That said, I do hope this lives up to the hype and is actually worth a darn.

The Next Generation was the best one by far, simply because, in spite of several flaws (the entire cosy carpet coffee-lounge vibe), it had some of the strongest mind-bending hard SF ideas and stories.

My favorite part has to be where Harry compares it to an Elseworlds, alternate universe, story while showing us how this won't be sticking with Trek's core ideals and beliefs, how its main character won't be acting like the main hero of that universe, and how there will be big stupid action scenes with lots of effects without a lick of credibility. Thanks for selling out your fellow fanboys yet again, Harry. Of course, since you're infamously wrong about almost everything these days, I suppose the fanboy community won't be worse for wear, and your corporate studio masters can con you into pimping their next big piece of garbage as well, so it's all coming up Knowles.

BTW, "Trekker" is a term the fans came up with in the '70s when they felt "Trekkie" sounded too insulting, derogatory by suggesting they were mere devotees like "Moonies". "Trekker" to those fans felt more positive and engaged with the material. Personally, I find the difference between the terms pompous, "Trekkies" can be whatever they want - my mother is a Trekkie, and her father was a Trekkie.

I really loved 'Star Trek' . . . really enjoyed the movies 1,2 and 3. Could have lived long and prospered without almost all the others, save 'First Contact'. I liked that one, but it looks much worse on DVD than it did in the theater. It's too bright or something.

Anyway, all the sneak peaks and glimpses and photos of JJ's 'Trek' leave me with a single impression - basically, one word: Co-opted.

This project more than any other has highlighted the 'come up with something new' complaint in me. I'll see it, but I'm reminded of a line from somewhere "... it's like Joey Bishop in a nehru jacket".

That is all.

We're living it now, and I couldn't be happier...

31... 32... Uhh! I have to double-click! Somebody spot me!

Oh wait a minute, they said the same thing...... Maybe they've been brain washed?!

I love TNG but DS9 is edgier and most assuredly going places, or at least it was.

Anyway that asside I'm kinda wondering when the people that keep having a go on this are gonna explain why they think EVERYONE who has seen this has agred to tell the same "lies" about it looking pretty damn good in terms of story, character AND eye candy? Well?

The Repubs beloved Messiah Ronnie Raygun was supposedly into Trek as well, according to this blog.

Source http://tiny.cc/uimkN

...this is the new dynamic. Whereas everything, from a rainy day to a flat tire, was somehow Bush's fault, anything good will somehow be attributable to Obama. Got it.

Looking forward to the film!

Just a thought.

Picard's COOl... Obama's a two-faced punk and a wuss.

Since the above is coming off a little too positive for me, can I just ask if the whole "ice planet exile" thing sounds a little stupid to anyone else? Does it seem a little odd for an enlightened society to just strand people on hostile planets to suffer space yeti ass-rape for minor infractions?

I dunno...maybe there will be some kind of explanation that will make it seem more plausible in the finished product. I do know this: Cadet Kirk somehow ending up in charge of the Enterprise is going to be almost an impossible sell for me. In the brief clip in the trailer where Kirk is wearing command gold, he seems to be sporting two broad sleeve strips with a narrow one in between. If this is the Abrams-verse version of Captain sleeve rank and he goes from Cadet to that in the span of a few days, weeks, months...I'll be forced to conclude that Abrams is stupid after all.

Please, Trek-franchise...hire a military adviser for the next film. You can probably get a Naval officer fan to do it on the cheap.

Also you'll find more people actually liked cloverfield than didn't and it wasn't written / direct / edited or shot by Abrams.

The show director Dave Filoni has expressed that we'll be seeing less and less of them as they're phased out by the newer replacement models, because even the Trade Federation realizes they're not hacking it on the front lines except where they can swarm like zombies in massive numbers.

And so why do we not have a term beyond the basic "Star Wars Fan." Will there be a dichotomy between "Warsies" and "Warsers"?

"but citing ticket sales as some evidence of quality is about the most retarded and sad little argument you can trot out"

I showed my two nephews, ages 6 and 7, both Lego-lovin' geeks, the trailer for JJ's new "Trek" the other day, and they freakin' loved it. Their eyes got all wide and they pushed me to "play it again!" Then they hopped downstairs and started building Trek-looking lego ships.

I was laughing my ass off. But hey, if the trailer for JJ's "Trek" gets kids fired up, that can't be a bad thing, right?

Here's to hoping.

Actually it wasn't until about 2 years ago when I finally and reluctantly bought the entire DS9 dvd set. Watching it in it's entirety I realized that DS9 was CLEARLY the best series of Star Trek- there is no doubt.

And the thing is that it is the common opinion among fans that DS9 is the superior series of Star Trek, just like it is the common opinion that The Empire Strikes Back is the superior Star Wars film. And just like with Star Wars- the fans are completely right.

But to truly appreciate DS9, you have to watch the entire show and in order. Otherwise the show may look contrived and convoluted as it did to me before I truly watched it.

For me, I am constantly changing my opinion as to which TV show is the best show ever made, Battlestar Galactica or DS9. Both are Ronald Moore creations, so for me Ronald Moore is obviously the best TV show maker that has yet lived.

Anyway back on topic, as said I've been reading reactions to this footage for close to a week now and and I've yet to see someone who wasn't impressed. Once again of course that doesn't guarantee a good film, although it at list points to an exciting movie.

Is the reason you dislike it because you don't see the monster very clearly?, awww

If so go rent Godzilla, I bet you bitched about that too, so which giant monster attacks NY films do you like?

As for Trek bombing; well maybe, the biggest thing this film has going against it is i is Star trek. Star Trek remains uncool, and has a reputation for lower end movies, with limited budgets for effects and an unbalanced talk to action ration. Yes we all know that the thing that made Trek was the writing (when good) characters and moral / ehical dilemas... BUT.. they DID have sex and violence in them, and yes Special effects! They had the best they could manage and as much as they couold afford. They used them to fit the story. Do not kid yourselves that there wouldn't have been more of themm in the tv shows and movies if they could afford it, and do not assume that having more effects automatically means lower quality of movie.

Would 1st contact really have been a poorer film if there'd been a budget to allow Frakes to cut to the battle with the Borg? I'm not talking about emoving the reactioon shots as they're all on the bridge listening to the federation fleet getting hammered, but to cut to the battle, show the superiority of the borg vessel, rather than going (well hopefully you've all seen the show fill in the blanks). Would it really have killed the film if we'd seen the Defiant taking 10 times as much punishment as the other ships in the fleet? Doing more damage than the others and actually sjowing that it's a ship specifically designed to fight the borg? No I don't think it would, as long as it adds to the movie and furthers the story. There's plenty of "action" in Trek it just often has to take place off screen to suit the budget. Think of how many times you've watched an episode of Trek (any Trek) and there's some kind of battle / fighthappening. Someone says fire this, or target that. Something is meant to be damaged etc. Do you see it, no you cut to someone pushing a button, and hear some noise that indicate something has been fired, or hit. It isn't a dramatic cut to show the reaction of the crewmen / women involved, it's a cheap way of having a fight without having to spend any money showing the fight.

I think it's all about balance. Think of all the relationships, 1 night stands or whatever you've seen in the Trek shows. Now think of ALL the Trek films so far and ask how many times have you seen it implied tha 2 people are going off to have sex, or even kissing? Does the balance of "sex" in the movies match the tv shows? not at all.

I don't know it just seems a lot of people are sweating the little things, and complaining about things they seem to have forgotten were always there.

Oh last thing just because people like movies that you don't or that you think are rubbish, it doesn't make them idiots, it just means they can see something to like where you can't. Also Cloverfield was many tings, but I really can't see how pretentious was one of them?

We've heard about a younger Kirk in episodes like "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

Now, let's see it.

Time traveling Romulans wanting to kill Kirk won't get it done.

I'm looking forward to this Star Trek film because I want to see something without B&B anywhere near it. I want Trek to return to being science fiction instead of self-indulgent masturbatory technobabble fanwank. It looks like JJ's doing that.

But Star Wars? Leave it alone, man. I've seen what happens when other people play too deeply in George's galaxy, and it can truly suck. Anybody who has read Children of the Jedi, or anything by Karen Traviss (who completely fucked up the Mandalorians and their standing in the galaxy by writing shitty "highlander romance" novels featuring her proxies) knows that some people should not have any say in what happens in a creator's world. I think 75% of Star Wars fandom needs to shut the fuck up and either enjoy the movies and shows, or walk the other way. You're NEVER getting the hardcore, badass stuff you want because Star Wars is not about that. It's space opera, not science fiction. It's meant to be presented in the form of a weekly serial, with that over-the-top, sometimes humorous feel. If you want badass, no-glee scifi, then watch BSG (which does, indeed, rock) or read a book.

Trek needed an overhaul because Roddenberry's death meant nobody was truly at the reins for a long time (B&B were just jerking off with Gene's property). Star Wars still has its creator, and the creative team that presented it to us in the first place. It hasn't gone off-track, but a lot of fanboys have just lost touch with whatever it was that made them enjoy it in the first place.

You got old, guys. Deal with it.

As for reservations about the characters, the more attached you are to them as they were the more you're going to have reservation, no matter how good they look now. I'm loving that you think pretty much every journo in the world that's seen this has sold out. I get where you're coming from but that is just so not plausable. I've been reading stuff about this gfootage since they showed it 1st in London. I've also no reason to think people are lying when they sy the heart, the characters of Trek are the core. It's action AS WELL as normal Trek stuff.

Now I haven't seen the film so I can't speak to it's quality, but nothing I've seen or read leads me to think anything other than it's promising. Other than a disllike of "pretty" actors, "children in movies" and a luddite view hat sex and action don't belong in Trek movies seems to say any different.Oh and an "anti-cool" dislike of JJ Abrams that usually (not saying it's you) seems to stem from blaming him for things he never had anything to do with; like lost turning from gold to dog shit (after he left) Alias doing the same (after he left) Cloverfield being poorly written (a minority opinion) he didn't write it, Cloverfield being poorly directed (a minority opinion) he didn't direct it, Cloverfield being poorly shot - he wasn't the cameraman, Cloverfield being responsable for global warming - Well maybe that's his fault somehow.

I've been a Trek fan for about 30 years grew up with repeats of Star Trek TOS and the movies, and I have no problem with there finally being a big budget Trek film and a slightly different slant on the characters. That doesn't make me an idiot or a plant, just someone with a different opinion (one shared by many from all evidence I've seen) and with logical reasons for thinking the way I do. As for Sci-fi Wire..

"The scene has a lot of heart, but it may trouble diehard Trek fans for a couple of reasons."

"Pine's impulsive, headstrong Kirk feels just right."

"There's a lot of running and yelling and overlapping dialogue, which adds urgency but may be jarring to diehard Trek fans used to previous Trek films' more deliberate pace. This not necessarily a bad thing."

"there are several touches in Abram's Trek universe that seem more Star Wars-ish than Trek, such as the presence of grotesque aliens in that Iowa bar, a la the cantina in Mos Eisley. But the scene finds its heart "

"There is much to like in Abrams' new take on Star Trek. But we'll have to see the entire film to judge whether it successfully reboots the franchise. In particular, the franchise's heart and soul--the interactions among the key characters--is only hinted at in the preliminary footage. Stay tuned" Is that not what people have been sying. the eaction has "in varying degrees" been overwhelmingly positive. They liked it, and only said that whilst there was good character stuff there, there wasn't enough in a short portion to know for sure that it will be enough in the whole movie. In otherword judge when you SEE the movie. That's all we're saying, and so far everyone who has seen anything is teling us it's worth the look. Better yet it is appealing to non Trek people. This as Sci -Fi wire say "This not necessarily a bad thing.". Oh and whilst "cannon", (which as far as I'm concerned should be nothing but the t.v shows and movies and has been chopped and change counless times in all of them), should be respected one of the reason Trek finds it so hard to find new fans is because there's always this jump off point where you kinda have to KNOW a certain amount about what's going on before you even start to watch the movie. Like going to see the 2 towers without seeing Fellowship. People, on the whole, just don't wanna do that. they also don't want to doo that to watch something that's been budgeted like an extended episode of a tv show. The aim of this film is to attract new fans.

the funny thing is if it works then almost overnight the new fans will vastly outweigh the old ones. Keeping them is another matter of coursem and for that the product has to be god. Maybe all the sell out journos are telling the truth, I mean even Sci-Fi wire think it''s worth a pop!

BTW - I have never said this before in a talkback, but idiots like Quantize (who thinks he's a real player in the music industry) should just fuck off. Everytime I read one of his know-it-all but hasn't a fucking clue posts, I almost want to buy him a ticket to my country just so I can beat the fucking face off of him. He's one of the reasons I don't post much anymore. I've already argued enough with him to turn my stomach. Opinions aren't fact, fuckface.

Rant fini

Phantom Menace, Lost In Space, Alien Resurrection, Miami Vice teaser, Superman Returns teaser...

Boy you outta yo' damn mind. The Trek trailer was fun, but it was standard trailer format and felt like every other trailer of this sort. The visuals were nice, but it wasn't groundbreaking.

And who the fuck remembers the trailer to LOST IN SPACE?!?! WOW.

And the special TWO TOWERS trailer that was tagged onto the end of FELLOWSHIP late in its theatrical run received gasps and cheers from the theater crowds.

It has bee a long time since I've seen a trailer greeted with that much anticipation.

Dark Knight had what, about 5 trailers? There's plenty of time for more trailers with a heavier balance towards the plot / characters and less to the action / edge type stuff. But this trailer had to get the other potential $200m - $400m worth of audience to sit up and be interested or this project was dead in the water, with just the same old Trek fans turning up, the main audience avoiding it like the plague and a pitiful $67m Nemisis) to decent ($142m 1st Contact) box office on a $150m movie that kills Trek dead once and for all.

Play fair guys, the studio are finally giving Trek the movie budget it deserves up to 3 times the recent spends, allow them a chance to make their money back. Mr. Z this isn't me having a go at you, I like a lot of your posts, usually a lot fun, and no little sense.

Now again I haven't seen the whole scene but it looks a lot closer to that scenario than the "he's just a brat wrecking a car for no reason" scenario. So, other than the fact that we're all supposed to hate kids in Sci-fi movies, why so much negativity for that scene?

I even used to know a Tony Kirk but he took heroin and killed a dog so I steer clear of him now.

I'm at peace with the substantial drop in quality of Star Wars. I was a hardcore fan since childhood, but I walked away after ROTS and never looked back. Just stop saying it's because we grew up, because you're only fooling yourself.

New, young hip director? (that kinda sucks, actually) CHECK.

Updated visual look? CHECK.

Younger cast members, some that bare striking resemblences to the original actors? (Routh = Sylar)CHECK.

Will the result be the same? Hope not. But it may end up being...interesting, kinda cool at first view, and then...ultimately a lame failed attempt at starting a "new but same" version of an old franchise. Forever cast into the same bin as Superman Returns or Never Say Never for Bond.

Oh, yeah one more thing: Fuck Obama.

I'm with the 50,000,000 who didn't vote for that schmuck.

So we flash forward to 1999. The same reviews are cut and pasted again, Ewok is deleted and Jar Jar takes it's place following in the grand footsteps of the droids, Chewie and yoda. Now I am not saying Jar Jar is a great character, nor that i would definately have liked him when i was a kid, but most kids I know did like him and have the same total lack of comprehension that I had upon finding out people didn't like Yoda because they thought he was childish and brought the film down a level.

It's just something to think about, maybe you can still find those old reviews somewhere. A particular one i recall was in a sci-fi mag called Starbust, by a game named brosnan or bronson. Boy did he hate Yoda! Maybe there's some weight to the grown up argument?At least for some people?

Yes, yes...I realize it might be a stretch to use “reality” and this version of Star Trek in the same sentence but let’s try to relate the pseudo-military aspects of Starfleet (namely ranks) to the real world for just one second. Starfleet has been previously established as a four year institution (similar to the U.S. Naval Academy and other military academies) and I think this film goes with that notion. In other words, you have to spend four years there getting your education before you are commissioned as an ensign. An ensign - the lowest officer rank on the totem pole. While it may well be possible to get through the Naval Academy in three years (I don’t really know if that is possible but it might be for the suitably brilliant), you’d still be a mere ensign. You might be able to argue that, in Starfleet, exceptional performance might bump you up a rank but much has been made of the fact that Kirk, in this movie, wasn’t assigned a starship upon graduation from Starfleet and is therefore still in the cadet uniform for a fair portion of the movie. After three years, Kirk should be at best an Ensign or a Lieutenant JG although the fact that he wasn't assigned a ship seems to cast some doubt on his having pulled his life completely together. In any case, ranks are something you rise through over time...they aren’t just handed over at the slightest show of aptitude. Even in WWII, when efficient officers rose through the ranks a bit more rapidly than usual, there was usually at least some actual time spent in each individual rank. Ranks weren’t traditionally skipped or otherwise bypassed except in cases of enlisted becoming commissioned as officers. Even then, it wasn’t really looked at as rank skipping since officers and enlisted are on different career tracks.

I will offer this: Since this is a time-travel story, maybe Kirk in Captain’s garb is a shot of the elder Spock’s post-change universe and we’ll see a temporal transition to this different reality in the film. While that is a somewhat lazy and unoriginal explanation, it would satisfy me if the rest of the movie kicked some serious ass. I think it could be inferred by Pine’s appearance that he might have drifted aimlessly for a few years before coming to Starfleet and might be older than your average cadet. If Spock the Elder changes time in such a way where Kirk enters the Academy at a younger age and excels through the ranks in a way traditionally accepted by Star Trek fandom, I could see 28-year old Pine representing a freshly promoted Captain Kirk on the other side of the revision. Granted, we don’t know much about the details of the movie but I haven’t read anything yet to preclude such a possibility.

As I always say, this film might tie all these niggling doubts up in such a nice little package of genius that I’ll swallow it all hook, line, and sinker. Do I have that kind of confidence in Abrams and company? Not even a little bit. I hope to be wrong.

there is a cause worth fighting for

but in the future

the greatest threat to our survival

will not be men at all...

--------------------< p>Great editing, great pace, great music and on top the best trailer voice over guy ever!

LOTR trailers were all pretty lame, imho. The trailer for 300 on the other hand was brilliant stuff. Same applies to SUNSHINE trailer, TROY teaser, and the second TERMINATOR 2 trailer: They know its face, they know its mission. But there is one thing they don't know: this time...there are TWO! TERMINATOR 2! Great stuff.

Oh yeah Mission impossible 1 & 2 were garbage so it's hardly surprising the 3rd one wasn't saved by a 1st time movie director, whose main job must have been to go "Yes sir Mr. Cruise. More close ups of you Mr. Cruise sir. Yes I know, but mission impossible was a team show..and.. and.. o.k Mr. Cruise sir we'll cut those scenes and extend the ones with you in them". I never saw MI3 I got dragged to see MI2 by a group of friends 3 wanted to see it, 2 didn't the majority won, and it was even worse than the 1st, so as much as I love movies no force on Earth was getting me to the movies to watch that. ButI'll watch it today for coomparison. All I know is that most of what I read and was told was that even though it wasn't any better than the rest at least it tried to be a mision impossible film. All directors make mistakes by the way.

I'd be all for this movie making it canon but three (Academy) years is just too short to my mind and I think the bulk of this movie covers that period. In any case, I believe that Kirk was generally thought (as per books like the Star Trek Chronology) to have been made a Captain at age 29 some 7-8 years after his graduation from Starfleet. That's why I'd have no objection to 28-year old Chris Pine playing Captain Kirk. My issue here is the way this story seems to be structured and where it seems to going. Unless there are some significant time jumps within the movie or a temporal explanation for Kirk in his Captain's shirt, it could be hard to swallow.

I also think, giving the Kirk characterization as a rebellious young man in the early film, his Starfleet success shouldn't be easily predicted. It may make more sense in the finished product but with what we've heard so far, there's little reason after the bar fight for anyone to think he's get through the first year of the Academy, let along have his own ship in eight years with the Academy demanding half that time.

Even if you wanted to, youd have to get in line at this point. Amazing how this man turned jaded anti-establishment types into propogandists for the one-party war machine.

Change my ass. Fucking sheep. How many dumb fucks here will be drafted into the "civilian national security force", I wonder? Good luck in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. I gaurantee you'll be crying for scotty to "beam you up".

I may be in the minority here, but CASINO ROYALE is the only BOND film that I ever truly enjoyed...and wanted to watch again.