Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Movies Entertainment

New Star Trek Trailer 591

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the please-jj-don't-hurt-em dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Star Trek Trailer

Comments Filter:
  • Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aeonite (263338) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:10PM (#25792941) Homepage

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

    I fear something terrible has happened.

    • Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

      by eln (21727) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:20PM (#25793111) Homepage

      Isn't using a Star Wars quote in a Star Trek thread a hanging offense on Slashdot?

      If it isn't, it should be.

      • Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

        by wealthychef (584778) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:31PM (#25793313)
        Isn't using a Star Wars quote in a Star Trek thread a hanging offense on Slashdot?

        No, it's not, but using mutexes improperly is.

      • by DrYak (748999) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:32PM (#25793327) Homepage

        Isn't using a Star Wars quote in a Star Trek thread a hanging offense on Slashdot?

        As both franchise got similarly raped by dubious quality prequels :
        No.
        It's just horribly deceived StarWars fan's way to share their pain with soon-to-be-wanting-to-"unsee" StarTrek fans.

        • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:12PM (#25794021) Homepage Journal

          As both franchise got similarly raped by dubious quality prequels

          I had some hopes for this movie, because I like JJ Abrams. Now that I've seen the trailer, I can't help but agree with you. Holy crap, what is so hard about making good star trek movies? They have so much background to choose from, finding the right story should be easy.

          Actually, I know what the problem is. They see the fanbase as a bonus, not as the target demographic. We have these people who are going to see the movie no matter what, so might as well aim for a completely different demographic. This way we get the other people AND the trek nerds!!!

          We need to start boycotting this shit. If they don't start making good trek to bring us back, at least it might cause them to stop making trek altogether. That would be an improvement.

          • by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Monday November 17, 2008 @08:31PM (#25795147) Homepage Journal

            Now that I've seen the trailer, I can't help but agree with you.

            And there's never been a targeted trailer? They do this all the time, making a more action-oriented trailer for showing before an action movie ("Quantum of Solace") that makes the movie look more "summer blockbustery" than it really is. There's nothing saying this movie can't be the Star Trek we know and love and are hoping it will be. A later trailer may show the character aspect of the movie. Obviously you expect action in this movie and the trailer says, "Yep. There's action." It was being shown to a James Bond crowd (among others). It doesn't mean the whole tone of the movie is going to be like Transformers (which I liked by the way) as opposed to "Star Trek: TMP". I'm willing to give Abrams the benefit of the doubt for now. It looks cool, and it looks fun. Maybe it will be a lame piece of fluff. But at least wait until you see the movie before writing it off as crap. Ya never know. It might be good.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by runlvl0 (198575)

            Actually, I know what the problem is. They see the fanbase as a bonus, not as the target demographic. We have these people who are going to see the movie no matter what, so might as well aim for a completely different demographic. This way we get the other people AND the trek nerds!!!

            Ah, yes. The McCain strategy. And we see how well that worked out for him.

          • by denzacar (181829) on Monday November 17, 2008 @09:26PM (#25795751) Journal

            How the hell are they gonna know we are boycotting? And why should they care?
            SOMEONE will pay for the tickets. SOMEONE payed to see "The Hottie & the Nottie" for fuck's sake.

            And since actually gathering money to pay for more of what fans like (Remember Enterprise donation gathering?) does not work - maybe a more pro-active approach is required?

            I propose packages of dead cats and live cockroaches.
            Second batch should have an additional payload of microwave popcorn and small metal objects - for when they start microwaving their mail.

          • by nEoN nOoDlE (27594) on Monday November 17, 2008 @11:31PM (#25796945) Homepage

            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.

            • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Tuesday November 18, 2008 @01:04AM (#25797749) Homepage Journal

              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: (Score:3, Funny)

              by sammy baby (14909)

              I agree, except whoa, jebus, can't they do something about how f***ing depressing the series has become? Part of me can't wait for the last few episodes to air, and the other part is afraid I'll slit my wrists after viewing a couple.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by denzacar (181829)

              If only they fired that cameraman with Parkinson's and that editor with ADHD.
              Equal opportunity employment is all fine, but really... SOME jobs require a steady hand and a bit of concentration.

              I gave up BSG at about half way through season two cause my head was starting to hurt.

        • by niktemadur (793971) on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:41PM (#25794467)

          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.

        • by hey! (33014) on Monday November 17, 2008 @08:10PM (#25794903) Homepage Journal

          Well, Star Wars had the problem that Lucas didn't have that much to say, and by the time he got around the to the prequels he had plenty of money to say it with.

          Star Trek was simple overexposure. They didn't have enough good writing to cover two simultaneous series and the bled the well dry.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Jubetas (917500)
        Let's just say he should have a bad feeling about it.
        Or perhaps that his karma can't repel downmodding of that magnitude.

        Or maybe he wants it... Mod him down, and he will become more powerful than we could possibly imagine.

      • by CarpetShark (865376) on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:10PM (#25793985)

        In Aeonite's defense, he did try to find an alternative to using a reference from another space movie. Honest. I actually saw him out combing the desert.

    • *smacks his forehead* Ok what makes this movie suck. Mr. Abrams needs to go hang himself since he "promised" it would stay in cannon. Well first off no cars are in Star Trek unless you're on the Gangster Planet from the TOS episode "A piece of the action." Secondly: Kirk and Spock never served together on the Enterprise until AFTER the episode "The Cage" according to cannon which was 13 years ago from the point of the episode "The Menagerie". I'm unsure when Kirk began his command on the Enterprise. I would
  • Uneasy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:10PM (#25792943)

    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.

    • Re:Uneasy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by caffeinemessiah (918089) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:19PM (#25793083) Journal

      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)

        by caffeinemessiah (918089) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:26PM (#25793225) Journal
        I wrote:

        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...

      • by u38cg (607297)
        I'm past understanding how they screw some of this stuff up so badly. I went to see Quantum of Solace last weekend, expecting all the negativity I'd been hearing to be nonsense from people who didn't have a clue what decent cinema was, and instead...it was like a CD that had been mastered hot enough to make your ears bleed. Non-stop action with the camera in Daniel Craig's face does not equal exciting viewing, people, it just doesn't. How they could have thought it was good, exciting, tight film making i
        • I'll try to keep this spoiler-free.

          During the obvious homage, I laughed because I didn't see oil traces anywhere else. I envisioned a goon squad armed with carpet cleaners making sure the place is tidy after the crime.

          That or a rather morally ambivalent cleaning crew working for the hotel.

      • Re:Uneasy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:46PM (#25793591)

        Why? Because need a distraction! We need something mindless to watch that we don't have to think about because we do enough of that when we're out of the theatres. Thinking today is depressing, and we don't want to be depressed. We want to sit back and dream that the world is beautiful when it's not. We want to believe that we're just a few short technological leaps away from salvation, and we want to imagine ourselves in this "better world" -- a better world that doesn't involve us changing who we are, or sacrificing the things we want.

        So we throw a bunch of cast members together, make a bunch of stereotyped caricatures out of them so that we can all find at least one to identify with, and then send them off to wreck bloody vengance on the world because we're so sick of feeling powerless that the idea of fighting some righteous battle is very appealing. And of course they'll reward us in this fantasy world with sex, power, and a grand adventure.

        Yeah. They raped our childhood. Yeah, it jumped the shark. It's only because we're too afraid to dream of Utopia. We're too afraid to think that our neighbors aren't our enemies but could be our allies, our friends. We're scared of people who are differently colored than us, who think differently than us, and we know deep down inside that the world is not beautiful anymore and we'd better start picking sides now before everything falls apart.

        That was the genius of Roddenberry; He made a futuristic utopia that was still populated by people just as flawed, just as human as we were, but we worked together because there were BIGGER differences out there. Aliens bent on world domination. Space probes gone beserk. A new challenge every week that was so much bigger than something as petty as race and sex differences to unite everyone. And now that he's dead, nobody's got the guts to dream big anymore. So we fall back on what we know... The same old conflicts, the same old prejudices... And it's so much easier to identify with feeling righteous and wanting to be violent than it is to take the high road and endure conflict and tension to create mutually empowering relationships.

        Hollywood is a mirror... It shows us at our best, and at our worst. You will be missed, Gene.

    • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:23PM (#25793161)
      I still think the best continuation of the Star Trek Universe is Boston Legal. It's got Kirk and Odo and Quark and even Seven of Nine a couple of years back.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PFI_Optix (936301)

        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]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jo_ham (604554)

        And it has James Spader. I think that Trek missed out by *not* having him appear in any series.

    • by fm6 (162816)

      The MAF has been battling for the soul of the franchise for a long time. Remember all those endless space battles in the last season of DS9?

    • by djupedal (584558)
      I like the roll of gaffer's tape sitting on the console @ 1:17 in trailer 2 - if this is any indication of what's coming, the editing in the movie is going to be a distraction.
    • Could the trailer just be a marketing ploy to get more non-Star Trek fans to go see the movie? It would be smart to do this because most Trek fans are going to see it anyway.

      The recent X-Files movie did the opposite. The trailers of the movie made it look like it would be tailored to X-files fans, but in reality the movie was tailored towards a general audience with a few inside jokes. That is to say, they made a movie no one could possibly enjoy.

      Now you could be right, but I will pass judgement after seein

    • Re:Uneasy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Itchyeyes (908311) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:44PM (#25793557) Homepage

      I dunno. Personally, I'll take "mindless summer action flick" over the complete cheese-fest everything Star Trek has been for the last decade. No offense intended to the Trek faithful out there, but I think a lot of them are blinded by their nostalgia for the series. Hold the Star Trek of today up next to something like BSG or Firefly/Serenity and the disparities in quality become pretty obvious.

      This new movie may not be the return to former glory that many were hoping for, but at least it's a departure from the path towards obscurity that the series has been headed down for so many years now.

  • I seem to recall that the actors were fairly young looking (or actually were pretty young). Is that still the case?

  • Episode I scale fail. Let's hope it doesn't evolve into Episode III scale fail.

  • Sorry, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:13PM (#25793007)
    "It's dead, Jim."
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by eln (21727)

      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

      • by fm6 (162816) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:47PM (#25793625) Homepage Journal

        It has run its course, move on.

        Dude, have been to the theater lately? Everything is recycled. Old movies, old TV shows. foreign movies, comic books, video games... The biggest blockbuster last summer was the third installment in franchise that started out as a theme park ride. (Not a very good one, either.) Martin Scorsese not only recycled a Hong Kong action flick, he won an Oscar for doing it!

        For some reason, it's much harder to get an expensive movie or TV production greenlighted if it's totally original. It has to be a copy of something else. The original doesn't even have been successful!

        Look at Battlestar Galactica. The remake only caries over the barest elements of the premise and a lot of not very important details [battlestarwiki.org]. Creatively, it would have made more sense to start from scratch. But no, in order to get made, the series had to be based on a older series by one of TV's most notorious hacks and ripoff artists [wikipedia.org] that barely lasted a single season.

        Like they say on the show, "It has happened before, it will happen again!"

  • by ufpdom (556704) <ncc1701p@nospa[ ... co.jp ['m.o' in > on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:16PM (#25793041) Homepage
    Could this be available in something other than requiring me a update in software to my machine?
  • Young Star Trek (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jpmorgan (517966) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:16PM (#25793045) Homepage
    I don't think I can take 'Young Star Trek' seriously. In TOS, Kirk was already a youthful commander. What a joke.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I don't think this involves Enterprise. From what I remember, this is supposed to take place during Kirk's academy days.

      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.

      Besides, I think Sci-Fi has had it in the movies for a while. It's comic book time. Let's all wear spandex.

      • 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.

  • by fm6 (162816)

    Is it a reboot if the new version comes from a time traveler from the old version going back and changing the past?

    Speaking of which, why did they bother to bring in J.J. Abrams if he's going to recycle all the old lame Bermanesque plot gimmicks?

    • "Is it a reboot if the new version comes from a time traveler from the old version going back and changing the past?"

      I don't know if it's a reboot, but it's certainly lame.

      "Speaking of which, why did they bother to bring in J.J. Abrams if he's going to recycle all the old lame Bermanesque plot gimmicks?"

      I think JJ Abrams may be ready to knock M. Knight Shymalan off his throne as the most overhyped writer in Hollywood. Shymalan and Abrams both share a similar trait... they're both one-trick ponies. Shymalan

  • scantily clad people (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kandenshi (832555) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:19PM (#25793079)

    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?

    • by sl0ppy (454532) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:22PM (#25793149)

      Watching that trailer it seems like they've made an effort to sex-up trek

      have you seen the TOS?

      seriously.

      star trek had scantily clad women in almost every episode, with barely veiled (for the time) bouts of kirk scoring with every single one of them. even TNG had commander "horndog" riker.

      • by operagost (62405)

        Barely-modest shots of nude t'Pol in Enterprise FTW. Oh, and Hoshi Sato getting her top yanked off jumping out of a Jefferies tube, thereby sneaking in an audition for Holding Your Own Boobs magazine.

        And I thought they'd jumped the shark with 7 of 9's catsuit.

      • by Tetsujin (103070)

        Watching that trailer it seems like they've made an effort to sex-up trek

        have you seen the TOS?

        seriously.

        star trek had scantily clad women in almost every episode, with barely veiled (for the time) bouts of kirk scoring with every single one of them.

        I'd just like to say, thank you, William Ware Theiss, wherever you are...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by nizo (81281) *

        commander "horndog" riker

        Except near the end he looked more like, "I ate a few dozen too many corndogs" Riker, with that synthahol gutt he had going.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kandenshi (832555)

        To my shame I've not seen every single episode of TOS, but I think I've got a good feel for it(have seen the majority of eps).
        I do however know that Kirk having hot alien women falling for him is somewhat of a cliche, and I got to see that a few times. (Yeoman Rand was fairly sexualized as well)

        My point was that I don't recall seeing either of them in their underwear in full-on grope on a bed.

        Sex is an important part of humanity, and I don't think it should be ignored. But that trailer made me expect that

    • by hondo77 (324058) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:57PM (#25793803) Homepage

      ...but are tits really the answer...

      Stop right there. Tits are always the answer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mochan_s (536939)

      Maybe you don't watch that many movie trailers, but sub-second flashes of scantily clad women are in every trailer. Just watch a few random big movies on apple trailers.

      There is the kissing flash and the semi-naked girl flash. It's in every trailer. I think a flash of the female body somehow gives a positive view of the movie or something.

  • Which is impressive, considering the amount of crap the various creative teams have produced since the original series. I would day they should let the thing die with some dignity, but that time is long past.
  • by ErkDemon (1202789) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:33PM (#25793361) Homepage
    I thought that the film's ---GO BACK--- slogan and logo (with the "zing" through it) was intriguing - but then I realised that it was just a site navigation button.
  • With the rare exception (Data, the holographic Doctor), Star Trek usually stayed away from robots. What was with the Robo-Cop in the trailer?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by GIL_Dude (850471)
      Really, they did? Let's see... I, Mudd - a planet completely populated with androids. Then there was the 'Shore Leave" episode where all the creations on the planet were some sort of robot. Also "Requiem for Methuselah" where Rayna (Kirk's love interest) is an android. How about "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" In it, Dr. Roger Korby and his entire "surviving" staff are androids and they find little girls are sometimes made like computers.

      Although TOS certainly didn't do androids or robots on every episode
  • by FSWKU (551325) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:34PM (#25793393)
    Karma be damned, this has to be said.

    Why the hell are almost ALL new movie trailers hosted by Apple, with each requiring Quicktime. And why does every new trailer seem to REQUIRE me to update to the latest version of that bloated, memory-gobbling, unwanted startup service inserting, file association stealing, iTunes pushing crap just to play a damned VIDEO? I'd rather have a larger filesize and get a standard-ish format like DivX than have to use this crap just to shave off some bits on the encode. I already have PROPER h.264 support on my system, so just let me download the damned trailer and watch it with something that's NOT QUICKTIME. The implementation Apple uses for that isn't even compatible with the standard, for crying out loud.

    This story really needs to be tagged with "fuckquicktime"
  • I half expected Baby Kirk to shout "Yippee!" after jumping out of the 'Vette. Should 'ave just made it a podracer and got it over with.

    I was disappointed out of my skull at this.

    --riney

  • 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."

    Poorly, I'll bet.

    Also, that shitty site hijacks your browser window. You've been warned.

  • by prakslash (681585) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:39PM (#25793495)
    So, there is something wrong with the movie, I think.

    In the trailer, we see Kirk racing his motorbike and seeing the Enterprise being built.

    Wasn't it built in Earth orbit, you ask?

    Well, I think they got *that* part right. According to the Original Series Dedication Plaque, the Constitution Class Enterprise was constructed at San Francisco Fleet Yards on Earth and in Earth orbit. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the orbital facility and starbase featured in ST: TMP was San Francisco Fleet Yards. According to the novelization of ST: A Flag Full of Stars, the San Francisco Fleet Yards also had facilities on Earth.

    So, if Kirk was racing his bike in the San Francisco area, he *could* have seen the enterprise being built.

    But.. I say, he still couldn't have!!

    You see, Enterprise was built and launched in 2245
    Kirk was born in 2233.

    He would have been only 12 years old at the time they show him racing his bike and seeing the enterprise being built.
    • by Imagix (695350) on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:00PM (#25793835)
      And he grew up in Iowa.
    • by glwtta (532858) on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:18PM (#25794117) Homepage
      I noticed something wrong too: if you watch the trailer closely, you'll notice that it looks like this movie is shit.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pentalive (449155)

      Perhaps the enterprise was just getting a major re-fit?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fiannaFailMan (702447)

      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.

    • Get a grip. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by IdahoEv (195056)

      Numerical consistency does not exist in Star Trek.

      From Stardates, to warp speeds / travel times / distances, to chronologies from series to series, they just don't add up and never have.

      If you let go of that, grasshopper, and enjoy the stories (instead of the numbers), you will be happier.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jfruhlinger (470035)

      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 th

  • are Kirk's illegitimate children.

  • I'm 38 and I've been watching Star Trek since I was five. The first text I remember reading and understanding were the credits to TOS. By the time I was seven I could tell you the entire plot of a TOS episode by watching the first ten seconds, max.

    I thought the trailer was frikkin' awesome. I don't understand the bitterness and disappointment. And I'm not a trek fanboi, either. I stopped watching the series' about one season into Voyager and missed most of Enterprise.

    All of this bitching about continuity being broken and stuff going against canon: jesus christ, who cares? It's fiction, people. It's not immutable.

    • Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:25PM (#25794235)

      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.

  • by glwtta (532858) on Monday November 17, 2008 @06:53PM (#25793717) Homepage
    You do realize that Abrams' "writing staff," in this case, consists entirely of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci?

    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:10PM (#25793991)

    From here. [hd-trailers.net]

  • by B5_geek (638928) on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:16PM (#25794091)

    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.

  • by Zymergy (803632) * on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:19PM (#25794145)
    The new James T. Kirk better be sleeping with ANY female in his vicinity just like the old one did!!!
    NOT TO MENTION..... HIS... OVER.. ACTING.... SKILLS....
    I remember Kirk seemingly slept with a new woman nearly every episode including that green alien chic... (Capt. Picard was far too celibate)
    I want a Kirk character that leaves today's generation of 'sensitive' weenie men saying: "Wow, That's a man's man!" (Just look at what has sadly happened to Bond over the years...)
  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Monday November 17, 2008 @07:39PM (#25794437) Homepage Journal

    Let's hope Spock doesn't go on a rampage, opening up aliens heads with his finger to steal their psychic powers.

  • new voyages (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rpillala (583965) on Monday November 17, 2008 @08:05PM (#25794811)

    I imagine everyone here knows New Voyages [startreknewvoyages.com] already. If you haven't seen it, you should watch some. James Cawley gets it.

    My favorite of the TOS movies was 6 because the enemy overestimated Kirk's racism and underestimated his intelligence and dedication to duty. The turning point was when, instead of starting the war he was expected to start, he said "signal our surrender." In TOS, Kirk was never a warmonger or really prone to violence at all. Not a hothead. Maybe these people watched the old series and noticed all the fights and shit without noticing that Kirk didn't start hardly any of it. And when he did start a fight, it was more to prove a point or to keep someone else from having to fight. Kirk doesn't like losing. Anything. That's the fundamental truth of Kirk.

    I don't expect this movie to show an old, wise, thoughtful Kirk, but let's not turn him into a stereotypic cocky youth.

  • by ErkDemon (1202789) on Monday November 17, 2008 @08:26PM (#25795085) Homepage
    " Is everyone comfortable? I've called you all to this emergency "Starfleet Ultra" meeting to resolve a number of crises. This meeting is, of course, not taking place. Standard security measures have been taken, and I encourage you all to speak freely during the discussion period. Let me explain the purpose of this meeting, and the crises in question.

    First we have the unfortunate case of James T. Kirk. As we all know, Kirk is the youngest ever graduate of Starfleet, and has been used, intensively, in all our promotional materials for the last three months. Unfortunately, it seems that our Mr Kirk was not all that he seemed. As you know, Kirk managed a perfect score in what was supposed to be an unwinnable simulation, by hacking the computer. What you don't know is that a subsequent investigation revealed that Mr Kirk also passed all his other assessments, including his psychological assessments, the same way. His actual scores show Kirk to be emotionally unstable, over-excitable, prone to megalomania and paranoia, and he appears to have an obsession with knives and "fucking green pontang". He even lied about his name, his middle name isn't Tiberius, it's Timothy. He's a fraud, and a complete liability to Starfleet.

    This brings us to problem number two. Spock. As we all know, Mr's Spock's mixed-blood heritage is regarded as an affront both to conservative Vulcan society and to right-wing Earthers. He doesn't "fit in" in either society, which is why his father decided to put him into Starfleet in the first place. Spock has limited social skills that make him a liability as a crew member. He was befriended by Kirk for his computer expertise, and now he ought to be facing criminal charges alongside Kirk. Needless to say, the prosecution of the "mixed-species" son of the Vulcan Ambassador would be deeply embarrassing, and would play into the hands of separatist elements on both sides. We can't afford to let this happen.

    This brings us to problem number three, the USS Enterprise.
    Four weeks ago, in EarthDock, in a standard post-mission checkup, a pile of ... detritus was discovered at the bottom of a Jeffries tube. Broken glassware. Specifically, broken whisky bottles. It now appears that the Supervising Engineer originally in charge of the Enterprise's construction, Scott, was suffering from intermittent alcoholic blackouts during construction, and was systematically falsifying the engineering certification paperwork. I'm afraid that the Enterprise cannot now be considered safe for further deployment.

    Along with these three disasters, we also have a number of more minor personnel problems, for example, one Doctor McCoy, who killed fourteen people in Starfleet Medical last year. McCoy had a breakdown a few weeks after disconnecting his father's life-support systems, and ran amok in the intensive care ward, screaming "I'm a murderer not a doctor!", and pulled twenty plugs before someone stopped him. Only six survived. Do I see some murmurs of recognition? Yes, we managed to keep the "Killer McCoy" episode out of the press, but I see that some rumours have managed to spread through the ranks, nevertheless. McCoy has responded to therapy, and is declared fully rehabilitated, but he still has a tendency to repeat his psychologist's assigned mantra "I'm a doctor, not a murderer" under times of stress, and we don't quite know where to put him. Too many people have heard the rumours. We also have a certain Officer Uhura, who ... I see some of us around the table are blushing ... seems to have taken her training as "communications specialist" rather too much to heart, and seems to have been "communicating" with rather too many higher members of the command structure, with the obvious attendant security implications. We've also scraped together a list of other minor "problem" personnel. You each have a copy in the folder in front of you. None of those folders will leave this room.

    Now, my proposed solution is to solve all these

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson

Working...