Star Trek Trailer - opinions

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:42 pm

http://www.startrekmovie.com/intl/uk/

hmmm...

Looks spectacular, seems to ignore loads of canonical stuff, and I fear will be style over substance.

Sarin · Post by **Sarin** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:27 pm

I do not fear the same, I know it is gonna happen.

IMO ressurecting TOS was bad idea anyway...I can think of dozen better motives for new ST film. Early Romulan wars, 2300ish crisis, Gamma quadrant after Dominion war, or Romulan Civil war after Nemesis....

EDIT:Will be interesting tho...I analyzed trailer a bit, and noticed a few things...
1. USS Kelvin NCC 0514. Class unknown, no such ship ever appeared in ST. Probably single-nacelled ship, probably a light cruiser.
2. Ground-based shipyard. Ever since Earth started interstellar exploration, starships were constructed at orbital shipyards. Most of them even weren't capable of planetary landing. Besides, Enterprise's (probably) hull seems too big in the scene.
3. Federation dropships (probably, maybe just havy shuttles). Now where have I seen similar design?

And another edit...so, who likes the new transporter effect? Certainly not me...

JensAyton · Post by **JensAyton** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:58 pm

It’s a reboot. To expect canon is to deliberately set yourself up for disappointment.

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:16 pm

@Ahruman - but we're Trekkies - who the hell are they making it for if it's not for us (Canon-loving-nut-jobs that we are)?

Selezen · Post by **Selezen** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:47 am

Abrams did state that he was trying to preserve canon, even to the extent of having advisers tell him if he was going out of scope.

Not impressed if that's no longer the case. I suppose that as long as it's a good story and is a good film it will be forgiven.

As for building the ship on the ground, Abrams also stated that the decision was made due to the fact that the ship has to be able to withstand the internal stresses of gravity (since it generates its own gravity) therefore it makes sense to build it in a gravity well to make sure it can hold up.

@DaddyHoggy. They're making the film to MAKE MONEY. The ONLY reason it's being made at all is that ST: Enterprise made a surprisingly large amount of money in syndication and DVD sales. No-one cares about the fans. If they did there would be hundreds of polls and surveys between each film asking what the people would like to see in the film.

I think that bringing TOS back is a good idea - the only trouble is that it WILL cause controversy with every change they make. Same as usual, really.

JensAyton · Post by **JensAyton** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:28 pm

DaddyHoggy wrote:
@Ahruman - but we're Trekkies - who the hell are they making it for if it's not for us (Canon-loving-nut-jobs that we are)?

Trekkies – the next generation. No, really, that’s the plan.

Selezen · Post by **Selezen** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:40 pm

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20081125

Frame · Post by **Frame** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:43 pm

Not sure where all the "ignore the canonical stuff" is. If it´s minor stuff like where the Enterprise was build, on ground or in space... or if anybody had sex with another "main" characther.

Then really, someone have far to much time on their hands.. give it to me...

IMO TOS was allways pretty vague on everything...

Enterprise was a new chapter, however it got itself into all that crap about time traveling... blame that on the writers

...

/sarcasm on
"hi there, did you know, i´m from the future, and... you are going to unite your region of the galaxy, and call it "The Federation"...

X X X ...........

/sarcasm off

You should think herculess in space should have warned them about: time travel, do not go there.... The same with alternative universes.

Good thing mutabilis did´nt carry on there, with all the time travel crap.

Sci Fi is allready fantasy, do not get the fantasies mixed up, since it will result in to much weirdness for the user to be wanting to keep paying attention to what they are hearing./seeing.

Selezen · Post by **Selezen** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:55 pm

Sarin wrote:
1. USS Kelvin NCC 0514. Class unknown, no such ship ever appeared in ST. Probably single-nacelled ship, probably a light cruiser.

It's twin nacelled - if you look earlier in the trailer, you see a rear shot of it and can see another nacelle below the saucer.

It's similar to a couple of the designs from the old FASA roleplaying game, where there were loads of designs that had been dreamt up. Some were crap but some were pretty good (anyone remember the Chandley-class?).

It's good that Abrams has gone back to some of the old material and used the concepts that Paramount and Roddenberry never really authorised. Lots of the ship designs from the 70s and 80s were ignored by the officials and it's a shame. Looks like this film has used some good old ideas.

The trailer looks darned good. However, the trailer for Nemesis looked very similar... Not to happy about yet another alleged "time travel" incident (no spoilers here though).

JensAyton · Post by **JensAyton** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:00 pm

Frame wrote:
You should think herculess in space should have warned them about: time travel, do not go there....

I think the main lesson of Hercules in Space was: do not fire the write with a coherent idea for the whole series, replace him with complete hacks, fire the complete hacks and replace them with even more complete hacks.

You’d think that would be somewhat obvious, but apparently not.

wenlock · Post by **wenlock** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:46 pm

I hoped it would flop badly and then maybe we can get away from this nonsense of revisiting the past that Berman started with the Enterprise rubbish that just threw continuity out of the window completely. I thought DS9 was going to be dodgy as it moved away from a ship based format and to me I was proven right until the Dominion wars and Defiant came along.

Voyager looked dodgy on paper too seeing it used the time tunnel trying to get home but if we do the series ends concept. It was also pretty stupid that they could take on the Borg alone while in the Alpha quadrant whole fleets went bye bye when engaging them, fair enough they had 7 of 9 with Borg experience but the Alpha quad had Picard.

Enterprise which was such a mistake waiting to happen that it was hard to believe that Berman wasn't trying to kill off Star Trek for good.

Scotty was asked which Enterprise he wanted to visit on the holodeck by the computer with no mention of Archers Enterprise at all in the next generation episode that he was in. Archer fought the Borg too surely the all knowing Q should have known that when he took Picard to meet the race for the first time in TNG. You have to wonder why Archer never saw fit to record events with the Borg including his doctors assimilation reversal techniques but then again with judgement like that there's no wonder he wasn't remembered in the future.

I haven't seen the trailers but my youngest son said it is full of eye candy so it will probably be a hit I suppose. Such a shame with so many great races in the future to build stories on and some loose ends that could have been revisited like Tin Man, those things that took half of Starfleet over in TNG season 1, the breakaway Borg with Hugh, Nagilum, Q and many others.

CptnEcho · Post by **CptnEcho** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:17 pm

I've enjoyed a lot of Star Trek over the years.

Star Trek - The Original Series still has much appeal to me. I am looking forward to seeing the movie in May, 2009.

As potential story material, the Romulan War offers vast amounts of potential. But I get the impression this movie will not use the Romulan War as its' foundation.

The trailer indicates there will be some scenes designed to offer eye-candy. ST-Enterprise seemed to offer the most of this during T'Pol's sessions with Trip. ST:TOS had plenty of tension and attraction scenes and broke a lot of ground in its' day.

ST:TNG seemed like a neutered version of ST:TOS. ST:DS9 was much more enjoyable (for me) than TNG, and perhaps gave ST its' gonads back.

ST:Voyager had good episodes and not-so-good episodes. But the episode where they encountered photonic life on the holodeck and had Janeway dress up as Queen Arachnia was priceless space-opera homage. Jeri Ryan's inclusion improved ratings for the series.

ST:Enterprise enjoyed a rich amount of story potential. I think they didn't fully utilize it. Still, I feel they did a much better job overall than ST:TNG.

Frame · Post by **Frame** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:46 pm

Ahruman wrote:
Frame wrote:
You should think herculess in space should have warned them about: time travel, do not go there....
I think the main lesson of Hercules in Space was: do not fire the write with a coherent idea for the whole series, replace him with complete hacks, fire the complete hacks and replace them with even more complete hacks.

You’d think that would be somewhat obvious, but apparently not.

Well, i never do endulge myself, with the back story, or behind the scenes stories.... to find reasons to why a series or movie goes wrong. I just watch it, judge it to my likings or not..

But i´m amazed that what you describe is even possible... i can imagine it just took on a life on its own, and couldn´t be stopped until it failed..

Cheers Frame...

JensAyton · Post by **JensAyton** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:42 pm

CptnEcho wrote:
ST:TOS had plenty of tension and attraction scenes and broke a lot of ground in its' day.

See, for instance, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PwpcUawjK0. :-)
(NSFW, but then, why are you watching Youtube videos about Star Trek at work?)

By the way, the word you’re looking for is “its”. There is no “its’” with a trailing apostrophe.

drew · Post by **drew** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:11 am

I'll definitely go see it, because I'm a ST:TOS kind of person. I'm still excited by the opening credits even now.

TNG I enjoyed quite a lot, but got quickly bored with the 'character development' episodes. Highlights - borg, yesterdays enterprise,

DS9 - Never got into it, I couldn't get past the premise "Boldly staying put where no one has stayed put before" - startrek takes place on a ship.

Voyager I did like - the idea of fighting your way home across uncharted space is great. Some episodes were great, but others were distinctly naff. HIghlights, 7 of 9, Tom and B'leanna willl they/wont they, year of hell, species 8472, did I mention 7 of 9?

Enterprise - Gave up after the first episode. Had high hopes, but it was just 'wrong'. Klingons were wrong, Vulcans were wrong. Romulans were wrong, why faff about with new aliens? Ship was too advanced. etc etc etc

Cheers,

Drew.