New Star Trek Trailer 591
roelbj writes "The full trailer to the next Star Trek movie is now available at the movie's official web site. The upcoming J.J. Abrams-helmed installment represents a changing of the guard, a reboot of the franchise, and a return to the original-series crew. It should prove interesting to see how Abrams' writing staff (Cloverfield, Lost, Alias) tackles the Star Trek universe and all the continuity and baggage that comes with it."
Uneasy (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick. I like those movies as much as anyone else, but the franchise deserves something better than that.
I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.
I for one, welcome... (Score:1, Interesting)
scantily clad people (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it cuts against the grain for slashdot, but are tits really the answer to Star Trek's woe's? Watching that trailer it seems like they've made an effort to sex-up trek. I don't have any issue with attractive women being on board, I'd think that by the time that we're launching warp-capable ships that it'll be fairly easy to have an attractive body. I just don't think that having bra-clad women(what, no better tech in THAT area yet?) or showing softcore porn on a bed is really the best way to make people take trek seriously.
meh, I suppose the old methods weren't working, might as well try something new eh?
Re:Uneasy (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick
I caught the trailer during the opening of Quantum of Solace and must say felt the same way. Right from the Fast and Furious-like opening scene, through the brief flashes of sex and Spock getting all mad, it really seems like they're pumping it full of Summer Flick Formula(r). Someone mentioned this earlier in an older thread about the movie, but why is it that everything today has to be re-imagined as darker, more filled with violence and sexier? Ironically, that's how I felt about Q of S too -- it just wasn't fun anymore, and isn't that why so many of us put up with (nay, relished!) the carpet-on-a-rock aliens of TOS?
Re:Uneasy (Score:4, Interesting)
I caught the trailer during the opening of Quantum of Solace and must say felt the same way. Right from the Fast and Furious-like opening scene, through the brief flashes of sex and Spock getting all mad, it really seems like they're pumping it full of Summer Flick Formula(r). Someone mentioned this earlier in an older thread about the movie, but why is it that everything today has to be re-imagined as darker, more filled with violence and sexier? Ironically, that's how I felt about Q of S too -- it just wasn't fun anymore, and isn't that why so many of us put up with (nay, relished!) the carpet-on-a-rock aliens of TOS?
That said, I must add that the shot of the half-built Enterprise looming in the distance while a teen kirk on a motorbike looks on was actually quite stirring... Even though this might be "Star Trek babies" in the end, I'm hoping it might still redeem itself in the end with scenes like that one. One of my biggest complaints with TOS was that they didn't show enough of Earth other than generic "Federation HQ" shots (and no, ST 4 doesn't count). It might be cool to see what the peeps on good ol' Earth-without-a-monetary-economy were doing while Kirk was vigorously fornicating with green alien chicks in shady exoplanetary bars...
Re:Sorry, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. I still think more could be done with the Star Trek universe in general, but they need to stop trying to squeeze more out of the original series. It has run its course, move on.
Of course, the same can be said of TNG, and nobody seems to want to even acknowledge the possibility of making movies from Enterprise, DS9 or Voyager, so the alternative would be to make an entirely new set of characters. There isn't anyone left in Hollywood with that kind of creative talent, so it looks like Star Trek as a franchise is screwed.
Abrams' writing staff (Score:4, Interesting)
For the record, these guys had nothing to do with Lost or Cloverfield (for whatever that's worth), though they've certainly made a significant contribution to Alias and its wig-based story-lines. They cut their teeth on "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" (and later "Jack of All Trades", no less), and gave us such gems as The Island, Transformers, and currently The Fringe (where you have people going from embryo to adult in a matter of a few hours, gaining some 150lb of mass out of thin air, because someone fucked with some cell cycle regulators a bit - I hate it when that happens).
I'd like to say I'm surprised that these guys keep getting work, but I think it's just the idealist in me that wants to think I should be surprised. It's not that they are bad writers, really; they've just elevated "formulaic hackery" to such an art form that I'm pretty sure the whole process could be completely automated by now, and summer blockbusters could be cranked out with no human involvement whatsoever, with similar results to what we get now.
Still, I might have to see this just for the hilarious casting: Simon Pegg, Carl Urban, John Cho, and Sylar as Sylar - just, WTF?
Re:Star Trek Continuum (Score:3, Interesting)
On a more serious note, I just discovered the fanfilm Of Gods and Men. Probably old news to the die-hard trekkies, but we casual fans don't get the memos.
It can come across as a little preachy to some and not all of the action sequences make complete sense (I think maybe some things exist in the rendered scenes that never made it to exposition), but it's got Chekov, Uhura, Tuvok, and several other faces from the movies and shows. Worth watching during a bout of insomnia.
http://www.startrekofgodsandmen.com/ [startrekofgodsandmen.com]
Rehash forgets why the original was great. (Score:4, Interesting)
As has already been mentioned this looks more like a Summer Blockbluster then anything else. I was expecting to see Will Smith strut into a scene with a cigar splutting a corney one-liner.
ST is old. We have had 18 YEARS of non-stop Trek (TNG aired in 1987, Enterprise ended in 2005) and reusing the same script for many of those shows. We were/are tired of seeing the same thing over and over again. You know what we are not tired of?
Hope, charisma, and a calm assurance of success.
TOS had this in spades, and we responded with resounding joy. The others all took a piece of that formula, but none had it the same.
This movie looks like it has nothing to offer but flash and CGI. The original Kirk could have just as easily been a pirate-ship captain; he was cunning, daring, full of guile, and a swashbuckler. This new Kirk looks like Prep-School prankster.
This reboot looks like it has lost the original intent. That is why it will fail.
Re:Something wrong with the movie (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the enterprise was just getting a major re-fit?
Re:Something wrong with the movie (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the beauty of doing a reboot. You can dispense with canon and give the nitpicking nerds a box of tissues if they're so upset about irrelevant details being slightly off.
Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it really too much to ask that a story in an established franchise stick to previously established material?
Otherwise, it is just a cynical attempt to cash in on an existing fan base by making a movie that is NOT Star Trek and then use the character names and a few items from that franchise to get them to pay to see it anyway.
Think about it. What is the MINIMUM number of changes that would have to be made in that trailer to make it a Battlestar Galactica movie? A Perry Rhodan movie? Another Star Wars movie? Another Starship Troopers movie?
THAT is why canon is important.
Re:Both franchise shared the same fate. (Score:5, Interesting)
Both franchises got similarly raped by dubious quality prequels.
The Star Trek franchise lost me a long time ago, but I'm genuinely intrigued by this new film. At this point in time, a project helmed by JJ Abrams has far more potential than any other overseen by Lucas.
Consider how Abrams has surrounded himself with hardcore trekkies and genuinely takes feedback from them, while Lucas insisted on being the sole "intellectual author" of his prequels, giving us the unsightly spectacles of lil' superboy Anakin, baby Greedo and that infamous Gungan.
Another great difference is dialogue and filming itself, Lucas "can write that shit but sure as hell can't say it" and puts acting on a secondary plane, too busy visualizing how to fill the green screen. In contrast, Abrams has a keener eye and ear for these things.
Better still, Abrams is aware that he has something to prove here, voluntarily put himself in an uncomfortable position as a creative challenge, and I can respect that.
Bottom line, I'll pay money to see this prequel (as most of us here will) and will reserve criticism for afterward.
Re:Star Trek Continuum (Score:3, Interesting)
And it has James Spader. I think that Trek missed out by *not* having him appear in any series.
Re:Something wrong with the movie (Score:1, Interesting)
Isn't entirely possible that it's not the Enterprise being built, but undergoing some major repair / maintenance work?
Remember that a lot of times movie trailers put the scenes and dialogue into a blender. Creating something that is exciting and dramatic is more important than something that strictly represents what the movie itself will be like.
Like that one trailer for "Attack of the Clones" that mixes & matches stuff about Shmi's abduction with the assassination attempt on Padme.
Re:Both franchise shared the same fate. (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed.
For comparison, I offer the trailer for Star Trek: First Contact [youtube.com], which has lots of fight-the-Borg action, and only a brief appearance by Zefram Cochrane.
Yes, the Suck is strong with this one (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmmmm, Scotty, Kirk, McCoy, Spock, Uhuru, Sulu and Checkov all at the academy at the same time despite the differences in age. Yeah, this is gonna' suck.
Yup, it's becoming more and more apparent that Abrams has no regard whatsoever for the history of the series. McCoy was older than both Kirk and Spock (so was Scotty, but not by much), and Sulu, Uhura, and especially Chekov were all younger than Kirk... Chekov was a freakin' ensign, and didn't even join the series until year two. Now Abrams has them all at the academy at the same time?
This isn't Star Trek. It's Starfleet 90210.
Re:Something wrong with the movie (Score:3, Interesting)
God, I can't believe I'm replying to a Slashdot post about Star Trek chronology (it's like a black hole of nerdery) but the Trek series producers have always said that only stuff that's actually referenced on-screen is canon, and actual A.D. dates were never referenced on screen during the Original Series era. I'm not sure where you got those dates from, but I'll bet they're from books or some other non-canon source.
In Star Trek III, a Starfleet Admiral, explaining why the ship is being mothballed, says that the Enterprise is "over twenty years old" or something along those lines. Assuming that Kirk is 50 or so at that point, and 25 in this movie, that works well enough.
Re:Fuck Star Trek, Here Comes Watchmen! (Score:2, Interesting)
No need to download the coded if you've installed VLC. Also, the trailers are available in 1080p
Trailer 1 [apple.com]
Trailer 2 [apple.com]
Re:Both franchise shared the same fate. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want good Trek, watch Battlestar Galactica. What made Trek good in the first place was that it tackled issues of the day in a sci-fi environment. That was the only way they could even show something like the first interracial kiss, or having a Russian as a good guy alongside Americans. BSG does just that. It talks about modern problems through the sci-fi setting. The reason BSG is so good now is that they didn't worry about the canon from the original cheesy show. They just took the premise and ran with it.
Star Trek is outdated and needs a kick in the ass to be good sci-fi again. This movie probably won't be a resurgence of what made the original great, but neither would a movie based completely off of Star Trek canon.
Re:Something wrong with the movie (Score:1, Interesting)
This movie is a reboot of the franchise. It's too difficult to make a Star Trek movie these days that doesn't break some canon, so rather than try to fix every hole (I don't think that's easy to do since there are too many possibilities) they rebooted the franchise. Now everything you knew about Star Trek doesn't have to mean anything.
Sure, the characters are basically the same personality and have basically the same background, but now the story can be renewed. They don't have to think about "whether this is 100% accurate" they can focus on trying to portray the Star Trek universe.
I'm curious to see how they'll portray the universe in a "more modern" perspective. Judging by the trailer, I'm not disappointed. It looks like the characters are still going to be the same as the original in most ways, just through different actors.
Re:Both franchise shared the same fate. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want good Trek, watch Battlestar Galactica.
Oh, I do :)
What made Trek good in the first place was that it tackled issues of the day in a sci-fi environment.
Agreed. There was a lot of that of TNG and DS9 too. The idea of "curing" homosexuality, the influence of religion in science classes, etc. You mentioned you consider Galactica to be "good trek" and that's no accident considering Ronald D. Moore's involvement.
Re:A spaceship....on EARTH! (Score:1, Interesting)
Given the (even at impulse) performance we've seen out of the Enterprise-D, there's no reason she couldn't be built on earth either. We've seen her thrust at many more than 1g, and that's all it would take. Structural integrity and inertial dampenr fields to hold everything together, and you're all set.
I just figure that by the 24th century, we'll have moved out heavy industry into space just to get it off the Earth. For example, have you ever actually SEEN the San Francisco navy yards (Known locally as Hunter's Point)? The entire area is a horrific blight we'd be better off sinking into the bay
cya,
john
Re:Quicktime? Seriously? (Score:1, Interesting)
Encode, publish and distribute a movie to more than three non-technical people.
You will be standing on the roof, singing the praises of Quicktime to the heavens.
It's a standard, it's a system, it works. Nothing else comes close with the complete chain: professional encoder tools, solid player, multichannel / multilanguage sound, surround sound, subtitles, browser support, iPod / AppleTV support - and is standards support (the .mov linked to here is standard-compliant h264 video and audio).
But by all means, throw a whiny tantrum because it isn't your favorite pet format. News for you: DivX is dead. It was never alive - but you just don't know it.