Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Official Photos From New Star Trek Movie

CmdrTaco posted about 6 years ago | from the please-jj-don't-hurt-em dept.

Sci-Fi 410

Philias Fog writes "The most secret project in Hollywood is finally lifting its skirt. Today Paramount released a number of images for their new Star Trek movie directed by JJ Abrams. Shots include images of the bridge of the Enterprise, the villain Nero, a ship (not the Enterprise) and all of the crew in uniform. TrekMovie.com has a complete set of photos and links to all the new shots."

cancel ×

410 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no comment (1, Insightful)

p51d007 (656414) | about 6 years ago | (#25398149)

Wow....almost 8am central time (USA) and no comments? Is trek that dead?

Re:no comment (1)

k_187 (61692) | about 6 years ago | (#25398197)

eh people are probably just showing up to work and their caffeine hasn't percolated through their blood stream yet.

Re:no comment (-1, Offtopic)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#25398203)

I dunno. Does Netcraft confirm it?

Re:no comment (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | about 6 years ago | (#25398211)

Not all of us sit here mashing the F5 key to get a FRIST PROAST.

Or the photos are so awesome that all the trekkies are running to Kinkos to print out high res photos to plaster on their walls.

Re:no comment (5, Insightful)

bpjk (305635) | about 6 years ago | (#25398227)

OK, here ya go:

How on earth can the entire command staff of the Enterprise be that young? They don't require people to have serious experience (time in the field) before they can get to positions of that much responsibility?

An adolescent captain just looks wrong...

At least they got that right in (most) of the other Treks.

Other than that, nice pics; love the angry Spock one :-)

Re:no comment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398319)

Although from the pics, I see that Hollywood still persists in the belief that there is a significant amount of oxygen in open space. The smoke and fireballs clearly show their mistaken belief.

Re:no comment (2, Insightful)

bds1986 (1268378) | about 6 years ago | (#25398379)

I assume you're referring to the pic of the shot-up starship. Couldn't the fires be feeding on oxygen escaping from hull breaches?

Re:no comment (2, Insightful)

Thiez (1281866) | about 6 years ago | (#25398975)

You'd be suprised how little time it takes for the air to escape from a relatively small container such as the Enterprise into a practically infinite vacuum through a hole a few inch in diameter.

What bothers me more is the smoke in the left side of the picture. Anyone here knows how smoke 'should' behave in space?

Re:no comment (5, Insightful)

dnoyeb (547705) | about 6 years ago | (#25398399)

It looks like High School Space Capades. These kids are way too young and they all look way too much the same. AND William Shatner IS Captain Kirk. There is no way you can cast anybody as Kirk but Shatner. Why even go there? If they want to appeal to new younger croud, then just call it Star Trek: ABC or something. They don't know Kirk anyway. I don't think any trekkies will be happy with that.

I seriously had to check if it was April 1.

Re:no comment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398957)

Please, except for Nimoy, all actors in Star Trek TOS were just plain bad actors. Kirk and McCoy were
laughable. They could choose anyone at random from the street and there's a high chance he would still do a better job than Shatner.

Re:no comment (2, Informative)

rugatero (1292060) | about 6 years ago | (#25398575)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this film they aren't yet the command staff, are they? My understanding is that this film is set back when the future Enterprise crew are still in the Academy.

Re:no comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398831)

So its like Muppets Jr, but with Star Trek?

Re:no comment (5, Informative)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 6 years ago | (#25398609)

Pine is 28. Kirk was 30 when he took command of the Enterprise. Its not that they are so young its that Shatner was so OLD when he played Kirk (over 35 during the series) and your miss remembering how young Shatner really was in WNMHGB in comparison to the series proper which was filmed almost a year after the second pilot.

Re:no comment (2, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 6 years ago | (#25398729)

Try to think of it as Star Trek: 90210.

Re:no comment (2, Insightful)

inaneframe (971456) | about 6 years ago | (#25398737)

Actually, this is what is known as a "movie", bpjk. So I guess the more pertinent question is "are they all capable actors?" Anything is possible in a movie, whether they are too young or not is open for debate but again refer to the first sentence. You're worse than a lot of the Trekkies drooling over this. Sure I'm excited but I'm going to take it at base value, it's a movie and it has Nimoy's voice, cool. Always enjoyed the Star Trek movies more anyway. Can't wait. I'm also not going to get over-critical with this, it's a fucking movie. Get a fucking life.

Re:no comment (4, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | about 6 years ago | (#25398837)

Adolescent?! The guy's 28 years old. Check IMDB, at 28, he's the youngest member of the cast which averages in the mid-30s.

You've been watching too much 90210, and may have actually come to believe that good looking mid-to-late 20s actors are teens. ;-)

Re:no comment (2, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about 6 years ago | (#25398959)

The problem is that they put him (and the 90210 people) in a lot of makeup so that they don't look like 28 year olds. They don't look like real people at all. Why is it that in movies made after the 1980s people main characters can't look real? Even when the main character is supposed to be some sort of grungy curmudgeon, say Jack Black playing a pseudo-bum, he's caked in makeup so that he's a bum with the skin of an adolescent.

Re:no comment (4, Informative)

Bandman (86149) | about 6 years ago | (#25398881)

Not to be the trek fanboy I used to be, but Kirk was the youngest captain in starfleet history. I'm assuming this is before he was legendary, and I'm sure they're going to be making the movies about how he /became/ legendary. Anyway, carry on.

PS - The Klingons didn't have a word for surrender...until they met Kirk

Re:no comment (5, Funny)

jonas_jonas (1135553) | about 6 years ago | (#25399085)

PS - The Klingons didn't have a word for surrender...until they met Kirk

This sounds awfully like:

The Klingons didn't have a word for surrender...until they met Chuck Norris [chucknorrisfacts.com] *gaah*

Re:no comment (4, Interesting)

rezalas (1227518) | about 6 years ago | (#25399111)

Well, some people just *look* young. My ex is 27 and when she went to pick up a job application she was told "you have to be at least 16 sweetie". I've been carded in movies, and I'm 25. Its not uncommon for people that are healthy to appear young. Also, if you look at the time line for star trek, its all after a big war when we are recovering as a civilization. Even today the young are the ones who serve (at 23, you are considered an "old man" in basic training even today). Who is to say there are that many capable old soldiers left to command a starship AND run a whole fleet of them? Perhaps the oldest and most veteran are needed elsewhere, so they let the younger generation carry the front lines (also, not uncommon).

Spock (5, Funny)

gijoel (628142) | about 6 years ago | (#25398195)

I can't get over the fact that Zachary Quinto (Sylar) from Heroes is Spock. I keep expecting that the plot will be about a bunch of scalped corpses being found all over the Enterprise.

Re:Spock (4, Funny)

Alicat1194 (970019) | about 6 years ago | (#25398261)

Mind-meld, mind removal, it's all the same.

Re:Spock (4, Funny)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | about 6 years ago | (#25398345)

Yeah, no kidding. Poor Quinto has pretty much a ruined career, because EVERY time I see him on screen I'll be thinking, "Can't trust him! That's Sylar! Kill him now or it's gonna get worse!!!"

Nothing good acting can't fix. (5, Insightful)

RulerOf (975607) | about 6 years ago | (#25398539)

That honestly depends on how good of an actor he is.

I had no idea that I would end up loving Leonardo DiCaprio as much as I do now when I saw him in Titanic. But after seeing movies like Catch Me if You Can and The Aviator, you'll understand how simply being a good actor can negate these kinds of labels.

Re:Nothing good acting can't fix. (2, Interesting)

Bandman (86149) | about 6 years ago | (#25399041)

My wife and I struggle with that all the damned time. I keep wanting to see him as a pretty boy whiner kid, but like you said, he keeps doing things like that. I eventually forgot that it was him in Blood Diamond. He's a good actor, as much as I hate to admit it.

Re:Spock (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 6 years ago | (#25398981)

If he is a good actor he can pull it off. Take a look at Tom Hanks.

Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (1, Flamebait)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | about 6 years ago | (#25398201)

Hope the nerds don't ruin it by complaining about canon or discrepancies with TOS.

Isn't that why they chose Trek? (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | about 6 years ago | (#25398249)

To get the fans who MUST watch everything under that name ... because they fell in love with something in a previous series / movie / cartoon / book?

So why complain when those same fans complain that X doesn't match the way it was depicted in Y?

If the movie is good enough on its own, then the complaints will be minor nit-picks.

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#25398299)

Bah.

There are rules. Well, mostly. The rules for rec.arts.startrek.* from way back when seem to apply just as well today: if you saw it on the screen, large or small, it's 'canon' -- officially part of the Trek Universe.

Any discrepancies in on-screen material are just blown off as a YATIs -- Yet Another Trek Inconsistency. It's not like a movie and television project that has spanned almost 40 years, 5 television series, about a dozen movies and has had literally hundreds of writers can possibly keep everything consistent. Get over it.

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 years ago | (#25398313)

Well this pretty much tossed cannon out the window. As well any form of realism. A bunch of friends at the academy then they all get split up for about a decade as they advance in ranks on their own missions. Then they all happen to go back to the same ship.

I find it kinda hard to swallow that Sulu took an additional 25 years to rank captain. Being that he was in the same inner circle, as Captain Kirk and friends.

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (5, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 6 years ago | (#25398471)

I find it kinda hard to swallow that Sulu took an additional 25 years to rank captain.

Considering Sulu was running around with Kumar getting stoned on the weekends and escaping from Guantanamo, it's no wonder it took him so long.

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25398807)

Nonsense. With the power of NPH on his side, he could do anything.

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 years ago | (#25398483)

Well this pretty much tossed cannon out the window.

That's dangerous, artillery is quite heavy.

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398375)

Lately, both odd and eve numered movies have sucked

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (1)

FauxPasIII (75900) | about 6 years ago | (#25398499)

> Lately, both odd and eve numered movies have sucked

You think? I actually rather enjoyed First Contact and Nemesis. Generations was meh, though, and Insurrection was a cornucopia of fail.
From where I set the quality oscillator is still operating within tolerances. =)

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25398731)

When you capitalize on the Trek name, you get a significant guaranteed built-in audience who will definitely buy tickets. That's the upside. But you also invite comparison to previous incarnations and risk complaints from fans who have certain expectations based on those earlier movies/series. That's the downside.

If you don't want to be subject to the criticism of Star Trek fans, that's easy enough to fix. Don't call it Star Trek or set it in the Star Trek universe.

Re:Wait... is this an even or odd number Trek? (5, Funny)

Sabathius (566108) | about 6 years ago | (#25398845)

Hey, Commander. In Quasar Delema, you used the auxiliary of Deck-B for Gamma Over-ride. But, online blueprints clearly indicate that Deck-B is independent of the Kined Matrix. We were just wondering where the error lies in that...

Most secret (1, Troll)

Rob Kaper (5960) | about 6 years ago | (#25398215)

Indeed, I didn't even know they were still trying to make a buck from this franchise. :D

Re:Most secret (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#25398467)

Star Trek has been one of Paramount's top cash cows for a long time. And they're gonna milk that cow for ever dollar it's worth.

Re:Most secret (2, Funny)

moranar (632206) | about 6 years ago | (#25398771)

This [penny-arcade.com] says it better than I can.

Re:Most secret (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25398603)

Paramount will beat that horse LONG past the point where it's dead, buried, decomposed, and reduced to dust. My God, when you've lowered yourself to recruiting Scott Bakula as your starship captain, you'll do ANYTHING.

Looking at the pictures.. (2, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | about 6 years ago | (#25398221)

leaves me wondering why they put a kid in charge of a space ship...

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (2, Funny)

CXI (46706) | about 6 years ago | (#25398275)

leaves me wondering why they put a kid in charge of a space ship...

It's obvious. Galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young, Doctor!

I, for one (1)

kbrasee (1379057) | about 6 years ago | (#25398277)

leaves me wondering why they put a kid in charge of a space ship...

I, for one, welcome our new Starship Enterprise boy captain overlord.

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (1)

eclectro (227083) | about 6 years ago | (#25398287)

leaves me wondering why they put a kid in charge of a space ship...

Because they demand a less salary??

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 6 years ago | (#25398377)

I would think CleverNickName would be the best person to answer that one.

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (2, Funny)

suso (153703) | about 6 years ago | (#25398659)

I would think CleverNickName would be the best person to answer that one.

Unlikely, looks like he hasn't commented on Slashdot since January.

In other news, a giant wooshing sound caught thousands of noobs by surprise today.

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398411)

Wait till he busts out his iphone so the movie can connect with young people.

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (3, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | about 6 years ago | (#25398505)

Shatner was 35 when he started acting as J.T. Kirk. Pine is 28. He has about the right age for the role he has to play in the story of the Kirk character. Furthermore people at 28 can already be everything they'll ever be if they're really good.

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 6 years ago | (#25398585)

He might be 28 but it he looks 16, likely because the producers has decided he should look younger than he is. Shatner has always looked 40-something no matter what his real age was.

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 6 years ago | (#25398653)

Shatner has always looked 40-something no matter what his real age was.

Oh really [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (4, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 6 years ago | (#25398663)

Im almost 30 and guess what, not for nothing but I look a hell of a lot more like Pine than I do Shat when he was Kirk. Back then hollywood tended to have older actors play younger characters, to the point that once you have actors who ARE the actual age of the characters play them, it seems jarring.

You know another thing, I love how people call it Star Trek 90210, yet people fail to remember the entire cast of that show minus Brian Austen Green was like 25 when they started. They where 25 and playing 16 year olds.

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (1)

dmncstmpfl (1370825) | about 6 years ago | (#25398727)

He needs to be at least 45 to be on the same level of masculinity as Shattner when he was 35 ^^

They do seem kind of young and shiny. Looks to me like the crew of some Starship Troopers sequel, which doesn't really let me hope for a good outcome of this movie. And there I was, getting my hopes up when I heard Simon Pegg is playing Scotty...

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (1)

internerdj (1319281) | about 6 years ago | (#25399131)

As a 28 year old this post makes me very sad for some reason...

The cartoon strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398819)

Back in the days when certain cartoons got boring the creators (iirc Hanna Barbara to be one of the first) started introducing new sillyness by taking the main characters back to their teens. This resulted in "A pup named Scooby Doo", "Flintstone kids", "Young Archies", etc.

Naturally they can't call this "Star Trek kids" due to the "serious" nature, but I wonder... ;-)

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (1)

e2d2 (115622) | about 6 years ago | (#25398829)

Seen many old astronauts lately?

Re:Looking at the pictures.. (2, Funny)

SimonGhent (57578) | about 6 years ago | (#25399103)

Seen many old astronauts lately?

Buzz Aldrin's 78

Is it just me... (2, Interesting)

Darundal (891860) | about 6 years ago | (#25398247)

...or were you expecting something closer to the series insofar as ship design is concerned? After seeing the pics of the shuttle (specifically, the control console) I figured that the ship interiors would be tastefully done updates, not complete redesigns.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

McFortner (881162) | about 6 years ago | (#25398323)

And you thought "Enterprise" was the worst thing to happen to Star Trek continuity!

Why don't you people get a life! (3, Funny)

bugeaterr (836984) | about 6 years ago | (#25398281)

Correction:
Why don't.... you... people.... ..... .....
Get a life!

It's the economy, the economy -- stupid! (1)

flajann (658201) | about 6 years ago | (#25398297)

Though, I could use some escapism right about now!

Those uniforms (3, Interesting)

Fri13 (963421) | about 6 years ago | (#25398301)

ST:NG had good uniforms. All the uniforms looks like joggin suits on those shots. No style, no correct tags and rankings etc.

Check out the Star-Trek Next Generation season 5-6 uniforms what example a Jean-Luc Picard had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Picard [wikipedia.org]

Re:Those uniforms (3, Informative)

Fri13 (963421) | about 6 years ago | (#25398383)

Re:Those uniforms (1)

theaveng (1243528) | about 6 years ago | (#25398529)

I think the Star Trek DS9 and Voyager uniforms were better. The main body of the uniform was black, with only the shoulders in color. Unfortunately I cant find a decent picture of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HarryKim.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Re:Those uniforms (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | about 6 years ago | (#25398999)

I'm with you on this.

Though honestly, I liked DS9 over most other iterations in general. Way more people-centric.

Pike/Spock Retcon (2, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 years ago | (#25398311)

So Spock's not in Pike's crew at this time, and not wearing the older gold/beige uniforms?

Plot synopsis (3, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | about 6 years ago | (#25398315)

It's JJ Abrams, which means we get to start out in the middle of the story, backtrack to "where it all began," and finish up with a fun-filled exciting resolution!

MI:III I'm betting was just a rehash of an unused ALIAS script.

Not that he does bad work, it's just a little repetitive after a while.

Re:Plot synopsis (2, Informative)

Zymergy (803632) | about 6 years ago | (#25398937)

Abrams loves to use the classic literary device named "in medias res" (Latin for "into the middle of things")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res [wikipedia.org]
Hope this movie is very well done and that the acting.... for... Kirk.... is... Overacted... IN... The ... True... Shatner... Style... (Though it will be very hard for any new Trek movie to top Montalban's Kahn villain character though...)

Re:Plot synopsis (1)

verbalcontract (909922) | about 6 years ago | (#25399109)

It's not so much that he's repetitive, it's just that he has a well-defined style and way of approaching stories. You wouldn't call Stanley Kubrick repetitive because all his characters go nuts.

Why!?! (3, Interesting)

flajann (658201) | about 6 years ago | (#25398321)

Why oh why are they doing a remake of the old generation? I would much rather see something fresh and new. There is no way I will accept this "Spock" as being the Spock I grew up with!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Why!?! (3, Funny)

moriya (195881) | about 6 years ago | (#25398451)

Be glad that Lucas and Spielberg's hands were nowhere near this film. It's either this or seeing a CG render of McCoy.

Re:Why!?! (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25398767)

RAPE! RAPE!

Re:Why!?! (4, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | about 6 years ago | (#25398583)

Every Star Trek iteration has been an entirely new crew, ship, and usually mission statement. The only way to not just be "more of the same" is to revisit existing characters.

Re:Why!?! (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | about 6 years ago | (#25398633)

Obvious caption to this photo [aintitcool.com] : "Is Fake Spock gonna have to choke a bitch?"

this film (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | about 6 years ago | (#25398343)

is either gonna be a spectacular failure or spectacular success

now after watching cloverfield and lost i think the chances of this being a success are diminishing

I hate Hollywood. (2, Insightful)

McFortner (881162) | about 6 years ago | (#25398405)

Are there any beloved childhood memories that Hollywood hasn't raped the corpse of yet?

Speed Racer: check
Battlestar Galactica: check
Star Trek: check
Buck Rogers: pending

Re:I hate Hollywood. (3, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#25398599)

Buck Rogers: pending

They did that in the 70's. The classic Buster Crabbe cinema serial dates back to the 30's, and the character dates to the late 20's.

Hollywood has been raping childhood memories for a lot longer than you might think.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (1)

R2.0 (532027) | about 6 years ago | (#25399039)

"They did that in the 70's."

But the theme song was pretty good - Queen at it's sturm und drang'y-est.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (1)

ca111a (1078961) | about 6 years ago | (#25399107)

>They did that in the 70's...dates back to the 30's...20's
If that has worked for so long, why would they change the tactics now.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398761)

Battlestar Galactica: check

With the difference that the new Battlestar Galactica is much better than the old one.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (2, Informative)

Amiralul (1164423) | about 6 years ago | (#25398815)

You forgot Knight Rider, Superman (well, kind-of), Indiana Jones, Star Wars.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | about 6 years ago | (#25398891)

The current Galactica is far superior to the tripe from my childhood. I'm probably in the minority but I really did enjoy Enterprise as well. Voyager with Captain Duck got lame fast.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25399015)

they aren't raping anything, they're re-imagining.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25399029)

Are there any beloved childhood memories that Hollywood hasn't raped the corpse of yet?

Speed Racer: check

Battlestar Galactica: check

Star Trek: check

Buck Rogers: pending

You can't seriously believe that the original BSG was better than the current one.

Re:I hate Hollywood. (2, Informative)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 6 years ago | (#25399055)

They didn't do (as in "rape") Captain Future yet. Although one could argue that the Japanese already did that to the literary figure.


Well, whatever they do, a Captain Future movie would be met with disapproval in Germany. We're used to having a version of Captain Future with our own special sound track (that, in my opinion, is vastly superior to the original one). In no way would we agree to a Captain Future movie with background music that doesn't sound like Feinde greifen an or Hurra, wir fliegen, not to mention Ken.

To give you an impression of the German soundtrack here's a link [youtube.com] to Feinde greifen an ("Enemies attack"), essentially the action scene BGM. Oh, and the German opening [youtube.com] ; after having sat through the American one I'm suddenly very happy that the German version was contractually obliged to have no lyrics.

Speaking... (5, Insightful)

DougF (1117261) | about 6 years ago | (#25398453)

As someone who watched TOS on a black and white 9" TV with a towel under the door to hide the light from my parents (it was on after bed time)...I welcome a "refreshing" of the Star Trek ensemble. The key to success will be the script, not the special effects, a lesson not learned in a few previous Star Trek and most Sci-Fi movies...

Damn! (1)

PontifexMaximus (181529) | about 6 years ago | (#25398487)

You know, I've really been underwhelmed to see this movie. I've been a Trekkie my whole life, and I love the series (TOS and TNG) and the movies. But this one, meh.

I just wasn't into it. Until I saw these pics. Holy Crap! Just based on the pics, I'm almost tempted to see it in the theater. Almost. I guess I"ll look at the trailers before I make up my mind.

Star Trek New Voyages (2, Interesting)

Stavr0 (35032) | about 6 years ago | (#25398547)

The first picture looks like it was taken from Star Trek New Voyages. The resemblance between John Kelly as Bones and Karl Urban is uncanny.

Flogging a dead, buried, exhumed, reanimated horse (1, Interesting)

petrus4 (213815) | about 6 years ago | (#25398637)

The ship looks way too modern to be anything like something which is actually meant to be *older* technology than what we saw in the 60s. The casting is also terrible; the actors don't look anything like the originals at all.

Star Trek is dead. It died with First Contact. People need to accept that and move on, as do the profiteers responsible for this turkey.

Re:Flogging a dead, buried, exhumed, reanimated ho (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 6 years ago | (#25398801)

The ship looks way too modern to be anything like something which is actually meant to be *older* technology than what we saw in the 60s.

"Looks" too modern? The whole idea behind "futuristic" designs is one of culture and not technology. You could take the external configuration of cars in the 1960's, and then those of today, and swap them around but retaining the technology of construction and operation, and if no one knew any different it wouldn't matter.

What something DOES is how advanced it is. How it looks, even for things like this, is merely a matter of fashion, which really has no tie to a particular time period.

Re:Flogging a dead, buried, exhumed, reanimated ho (1)

R2.0 (532027) | about 6 years ago | (#25399101)

"You could take the external configuration of cars in the 1960's, and then those of today, and swap them around but retaining the technology of construction and operation, and if no one knew any different it wouldn't matter."

To wit, the current Beetle, Mini, Mustang, Charger, Challenger, Camaro, HSC, Prowler, etc. All are designed to look like cars from the 60's and early 70's.

I hate them all - look forward, not back, people.

Re:Flogging a dead, buried, exhumed, reanimated ho (1)

Pokey.Clyde (1322667) | about 6 years ago | (#25398947)

Star Trek is dead. It died with First Contact. People need to accept that and move on, as do the profiteers responsible for this turkey.

This is where I'm going to have to disagree with you. A good deal of what came after TNG was quite enjoyable. DS9 can be argued to be some of the best Trek ever made. Enterprise really hit a nice stretch in the later seasons. Hell, flame me if you want, but I even enjoy me some Voyager from time to time.

Although I'd really like to see something new that could take the franchise in a bit of a different direction, I won't immediately write-off this movie because it's going the prequel/re-imaging route that so many other movies are taking these days.

Re:Flogging a dead, buried, exhumed, reanimated ho (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 6 years ago | (#25398967)

This is true.

Paramount declared the franchise dead when enterprise crashed and burned horribly.

Re:Flogging a dead, buried, exhumed, reanimated ho (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25399075)

Maybe I'm the only one, but I really enjoyed First Contact. It was the best of the Next Generation movies (in my opinion).

I think it's a bad idea to try to get people who look exactly like the original actors for the new cast. I'd rather see new personalities and faces. Trying to "remake" star trek would be a bad idea. There's to much you can get wrong that way that would make fans angry.

It's a much better idea to do a reboot of the franchise and try to reinvent the series. Sure, it will upset a lot of die-hard fans, but it's bound to retain some original fans, and surely bring new ones into the franchise.

Since I'm a younger Trek fan, I'd like to see the franchise get rebooted and hopefully gain a little more popularity again. At least enough that the show gets scheduled on TV a little more often.

Server down - warpcore overheating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25398699)

"Error establishing a database connection." Scottie, can you sort that out, please?

What the fuck? (1)

nawcom (941663) | about 6 years ago | (#25398931)

Why is Harold Lee [imdb.com] From the Harold and Kumar movies taking the position of Sulu? Is he trying to passively come out of the closet? [georgetakei.com]

(hehe just kidding - George Takei is one cool dude)

Re:What the fuck? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 6 years ago | (#25399005)

Actually its because producers wanted the Hiro from Heros too but NBC was unwilling to lose two key castmembers for 3 months. So it ended up going to Cho even though Abrams was a little unsure of casting a Korean as a Japanese officer.

Hmmm (3, Insightful)

ZDRuX (1010435) | about 6 years ago | (#25399023)

I looked at the vidcaps and didn't see Picard. This movie has failed already.

Simon Pegg as Scotty (2, Informative)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | about 6 years ago | (#25399063)

It's a good thing we have Shaun on board to keep this re-animated corpse under control.

(Actually, I think it's really cool that he's involved. Might even make it worth watching.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?