / can't go to warp inside a solar system thing.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 5:57 p.m. CST

    oh fuck all that noise, Newmark

    by I Dunno

    That's pedantic bullshit from the first season of the Next Generation.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Shakespeare into a Bruckheimer movie, excellent idea Newmark.

    by Smashing

    What a lot of fuss over a trailer that is itself really a taster, this is our first look at new old Trek so it makes sense not to give the farm away first viewing, what we get is a feel for what is to come, I for one think it looks well fucking cool and exactly what Trek has needed since DS9.<P>That was the last time Trek grew, Voy and Ent, which both had there moments where really just TNG re-makes, nothing new, this is all new and making me very horny.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:48 p.m. CST

    I'd like to see Macbeth done by Bruckheimer and co.

    by blindambition238

    CGI 'trees' marching towards a high tech space fortress, three bkikin clad witches played by lindasy lohan, megan fox, and paris hilton...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:02 p.m. CST

    u.k. star...

    by mach6

    u.k. star writes, "How many people of this potential $500m plus audience knows where the 60s's Enterprise was meant to be built." <br> <br> I would wager a large portion of it. Do you think that a film titled 'Star Trek' isn't going to get the attention of millions of Star Trek fans? <br> <br> u.k. star writes, "The science of your argument for space building is just daft. Especially if you follow "continuity" and see how people are "fixing" ships in orbit or space stations in EVA suits, welding etc is dangerous enough without the added danger of a tear / burn on an EVA suit. That's just common sense. If they could build the space station on Earth and lift it up for virtually nothing they would, and they'd build it in no time, better, bigger and at a fraction of the cost." <br> <br> You need to decide if this movie is going to stick with practical science, or fantasy science--you can't have it both ways. If the universe that the Enterprise inhabits has the technology to travel faster-than-light, transport matter through space, create energy shields, then it only follows logically that they'd develop a way to protect EVA suits from simple tears. For the record, NASA astronauts have been working in space for decades now, and no one has ever experienced a catastrophic tear or failure of their EVA suits. No doubt you will counter with "they don't weld duranium alloy with plasma torches". No shit. If they can suspend physics to have ships travel faster than light, transport matter through space, and create energy shields, they can build a ship in space without worrying about tearing their space suits. <br> <br> u.k. star writes, "The U.S navy has ben building ships in space since 1870? San Francisco is is space? What? Oh and you know it isn't being built in San francisco how?" <br> <br> Stop being obtuse. The Enterprise was built at the San Francisco ship yards on Earth. I know it isn't being built in San Francisco, because the trailer shows it in the middle of a field, not on the coast of San Francisco. <br> <br> u.k. star concludes, "Finally 'From all accounts, Abrams is trying to re-invent the franchise at the expense of everything that came before.' Which accounts are these?" <br> <br> From Abram's who claims he's not a fan of Star Trek, and makes the impossible-to-believe claim that he was unaware that there were previous Star Trek movies. This alone does not inspire confidence, but the trailer itself exposes enough alterations to the framework of the Star Trek universe to increase the probability that the final result will be unrecognizable to the average Trek fan.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:35 p.m. CST

    I Love...

    by drwynninblack

    ...when non-Trekkers chime in to tell us hardcore Trek fans how JJ has "nailed it". This guy claims he doesn't even know what the original characters were like...and then goes on to say how Abrams has gotten everything pitch-perfect. Can anyone else explain this convoluted logic to me? Because I just don't get it...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:36 p.m. CST

    People are EVOLVED in Star Trek ?

    by A G

    How many years in the future is it set ? A million ?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:38 p.m. CST


    by drwynninblack

    "That's pedantic bullshit from the first season of the Next Generation." No, you're wrong. Newmark pretty much nailed it with his assessment. That was Roddenberry's vision, like it or not.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Jar Jar Binks was Lucas' Vision

    by A G

    So yeah, NEXT vision please.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:42 p.m. CST

    The "Dumbing Down" Argument

    by A G

    Have you ever seen Star Trek ? What's being dumbed down ? The alien costumes ? The cheesy dialogue ? What is it ? If anything this is making Star Trek MORE CLEVERERER

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Everything I've seen of Abram's work

    by scrumdiddly

    has been shallow and superficial. Like someone else said, it's like everything is constructed in a very artificial way, from scene to scene, just to garner a response from cinemagoers. The thing about Star Trek is that it was always PASSIONATE, it was always SINCERE, it was always EARNEST and it was occasionally HEAVY. I don't think this guy or his friends are capable of any of that. I just have a really bad feeling about this movie...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:15 p.m. CST

    It's like all of his films are the product of a 12 year old boy

    by scrumdiddly

    writing "exciting" stories at school. To me, they don't seem like the work of an adult.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:31 p.m. CST

    One guide for alteration of Trek concept:

    by kabong

    I think it was Spock who said, in an early Trek novel, "A difference that makes no difference is no difference."

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:44 p.m. CST

    CaptainBass... nope. No sarcasm

    by Emperor_was_a_jerk

    I totally agree with you and could not put it into words myself. Trek fans have killed Star Trek. NOTHING is good enough. They will never be satisfied. So why not take a great idea , solid characters, a rich history and make a movie for EVERYONE to enjoy. Not just the Star Trek Nerds. If they don't like it- don't see it. Keep watching the fan-made schlock online.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Fan-made schlock

    by JonRD463

    Boy, you said it. Some people's fandom should never leave the private confines of the mind. I've tried to watch all of these "shows", but no matter how much of a Trek fan I am, I can't get into the crappy acting. That's what kills it, too. I understand that these guys have tight budgets, and with that in mind, I tend to overlook the sets. They're actually quite good. It's just the acting. Ugh! Especially that Elvis impersonator who does Kirk. Oy... terrible. It comes off like a fat chick dressing up like Sailor Moon.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Though I hope it's great, it's true that...

    by crankyoldguy

    the Abrams problem is his work, from Felicrappity to Alias to Lost, does come off empty. I am afraid he might not get it and his writers, despite supposedly being fans of various stripes, don't either. There are parts of the trailer that, yeah, do look like fun, but I have to wonder. Still I'll see it, of course. And I also hope for the Shatner surprise as so many will be disappointed if there isn't one, even, post-credits, say.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:56 p.m. CST

    and remember that for TOS

    by crankyoldguy

    some of the best stories came from actual SF/Fantasy writers. Even for TNG and especially DSP, we had stories from Ron Moore, among others, who got it (I think, looking back, DS9 by Seasons 4-6 was the best and still is the best post-TOS Trek, from "Pale Moonlight" to the love letter of "Trials and Tribblations." Also for the books (and even comics), writers like Peter David got it. Did Abrams and his crew get it? We'll see. Can't tell from the trailer. We really can't.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:15 p.m. CST

    I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly . . .

    by kabong

    When Gold Key Comics put out Star Trek comics, the artists were Italians or Filipinos who had never seen TOS. So some of their presentations lacked fidelity to the series. <P> Abrams' movie may suffer from the same lack. <P> We shall see. Or at least some of us shall see while the rest . . .

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Gotta see this: Trailer with Topgun, Fucking Funny

    by picardsucks

    Some dude added Kenny Loggins to the Trek Trailer, fucking hilarious and some how so fitting

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Re: drwynninblack

    by loquaciousmuse

    I said this in earlier comments, but I'm not saying he nails it or it's pitch perfect - I think I made it very clear that I wouldn't know if he nailed it or not from the perspective of a Trek fan. As far as my demographic goes, he's got it in the bag, my demographic being an 18-24 fangirl. To me, it looks awesome and I truly hope Trek fans feel the same way. But JJ really needs to start reaching out to the Trek fans or this movie is not going to do nearly as well as he hopes. I just wanted to offer a non fan opinion, because as an avid reader of this site, I like reading opinions from both those who get it and those who don't who wish they could - like me. Now you've heard the dumb girl's opinion - Harry will do his write up soon. Just trying to help offer a perspective and again, didn't mean to offend.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:03 p.m. CST

    About JJ's supposed ignorance of ST...

    by Ravetin

    ...hasn't he been telling the same story for like a year about how his dad took him to see the first movie and he came in his pants at the Enterprise reveal scene? What's going on here?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:42 p.m. CST

    "the wait is over...."

    by chromedome

    pretty stupid way to end a trailer for a flick that wont be out until May. <p>How about "the waiting just got longer...."

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:12 p.m. CST

    Gene Roddenbury weeps from beyond the grave.

    by namasteandgoodluck

    I used to really love Star Trek as a kid (the original). It never really looked all that great as far as the effects went but Kirk was smooth with all the alien babes, Spock had that nerve pinch and the Enterprise was the shit. It was never better than Star Wars though, so I forgot about it for awhile. I grew more interested in our real life reach for space and our place in the universe; I went to Space Camp and discovered we had a space shuttle called Enterprise and was stunned. Reality had crossed over with sci-fi and my young mind reeled with the possibilities. I went back and watched all the old episodes and took in the "morals of the stories" that Gene Roddenbury and co had crafted. Humanity had put aside our differences, gave up money and directed all energy to learning and exploration...sounded good (this is all before I found out they went through world war three and some "Beyond Thunderdome" type shit) and I was ready to sign up. I eagerly watched each weeks episodes of The Next Generation, marveling at all the gadgets and possibilities. Then I hit puberty and found vagina, then more school, then the working world...totally killed my dreams of commanding a starship or blowing random aliens straight to hell every week. But lets face it, Gene Roddenbury's contribution to the imaginations of two or three generations of engineers, bio chemists, physicists, astronauts and the like have brought us the cell phone, medical beds similar to the ones in sick bay and who knows how many other advancements in technology and medicine; perhaps the social/political aspect of the show made a mark too. In the subsequent years after Roddenburys death, the Star Trek franchise was whored out like never before until it had been milked dry. The last installment, Enterprise, was complete shit and was cancelled abruptly. I just don't think a reboot, remake, or rehash is in anyway a great idea. All of this looks too glossy for me,the Enterprise being built on Earth instead of space dock, Leonard Nimoy needing a paycheck...sigh. I just don't know. Maybe JJ does have something good planned. If this movie doesnt pull Kirk out of that stupid timestream crap from "Generations"...fuck it. It's all screwed up anyway. What really matters is that it's going to make millions of dollars world wide and everyone gets a new 'cedes, Benz and or beamer. Mortgage payments aren't getting cheaper and everybody gotta eat so I guess the bloated, rotting carcass that is the Star Trek franchise can be called back from the great beyond one more time, put on that red crew member outfit and take it in the pooper one more time.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:40 p.m. CST


    by Fing Fang Foom

    My guess is that J.J. is playing down his obsession with Star Trek, to "win" over non fans. Him saying that he was never a big fan of the show may give him credibility with non trekkies.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Enterprise on Earth...

    by BurnHollywood

    Biggest "What?! WHY?" moment in this whole affair.<p> "Mr. Scott, full impulse."<p> "Full impulse. She ain' movin' Cap'n April, sir."<p> "What the...then fucking gun it. GUN IT."

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Oh wait, it just hit me...

    by BurnHollywood

    If the Enterprise wasn't built on Earth, then how is Young Kirk supposed to ride his motorcycle up and give it long, yearning stares?<p> Remember how moving it was when Tom Cruise rode his 'cycle out to the desert to sadly contemplate the setting Tatooine suns?

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:41 a.m. CST

    how do they get the Enterprise into space?

    by SantiagoAtez

    I actually really like the idea of it being constructed on the ground...we've seen the space dock crap so many times in movies (not just Star Trek). But how do they get it up there? One of those re-occurring sci-fi space elevators? That would be pretty cool to see. least for 30 seconds or so ;)

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:46 a.m. CST

    bad choice to include Nemoy IMHO ;)

    by SantiagoAtez

    I actually wish they didn't even both getting Lenard Nemoy, and just started completely fresh. I'll only support the decision of the old-Spock coming back if at the end (as an AICN writer suggested a while back), he goes back to the future and is greeted by Shatner. But I think if the "Shatner not involved" thing was a stunt, it would have leaked by now.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:54 a.m. CST

    Getting the Enterprise into space...

    by CaptainBass

    What about via a tractor beam from an orbiting ship/station, or a serious of smaller 'tugboat' type craft? I'm sure they used 'tugs' to tow the ship out of spacedock before in one of the movies...or am I imagining that?

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:58 a.m. CST

    er..I meant 'series'...not 'serious'...sorry

    by CaptainBass

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 5:02 a.m. CST


    by CaptainBass

    Don't mean to offend, or come across as a homophobe (because I'm not) but I don't think that too many folk would like to see the epitomy of the 'American hero' portrayed by someone who takes it up the, he can't act worth a toss!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 5:03 a.m. CST

    Oops sorry wrong TB! Not fully awake...

    by CaptainBass

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 5:07 a.m. CST

    mach6 again..............

    by u.k. star

    orry you’ve just done it again. u.k. star writes, "How many people of this potential $500m plus audience knows where the 60s's Enterprise was meant to be built." I would wager a large portion of it. Do you think that a film titled 'Star Trek' isn't going to get the attention of millions of Star Trek fans? You'd lose that wager. Read the whole thread as it's on there several times. The highest grossing Trek film of the past 18 years is 1st contact. It's worldwide gross was $142m That is less than a 1/3 of $500m. Even allowing for repeat views in both grosses that leaves far MORE non trek going people than Trek going people. So no. According to you ..” You need to decide if this movie is going to stick with practical science, or fantasy science--you can't have it both ways.”... I do? I thought it was all about sticking to Trek lore? In which (1st contact) space suits can rip. And your argument presumes that all Trek fans KNOW where the Enterprise was meant to be built; Which I can tell you for a fact they don't. On this talkback and / or the trailer one it's been built on Earth in space, at Utopia Planetia in orbit above San Francisco. My whole "who cares where it was built" argument began because people keep moaning about it being built on Earth, as you do, yet now you say it WAS built on Earth. I ask you again, When did we get told where the original 1701 was built? Building in a vacuum would be dangerous, the whole point of Star Trek, as opposed to space fantasy like Star Wars, is that it's meant to "try" and be as "real" as possible. The conceit is that certain things have been achieved. They warp space so they can travel at speeds greater than that of light and so on, but "ostensibly" in a practical way. They “cannae change the laws of physics” you know? Reference 1st contact again, Worf's suit tears. It is safer to build on a planet than in a vacuum, it's that simple, you can try to argue inventing extra technology so it can be built in space, but why make such an effort, when you seem to be saying it was built on Earth anyway now? You've gone from this "For example, why does the Enterprise need to be built on the ground in Kansas?" which implies a poblem with it being built ON EARTH as well as it being in Kansas (A HUGE asumption on your part). TO This.... "The Enterprise was built at the San Francisco ship yards on Earth" Well which is it was it built on earth or in space? If it was built on Earth then what are you arguing about it for? What just because you ASSUME its Kansas NOT San Francisco? You're being deliberately obtuse by implying that it was built in space therefore when you talk about San Francisco shipyards the obvious inference is that they too must be in space; as another poster (BendersShinyAss) has suggested. "...the san fransico ship yards in geo sync orbit NOT ON EARTH." Or this....” I know it isn't being built in San Francisco, because the trailer shows it in the middle of a field, not on the coast of San Francisco.” Again NO you ASSUME that it is being built in Iowa. I an see why you make that assumption, but it’s an assumption never the less. It also confirms that you’ve been wasting people’s time arguing for it being built in space, when you think it was built on Earth in the 1st (FICTIONAL) place anyway. Here’s another assumption you could jump to. The films Earthly locations are Iowa and San Fran right? So the ship is being built in either one of these. (We know this because Abrams has said so). We also know (for the same rreason) that Kirk being still on his bike is where we see him around this bar fight. Given the amount of Star fleet personel involved it is a reasonable assumption that the bar is in San Fran ergo as he leaves the bar he rides away past the ship in (you guessed it) San Francisco! Now I’m not saying that’s how it is, and I don’t much care, just pointing out the futility of making assumptions with so few facts t hand. You still haven’t told us where you find out where the 1701 was built by the way. “to re-invent the franchise at the expense of everything that came before” At the expense of EVERYTHING that came before. That’s strong stuff, you still haven’t said who has said this. Abrams has said he wants people who have never seen Trek to be able to come and watch without feeling that they need to know things. How is that at the expense of EVERYTHING. A ship building moving from one city to another is everything? Where are these accounts? . . Why don't you try answering some of my questions, and deciding where YOU think the Enterprise was built, (and stick to it this time), rather than listing my points one by one and, frankly, doing a poor job of trying to discredit them. You made 3 points. 1st one plain wrong as evidenced (FACTS) by the grosses of Trek movies, 2nd one you contradict yourself on where the Enterprise is meant to be built anyway, but I’ve still answered it AGAIN, 3rd point is you failing to answer another question I’ve asked you. So instead of having us all read the same answers to your points again please try answering my questions with some facts. Where is it reported that the movie is Trek at the expense of EVERYTHING that came before. (Given that the trailer is full of references to what’s come before) A list of all things changed for change’s sake. Where Was the original 1701 built AND in what tv episode or film are we told this? On what basis can a trailer TAILORED to attract NEW fans, and not old fans, tell you what a movie entire is like, re plot, depth of characterisation. A trailer where stereotypical Trek movie things, like Talk, philosophy are kept to a minimum so as not to put off the wider audience.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Surely it's been proven...

    by NEUR0M4NCER

    ... with Iron Man that if you get a relatively accomplished director who at least *knows of* the franchise, you'll get a good result. Sure, Abrams can make money, but MI:3 was crap, even compared to the first film. I liked Cloverfield, but it was a helluva let-down from the 'viral' buildup. You round up 20 name directors and ask them who wants to do a Trek film. Five will immediately leap forward without knowing why (Abrams), five others will think about it for a while and say it might be cool. Nine more will decline, considering it too risky for their careers. The one left will have silently wet himself, thankful for even being asked. He's the poor fuck who should have directed this film.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 7:39 a.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    ..... as far as the official word goes, neither Directed, wrote, edited or did camerawork for Cloverfield, so I kinda wish people would stop using that against him. As a film it's the kind of thing that will always split opinion but again evidence suggests was far more liked than disliked. Anyway it isn't relevant. As much as i love film I’ve never been able to bring myself to watch MI3. The 1st 2 were poor films. I found them poor as versions of Mission Impossible, when they weren’t team based, more superspy Tom and some mates who help out a bit. Problem is I also found them poor as films. 1 or 2 good set pieces, but poor to average as films, let alone Mission impossible films. I will sit down by the end of this week and watch MI3. All I can say is most of what I’ve said is it isn’t much better or worse than the other two, but at least it seems to try and make it a team movie, it comes closes to the spirit of the TV show. Now that may not be so, but a read more than one review that said so, and given that Tom Cruise would have had far more power on this than 1st timer J J I think that’s a good sign for Trek. Anything else of JJ’s that I’ve seen impressed me. The episodes of Lost and Alias written and directed by JJ are very good, and the gradual (or rapid) decline of both shows the further they got / get from his influence is another sign of how much he brings to the table. Sorry but it seems all people have to throw at him is MI3; well as a 1st time director of a Tom Cruise sequel to 2 poor films, how much control do you really think he had? AND ALL people make mistakes, all directors take a wrong turn at least once all that means is out of his writer director creds on Lost, Alias and MI£ he’s 2 or 2.5 outa 3 surely?

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 7:45 a.m. CST

    most of what I've read / heard not said. .sorry

    by u.k. star

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:41 a.m. CST

    You're only as good as the last film you made

    by NEUR0M4NCER

    The reason Abrams has been able to weather MI:3 is because, regardless of his current involvement, people still associate him with Lost... and i'm sure I said I liked Cloverfield - hang on... yep. I did.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:12 a.m. CST

    Elvis impersonator

    by Dick Bahls

    The New Voyages, with the Elvis impersonator who does Kirk, and that other dude who plays the very important role of DeSalle & always looks pissed off at the world, is so much better than what I've seen so far of JJ's version. The way that the Elvis impersonator flares his nostrals whenever he gives an order, or leaves the bridge to visit the restroom, is infinitely better than Chris(Princess Diaries, Unknown Lindsay Lohan Project) Pine. I know that Harry wants continue to get his exclusives & free trips to NYC, so he's gonna say how wondeful those four scenes looked, especially the Top Gun Kirk gazing longingly at an enormous starship being built on the ground, and how 300 years from now after a third world war people will still drive vintage cars & wear cool motorcycle jackets. He'll say how great that line was that Pegg spoke, that didn't make him cringe, and how the new Spock didn't sound like a weasel. And then we'll all be excited and have to go on opening weekend, and bring our sisters because we don't have dates, and kid ourselves about how that was "really good". Or we could take another approach this time. We can tell the truth about how bad this turkey looks, we can look at the track record of the writers & say "theses guys are major hacks - how do they get work?",the writing genious of K & O, with such great original stuff as "I don't need you to lecture me; buckel up; & The wait is over", and we can choose to not see this embarrassment & spend that weekend trying to line up a date or two, or even better, spend the time making more money & making ourselves rich for a change.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Startin' to feel ...

    by Lain Of The Net

    ...young again. Doooo yooooo un ...der ...stand???!!! Yes I am going. See I figure that someone at Paramount realized that making us wait for the new movie will build anticipation. I remember the days of the early 70's when Trek stuff was scarce and when things came out (think Blish books or blueprints) desperate people like me orgasmed. Either that or they have an incredible mess on their hands and need the time to fix the film. Of course they could be trying to see how much input they can get between now and summer for tweaking purposes. Hey wait that does not sound like Paramount!!! That place only listened to us once and hey that worked out with a wonderful third season right? Right!!!! (right ;) ) Hee Hee ...hey btw I got married. Her name is Karah and we got married on Oct. 31st. Excelsior!!!!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:29 a.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    Dude I never said you didn't like it, although you did say it was a let done I said i wish "people" woud stop using it against him. Your post, which mentioned a negative about Cloverfield as a reaason JJ may not be a good choice for Trek. The reasons he's gotten past MI3 are numerous. It made a lot of money (just shy of $400m). The studio were expecting it to take a hit gross wise because of Tom Cruise's antics (hence the renegotiation of his deal). Another reason, which I freely admit is conjecture, is that the peolle at Paramount KNOW for sure how much of that film was JJ and how much was TOm "steering" the 1st time director with no real power on the set in certain directions. You kno, Great scene JJ but a little less of them and a little more of me" type stuff. Either way if that didn't happen, even to a small degree what they did see is the reviews, which as i say seemed to go along the lines of, "like the 1st 2 this isn't very good, but at least it captured the spirit of the show." They saw the potential. That and the fact is the directing and writing on the tv shows that he DID do is considered top notch. I've never agreed that "you're only as good as you're last..." thing, but that's me personally. It might affect how much you get paid, but a body of work is far more important. If you had 4 hits / great movies or shows in a row one bomb (which MI3 wasn't) won't hold you back. I always Remember James Cameron chewing some guy out who said "Ridley Scott hasn't made a hit in years" (this was pre-Gladiator. JC obviously replied saying how great Scott was, and the guy didn't stay in his business for much longer. Anyway I agree re Cloverfield hype, they did too good a job if anything. People were too excited and hence, easier to dissapoint.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 9:38 a.m. CST

    The footage

    by u.k. star

    I notice a lot of people are getting ready for Harry to say he liked it and tlking about how they won't believe him and so on, but this footage was shown a few times, and so far it's pretty much been universal praise. Better than that surprised praise. Are they all lying? Oh Peggs wife is Scottish and Living in Britain I know plenty of Scots blah. blah. blah and so far not finding tooo much wrong with his accent. Certainly not compared to Doohans (which still almost seems like how all real Scots should sound!) or to Koenig's Ukrainian? / polish? accent as the Russian Chekov. Anyway love the trailer, hate the trailer, let's give the film a chance eh? Of course some fans kicking up a stink may help some people go see the film, as they think Trek is for nerds and if the nerds hate it maybe it is cool after all? You never know :)

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 10:55 a.m. CST

    For your listening pleasure....

    by Darth Macchio

    ...the greatest song of ALL TIME!!! (queue shaking Earth, crumbling timbers and firework filled skies):<p>.<p>.<p>It's been a long road<p>Get'n from there to here<p> It's been a long time<p> But my time is finally near<p>.<p>I will see my dreams come alive at last<p> I will touch the sky<p> And they're not gonna hold me down no more<p> No they're not gonna change my mind<p>.<p> (Chorus)<p>.<p> 'Cause I've got faith of the heart I'm going where my heart will take me<p> I've got faith to believe<p> I can do anything<p> I've got strength of the soul<p> No one's going to bend nor break me I can reach any star<p> I've got faith<p> I've got faith<p> Faith of the heart<p>.<p>.<p>It's my's your's your Mum and Da's favorite...shit even your dog quakes and pisses himself when the song is played. This is like that Superman themesong MUST be in the new movie or the shit will come down on all of our heads. I don't want Nimoy-Spock or Montalban-Kahn kicking the shit out of me so I'm a true believer! You gotta have faith!!!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Pegg's accent...

    by CaptainBass

    I actually AM Scottish (no pity, please) and I'm not going to judge based on one line of dialogue, but I did cringe slightly...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Darth Macchio

    by CaptainBass

    Yes, you clearly have SATAN! It hurts my ears, and now, thanks to you, my eyes!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:10 a.m. CST


    by Paul Bucciarelli

    Please don't refer to yourself as a dumb girl or apologize to these sad examples of the male sex. That fact that rather than engage in a talkback with you, they bullied you and then went back to sniping at proves how akward they are with women of any age. Honestly we're not all dickheads

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    I will say this....

    by Darth Macchio could be worse. I honestly can't even remember the melody of the song and that's a good thing. But yet, if I'm in a public place and a Billy Joel song comes on, I'm stuck with that shit for the rest of the day. And if I even *think* of a god damn beach boys song, that shit gets stuck in my head too. If I just *think* about it! I don't even have to fucking hear it and it gets stuck in my head! FUCK! It just happened! Make the voices STOP! MAKE theM SToP!!! ARGGEHJGGG!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Building Enterprise on Earth not better than spacedock.

    by kabong

    It's a change made just so JJ can show Kirk on a motorcycle. <P> That's what's wrong with JJ's work. It's shots, not a movie.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Well, you might be a dickhead, Paul.

    by Wonderthump

    I'm just saying I don't really know you.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:25 a.m. CST

    More on Time Travel....

    by Darth Macchio totally kick ass would it be for Shattner-Kirk to go back in time and kick the ass of his younger self, played by Pine-Kirk? I've often wanted to go back in time to kick my own ass over stupid decisions. I'd have to be careful though as any serious blows might show up on my future self. No face shots maybe and no Ninja-style attacks...but maybe some swift kicks, literally, to the ass would do the trick.<p>Of course, the whole Shattner-Kirk kicking Pine-Kirk's ass isn't about Kirk making mistakes but just for posterity/catharsis of being replaced. Think being kicked in the ass and shit on by pirates after crossing the international date line. More an *initiation* than a form of *torture* or just mundane violence. Dig?

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:45 a.m. CST


    by Paul Bucciarelli

    Nor will you ever. I predisposed to not befriend anyone who calls themself Wonderhump. Go smart off to somebody else numbnuts.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:45 a.m. CST


    by Paul Bucciarelli

    Nor will you ever. I predisposed to not befriend anyone who calls themself Wonderhump. Go smart off to somebody else numbnuts.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:52 a.m. CST

    See, Paul, you ARE a dickhead.

    by Wonderthump

    Thanks for proving the case, genius!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:03 p.m. CST


    by Paul Bucciarelli

    Wow, I guess you really pwned me. Make sure that you mark this day down as it's probably the only signifcant thing will happen in your life today. Bored now. Bye. Bye.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:06 p.m. CST

    built on earth, actually, though other canon...

    by crankyoldguy

    problems are already at works, since Abrams and company claimed they used more than TV series as reference, including novels. Here you go: "According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space. According to a computer display that was created behind the scenes, but never used on screen, Jonathan Archer was present at the launch and died the next day. This information remains non-canon because it was never photographed on film. Captain Robert April oversaw construction of her components and commanded her during her trial runs and early missions. (TAS: "The Counter-Clock Incident") Dialogue given in the episode claims the Enterprise was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive. However, this not only violates canon established by Star Trek: Enterprise, but also dialog given in TAS: "The Time Trap" claiming that the Bonaventure was the first Starfleet ship equipped with warp drive. Captain Christopher Pike commanded the Enterprise from the early 2250s into the 2260s. His missions included voyages to the Rigel, Vega and Talos systems. Pike's half-Vulcan science officer, Spock, who served under him for over eleven years, would become the starship's longest-serving officer. (TOS: "The Menagerie, Part I") In 2265, the Enterprise was assigned to a five-year mission of deep-space exploration, and command passed to the youngest captain in the fleet, James T. Kirk. The ship's primary goal during this mission was to seek out and contact alien life. Captain Kirk's standing orders also included the investigation of all quasars and quasar-like phenomena."

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Is that definitely the Enterprise being built?

    by Smashing

    Not some other Constitution class star-ship?, that would appease the people going nuclear over the expected continuity change, or maybe it was built in SF and assembled in wherever the hell Kirk is in the trailer, I can't see where it says he is in Iowa.<P>Weird right, I use spell check and I can spell "Constitution" correctly but not "can't".

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:13 p.m. CST

    kabong You've seen the movie then?

    by u.k. star

    "It's shots, not a movie" How can you know this? It's also a big assumption (having not seen the movie) to say that's the only reason for it. It is a reason though, and it does more than just give him a shot. It is a character connection. Now you may feel it is better for the film to fly off into space to she a ship being built, but this directer / writers feel you gain more by having the building on Earth. A sense of scale is another thing, perhaps greater with it bein on planet. I'm genuinely confused as to why it's a big deal. I've given my reasons for why this may be so, but there's more to it than the ability to have one shot, and it does kinda make sense. Why send all the bits up to space to build in a vacuum, when you can build on planet, in gravity and atmosphere? Anyway, let's all hope the film is good eh?

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Ooh UKStar.

    by Smashing

    fucking trippy, I had just written a post to kabong with the same quote of his pointing out that it is a trailer not a movie, spooky.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST

    JJ is making Star Trek Forever

    by Sidepocket

    That is what this whole thing is. I normally hate Star Trek, well, not hate, that is too strong of a word. However, I really just do not care for it with all these Kirks, Spocks, Borg, Ass-Faced Rubber Suit Aliens, ect. However, this movie is pissing me off because it is going for that MTV thing that Batman Forever did. Quick cuts. Slow mo. Crazy Colors. Over Testosterone Charged. Tits everywhere. Batman does not need tits and flashing colors to work, and neither does Star Trek. That is what is pissing me off. Why can't they make the new Star Trek like the new Batman movies, where you do have more action and character without the cheese...but keep it all REAL AND SERIOUS! -,-;

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:46 p.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    Mulder & Scully are never around when you need them! It's funny what you say Sidepocket, cos JJ has actually explained why he felt the movie had to go in the opposite direction to the dark knight & bond. Star Trek was an optomistic show, with humans in a kind of utopia. To go back to it's roots you kinda need to show that, even though space is disease and danger and whatever McCoy says. <p> "What Roddenberry was doing in the original series,..., was positing that humanity would survive, that they would thrive.......What this movie is embracing is that optimism.." A for Flash and all the "apple Enterprise" type comments The motion picture Enterprise was pretty bright (except when they kept dimming the lights!) It's not to hard to imagine them desining a similar interior if they had been working on it today.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST

    u.k. star

    by Sidepocket

    I never said dark and brooding, I said real and serious. There is a diffrence. I do not think with all the beer and sex going on (which fist of all if this is a utopia, why such a heavy policing force?) that there will be a deconstruction of what a Utopia is and the role such dreams and ideals play in our socity. I mean keep the space fights and stuff, but I want something more. Something real, not this MTV bullshit. Also, yes, sex does have a roll. However, if you throw sex everywhere than it becomes meaningless. There was something about the lack of sex in the original show that made the relationships more...real.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 2:15 p.m. CST

    BTW if anyone cares

    by loquaciousmuse

    Not that anyone would care, but I just started a blog with another fangirl and here's the link if anyone wants to further discuss the footage

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 2:24 p.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    I think I know what you mean, but it comes back to this, none of us has seen the film so we don't know that it's full of "mtv bullshit". <p> As for sex it's only the movies that seem to lack it, the tv shows had as much as they could get away with. I mean it's the Kirk cliche isn't it? He'd even do green women! It's the movies' inability to blend the sex, action and real adventure AS WELL as the talking and philosophy that stopped them reaching a wider audience. This could be the 1st movie (even with Khan) that genuinely blends the depth of the best episodes with genuine big screen adventure and specticle. <p> The "MTV" trailer doesn't concern me, 1 because I actually like it, and 2 because i know it was very specifically NOT aimed at Trek fans, but at Trek haters, and people apathetic towards it. The "future fans". They already know a Trek film will (should) have the things you mention, the trick is convincing them it also has that which has been missing, or in too short supply. Then we finally get a Trek movie in the top 10 movies again and grossing $400m or more. What has been forgotten is the golden rule. <p> A good movie 1st, a good Trek film 2nd. Always try to make a good film1st. Utopia or no, you'd still have police, and I hardly call 1 robot cop heavy.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 3:41 p.m. CST

    STAR TREK 90210

    by bobjustbob

    Too funny (remove spaces):<p><p> om/watch?v=UAjmb ASkkLY

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:25 p.m. CST


    by Wonderthump


  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Haven't seen the movie, but prior experience

    by kabong

    informs my suspicions that it's not going to be good.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:51 p.m. CST

    How can Abrams claim this is not a reboot?

    by Wonderthump

    Everything looks different, Kirk serves under Pike(!), they all serve together, apparently with Sulu helming instead of in astrophysics and Dr. McCoy in place of Dr. Piper, Kirk is a hothead, pathetic horndog who hits on Uhura(!), Spock's dad apparently was the one-armed guy from The Fugitive, shuttlecraft are fighter ships, etc. Just admit it, J.J., instead of lying to try to have it both ways.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Awnsers for u.k. star

    by Sidepocket

    1) A trailer is the first impression you get from a movie. The purpose of the trailer is to get you hyped up for the film by showing what the entire movie will be like in two minutes. Therefore, it is pretty safe to say that the film will be this MTV crap. 2) Here is the difference in sex. Pick up a Spirit comic book. Now watch the Spirit trailer. One was sexy, coy and fun while the other is trashy and slutty. See the difference? 3) That is the problem, I hate Star Trek and this trailer really pushed me further than any "real" Star Trek movie or episode could. Epic fail. This whole thing reminds me of Batman Forever, sure that movie grossed high but did you fucking see it? It is pointed as one of the worst ones in the whole line up of not only Batman, but the whole Superhero Movie genre! Playing to tweens is not going to get you to go forward. 4) It's a utopia. That is a paradise. In a paradise, crime should never happen. Ever. So if stuff like this is going on, than it is not a pure utopia. It's a utopia dictatorship. See, Star Trek could go pretty deep and explore this stuff, much like Dark Knight did with the nature of humans, justice VS fair and how far one can go to stop crime and not be a criminal himself. If the Dark Knight can do that, a movie about a crazy person who dresses like a bat and punches dolled up bad guys, I am sure it could work for a bunch of dorks in shirts exploring space. But nooo, lets go stupid! You da man now dog! -,-;

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 11:31 p.m. CST


    by slkboxrman

    would u "dark knight was deep and meaningful and a masterpiece" people give it a rest... dark knight was chaos from beginning to end...the only bright spot on that whole movie was trek is a reboot pure and simple....basing any judgements on a 2 min trailer is retarded and short sighted...we should all just wait for the movie to come out ...but i know lots of u losers dont function that way...

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 4:37 a.m. CST


    by u.k. star

    "Therefore, it is pretty safe to say that the film will be this MTV crap." No therefore it is safe to assume that is what they wanted in the trailer. Another assumption it is safe to make is that the trailer is selling those points. Case in point, Is Casino Royal full of action? No, well the trailer is. Other than that there's no need to assume, JJ has said more than once that the trailer is aimed at the audience that wouldn't normally care about Trek. The assumption is that you already know the character stuff will be in a Trek movie, it always is, but here you ALSO get that which you get from a "big budget" movie, action, sex etc. Nothing works on ALL people, but the response from non Trek people, like yourself) has so far been overwhelmingly positive, so it HAS worked. <p> 2 As for the sex, that's yoour opinion, and it's one based on a trailer. People have wildly differing views on sex, I don't share your in regards to what I've seen so far, that doesn't give me the impression it's just trashy here, and sex in Trek was always about as far as tv could go at the time, so your equivilant back then would possibly have found that trashy too. <p> 4. Utopia is another thing that's obviously up for years of perpetual debate. It is logicaly the opposite of what you say. If there is no need for any police then every person born and raised is somehow "perfect". THAT is a situation far more likel y to be brought about by a police state, than one that accepts free will should always lead to a certain % of people doing "bad" things. Utopia being the state of the society, not of every individual. Not to mention the fact that as we all know the galaxy is full of aliens who don't share the same point of view and from whom the "utopi" may need to be protected. <p> All thes things can be argued in circles ad infinitum, facts are no one has seen the movie, what has been shown (the 20 minutes or so of footage) has met virtual universal acclaim, and guessing the film entire (ANY FILM ENTIRE) from a trailer is folly. Especially when it is blantantly aimed at certain audience; more so especially when it has been explicitly SAID to have been aimed at a certain audience. The audience that will mean an average ttrek fim can gross $250m+ not $75m+ and a good one (which most indicators suggest this should be) $500+ and not $150m max. No film will appeal to everyone, even the biggest grossers like Lord of the rings, itanic Pirates and Star Wars, have many people that don't like the look of them, or having watched them don't like the films. What matters is that you get enough people to go. You aren't going, but from what I've read, and from talking to many people fans, and non fans this trailer has worked, big time.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 9:54 a.m. CST


    by NoHubris

    It would have been really cool to see Pike's Enterprise with Dr. Piper and astrophysicist Sulu - I forgot about that one. Pike did have both Sulu and young Spock in the crew.

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 1:29 p.m. CST

    CaptainBass, same here. Fake Scottish accents...

    by scrumdiddly

    I just hope he doesn't speak too often.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 1:38 a.m. CST


    by TmvEqK

    ezNDsk <a href=" ">XUcAtvNN</a>

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 1:38 a.m. CST


    by TmvEqK

    jGWaAwUn <a href=" ">WJQQQidI</a>