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 Trek Film Footage Unveiled

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-not-to-me dept.

Movies 320

Ostracus writes "Lost creator JJ Abrams has unveiled footage from his Star Trek prequel at a press event in London. The clips featured US actor Chris Pine as the young Captain Kirk, Heroes star Zachary Quinto as Mr Spock and Simon Pegg as Enterprise engineer Scotty. The audience also saw Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as the older Mr Spock in one of four excerpts from the film. In his introduction, Abrams said he wanted the film to be released in May 2009, to feel 'legitimate and real.' Speaking at London's Vue West End cinema on Tuesday morning, the film-maker admitted he had 'never really been a huge Star Trek fan.'" Note that the article doesn't actually contain the footage, just brief descriptions of it. The video clip included is just the old trailer that we saw many moons ago. But that won't stop me from lusting.

cancel ×

320 comments

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

Trailer Story FAIL (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25733919)

The REAL trailer is coming out in another five days. (Per startrekmovie.com [startrekmovie.com] where you can watch the previous trailer in HD.) Perhaps it would have been better to wait before proclaiming it? Or at least give useful information on the release date of the footage?

The real news at the moment is that a photo of the new Enterprise [ew.com] was released yesterday. I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy.

The new bridge was also revealed [slashfilm.com] about a month ago. Many refer to it as the "iBridge" because of its resemblance to Apple hardware. Personally, I'm mostly happy with the bridge design. It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

I just wish they hadn't made a parody out of the old girl. :-(

"Let's make sure history never forgets the name, Enterprise."
--Captain Picard (Yesterday's Enterprise)

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25733939)

Speaking of parodies,

Lost creator JJ Abrams has unveiled footage from his Star Trek prequel

Ha! If the movie will be as ridiculous as Lost is then we can look forward to such silliness as a detached, renegade warp nacelle [memory-alpha.org] which will fire up on its own while sucking people into it* as well as trombone glissandi [vt.edu] ** in the soundtrack! Shows like Lost make me yearn for more realistic shows...say, Twin Peaks ;)

* Remember the wreckage of the jet shortly after it crashed? It showed that one detached jet engine intermittently revving up by itself. What they tried to make creepy was just...funny. Again. At least the engine managed to suck someone into it before it finally exploded.

** Don't remember which part, but when something scary happens right before a break, 2 trombones a whole-tone apart play a descending parallel glissando. For you non-music types, think of what a trombone would play to accompany a clown falling off of a roof! It's entirely inappropriate for what should be "scary"!. My girlfriend, who is a rabid fan of the series, never understood why I always laughed at the same times that she jumped out of her seat in frightened surprise!

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734281)

And I can't wait to hear the new Scotty telling the new Jim Kirk "Cap'n, you've got red on you".

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25733991)

First off, way to point out what Taco pointed out in his little add-on in the summary.

Personally, I'm mostly happy with the bridge design. It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

As opposed to the fake ones that didn't appear to be functional?

I just wish they hadn't made a parody out of the old girl. :-(

At this point, there isn't much left one can do with "the old girl."

Anonymous Troll FAIL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734117)

First off, way to point out what Taco pointed out in his little add-on in the summary.

First off, way to miss the real information he added. Taco said nothing about a new trailer in 5 days.

As opposed to the fake ones that didn't appear to be functional?

As opposed to the fake ones that didn't appear to be functional. [bigpond.net.au]

At this point, there isn't much left one can do with "the old girl."

At this point there's a lot that can be done [techamok.com] with "the old girl".

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (5, Insightful)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734015)

Or at least give useful information [...]

You must be new here.

Scotty is gay? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734087)

I'm really upset that they decided to make Scotty gay. Why do that? Other than the captain, mccoy and spock, no one else was getting any on the original show.

Re:Scotty is gay? (1, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734243)

My question is why the hell did they make Scotty but not Mr. Sulu [gaywired.com] a gay? I'm being serious since all die-hard trek fans know that George Takei is openly gay.

Re:Scotty is gay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734821)

and in that shot of spock, he looks totally angry! I'm shocked, tell you, SHOCKED!

it's less than sarcasm and more than a get a life post.

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (3, Funny)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734111)

I looked at the picture of the Enterprise, the curves remind me of a 50's car. Less concern for functionality than for looking stylish.

It is not like those curves are for aerodynamics!

Aerodynamic space ships (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734567)

I looked at the picture of the Enterprise, the curves remind me of a 50's car. Less concern for functionality than for looking stylish.

It is not like those curves are for aerodynamics!

What, you never read "Lensman"?

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (5, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734653)

It is not like those curves are for aerodynamics!

The original Enterprise was so un-aerodynamic that you could even hear it whooshing by in space. So let's withhold judgment until we know whether or not the new ship whooshes.

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (4, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734937)

*whoosh*

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (2, Funny)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734325)

It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

Hurrh? I still see no seatbelts... you'd think at the speeds they were going they'd be using crash seats and stuff...

Expect the obligatory staggering about like drunken louts and bad camera shaking after the oblig hits to the Enterprise in ship-to-ship battles! :D

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734509)

@seatbelts:

They apparently now have handrails [ew.com] to keep from falling.

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735247)

It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

Hurrh? I still see no seatbelts... you'd think at the speeds they were going they'd be using crash seats and stuff...

Expect the obligatory staggering about like drunken louts and bad camera shaking after the oblig hits to the Enterprise in ship-to-ship battles! :D

What about fuses or circuit breakers or other circuit-protection devices? You know, something that'll keep panels from exploding in a shower of sparks whenever the ship takes a hit? Sure it won't eliminate all explosions, but surely they can go with that as a plot line too!

Many things you cannot change... changed. (2, Insightful)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734535)

The real news at the moment is that a photo of the new Enterprise [ew.com] was released yesterday. I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy.

From TFA:
"If you're going to do Star Trek, there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people."

And so, naturally, they changed it. :D

Re:Trailer Story FAIL (2, Interesting)

christurkel (520220) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734639)

I don't think it's a parody. Its sleek and modern looking yet instantly recognizable as the original. I like the design.

Here we go again (3, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735007)

"I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy."

Younger fans that don't give a crap about the franchise will love the new iLook, in all probability. But those of us that have been fans all our lives aren't going to like this very much. Most of us are, frankly, sick of the retconning in the cannon. We fought for years to get Rick Berman kicked out of the franchise for precisely this kind of garbage. "Canon? Fuck that! If we can eke out another Nielson's point or two, lets do yet another time travel story and totally screw the franchise history up! It'll be Die Hard on a Starship!"

You'd expect some minor touchups to take advantage of current technology, but this is a complete retooling of the classic series, a reboot. Real longtime fans would probably be happier with Jim Cawley's New Voyages/Phase II [startreknewvoyages.com] . How ironic that an Elvis impersonator has more love and respect for the series than the current movie's creative team does.

'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25733995)

Good. The series has become a tired ass glorified fan flick from insiders.

Fresh blood and a new outlook sounds good to me.

Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (3, Insightful)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734503)

>> 'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.'

I may be mistaken, but I think I've heard a similar line from Rick Berman.

> The series has become a tired ass glorified fan flick from insiders.

On the contrary. Star Trek I to VI were at least glorified fan flicks from insiders, from then on they tried to appeal to a more general public: Now they even lost that bit of appeal.

On that note: Guess, who was responsible for those films.

> Fresh blood and a new outlook sounds good to me.

That is something I can perfectly agree on.

Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735015)

I may be mistaken, but I think I've heard a similar line from Rick Berman.

Boy, he fucking proved that in spades. Especially with the help of Brannon Braga, whose Trek output was of a quality that, to this day, my circle of friends gladly use his surname to refer to the act of human solid elimination. (Unless it's a three-parter, in which case it is a 'Lucas').

Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734673)

That attitude brought the world DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and other crapfests like Transformers.

Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (2, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734899)

knock DS9 and Voy all you want, but as a TOS fan who only really liked TOS and a few episodes of TNG here and there, I actually LIKED Enterprise. It had some issues the first two seasons but the last two where excellent.

Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (3, Insightful)

bbroerman (715822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735185)

Personally, I liked all of them, with maybe the exception of Voyager. I did, however, miss a substantial portion of DS9, due to not having a UPN station when I moved to Cincinnati. I hear the final seasons sucked.

Nonetheless, if you ignore the whole "temporal war" crap, Enterprise was OK. I liked the ship and the crew. Looked very reasonable for the era. Now, they did take liberties with the Klingons and Romulans. Neither were supposed to be warp capable as of yet. (non-cannon sources on Klingons along with some innuendo from ST-TNG) but I can give them a little wiggle room.

This new Enterprise (the ship & bridge) look way too advanced. They should have made the exterior the same as TOS, but maybe modernized the bridge a *little*. Maybe somewhere between TOS and ST-TMP. I definitely think they went WAY too far.

Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (3, Interesting)

bitrex (859228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735111)

Whenever old material has been revived lately, "a new outlook" seems to have always translated to "An edgier, darker _____" which means "Make the cast younger, and ramp up the sexy and the violence."

Why do so many Trek personel (3, Interesting)

joeflies (529536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734045)

make a point of saying "was never really a fan of the original show"? Maybe they really never saw it, but arent' they taking the fans for granted then? They don't know how important it is for us "TO NOT SCREW IT UP"?

I understand a reboot of the series is sometimes necessary to make it fit contemporary audiences. But for every BSG, there are a hundred ruined series that chose to do something so out of character of the canon that it appeals to neither fans nor new audiences.

just the standard disclaimer (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734193)

Just like any MMORPG franchise that claims they aren't trying to be or beat World of Warcraft.

In other words, get in and apologize before it hits the fan then point back to the statement and date as somehow providing you cover.

Re:Why do so many Trek personel (1)

mr_spatula (126119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734381)

I would worry seriously about screwing it up - It's JJ Abrams. He was a writer for Armageddon. I do not see how that equates to anything beyond pure horror for Star Trek fans.

As a side note, it's always fun to call Star Trek "Star Track" when you are talking to the more hardcore fans.

Re:Why do so many Trek personel (2, Funny)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734457)

I'm personally expected Star Trek: The Phantom Menace.

Re:Why do so many Trek personel (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734525)

I'm personally expected Star Trek: The Phantom Menace.

If Nemesis is any indication it won't be nearly that "good" :(

Nerd Alert? (0, Redundant)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734103)

Come on, this is slashdot. What we need now is the ability to mod tags as "-1: Redundant."

Cast is too young. (1)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734115)

I never noticed it in the original series (I wonder why lol) but the characters are way too young to be taken seriously as astronauts, esp if you want this movie to be 'legitimate and real'. I'm not bashing young people of course, but we all gain experience as we get older.

Re:Cast is too young. (4, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734233)

You do know the average age of people in the US military, right?

Our aircraft carriers and subs are all run by kids.

Re:Cast is too young. (1)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734285)

And the space shuttles?

Re:Cast is too young. (3, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734533)

And the space shuttles?

Not really relevant -- the astronaut system in the US is a very specialized thing these days. There's a minimum of people getting to do it and a huge pool of people wanting to. That'll always skew towards older people.

Starfleet would be much more like the military in that regard. Its reasonable to assume that like any military force, ages will skew downwards.

Re:Cast is too young. (1)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734347)

I think people are just too used to the Star Trek Films, where the crew was composed of people in their 60s. Remember too, Kirk was supposedly the youngest Captain in Starfleet History

Re:Cast is too young. (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734611)

Sure, and Kirk was also well into his 30s, as was just about everyone else on the ship except maybe Chekov, in the original series.

I think the GP makes a good point in that you would expect a starship to be commanded by people at least in their 30s. Sure, the grunts on board can be kids, but the people on the bridge ought to look as if they've been in Starfleet for more than 5 minutes.

Re:Cast is too young. (3, Informative)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734895)

I seem to recall from somewhere that Kirk was the youngest starship (by which I think they meant large capital ship) captain in Starfleet, at 34. I'm not sure this is canon.

At one point on screen, Kirk asked Chekhov's age and was told '22, sir'.

Re:Cast is too young. (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734981)

At one point on screen, Kirk asked Chekhov's age and was told '22, sir'.

Which is perfectly reasonable for someone with a rank of Ensign in a military structured like the US navy.

Re:Cast is too young. (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734411)

Our aircraft carriers and subs are all run by kids.

Umm, I think you mean manned by kids. There aren't a whole lot of O-5s and O-6s in their 20s in the US military......

Re:Cast is too young. (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735001)

You do know the average age of people in the US military, right?

Our aircraft carriers and subs are all run by kids.

The ratings and junior officers may all look like kids but the senior officers, certainly the captain and CAG, they're going to be older.

And as far as setting goes, it all depends on the type of setting they're trying to convey. If the Enterprise is a brand new ship going out into the unknown and is a seriously important mission, they're going to ask for a captain whose been around the block. If they're in the middle of a war and are running short on experienced officers and the enterprise is portrayed as the equivalent of a destroyer, it's believable to have a very junior-grade officer as skipper. And if the Enterprise is a cushy flagship in peacetime, it would be just as believable to have a politically-connected captain in charge, a good old boy who might know very little about spacefaring and is relying heavily on his XO to keep the ship from running into the first asteroid they come across.

Too young? (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734375)

Look back a hundred years and more and tell me how old you had to be to something dangerous, to lead, or raise a family. Look back to the recent Veteran's day and tell me that some of them were to young to be thrust in a world war.

Do we know how old the people in the show are supposed to be? Do we know if in the future that older people will look a lot younger simply because of better medical care or environments?

Do not apply visual cues to determine true age. It doesn't work anymore. Not with advances in medical science. Considering its the future as long as they look like they passed puberty I'm fine with it.

Re:Cast is too young. (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734403)

You do realize the average age of Military officers is mid 20's right? My boss who is since retired was a destroyer commander at 25. The army has even had a general at 33.

Re:Cast is too young. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734963)

I talked to my dad about this the other day (He childhood was spent watching TOS, mine watching TNG). I complained about the 'kids' running the new ship, so he pulled out some photos of his friends when he was 30ish. They look way more 'grown up' than most of my 30ish friends. His 30ish friends already had houses, kids, and 10+ years on the same job. Many 30ishers from my generation are still in school part time, have changed jobs quite a few times, and have apartments and roommates. Most arn't married, few have children, and owning a house is the punchline of a joke. More of my generation spent their 20's mooching off mom and dad and bumming around Europe. I feel like making a "get off my lawn joke" now, but my dads point was that being young lasts longer than it once did.

Zachary Quinto (3, Insightful)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734119)

Zachary Quinto is probably the most perfect person to play Spock in the prequel.

If they do this right, there could be three, four, five, or six more movies to be made.

If they do this right.

Re:Zachary Quinto (4, Funny)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734161)

the most perfect? are you more surer or is he maybe even more perfectererer?

Re:Zachary Quinto (2, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734477)

If they wanted to start another Trek franchise as a prequel to the originals that they could go 5 or 6 movies with without bumping into the stuff that's already been made, they should have based it on Star Trek: Enterprise.

I know that ST: Enterprise is almost Voyager-like in that a lot of people want to just forget it ever happened, but I thought it had a great deal of potential. Having movies based on it would be great. I thought the series really captured the naivete and hopefulness of a crew exploring far beyond what man was capable of before, and I think it would translate to the big screen very well.

Maybe it's because I've been watching a lot of ST: Enterprise reruns on the SciFi channel lately, but I really think they gave up on that whole concept way too soon. Heck, the original series had one fewer season than ST: Enterprise did, and it got 6 (6.5 if you count Generations) movies!

Re:Zachary Quinto (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734549)

Judging by pictures alone (I've never seen any of these actors perform, so I have no idea if they can act), most of the cast looks perfect for their character... except Kirk. I have no idea how they fell flat on their face for the lead character, but he looks like a chump. It's awful.

I know I am risking my geek card here, but... (1)

drummerboybac (1003077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734131)

What is the significance of May 2009?

Re:I know I am risking my geek card here, but... (2, Funny)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734183)

May 2009 seems to me a perfect 'real and legitimate' date - opposed to February 30, 2009.

Re:I know I am risking my geek card here, but... (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734429)

You just lost your card.

Re:I know I am risking my geek card here, but... (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735209)

Maybe not his geek card, but definitely his PATRIOT CARD.

Re:I know I am risking my geek card here, but... (1)

Evil Closet Monkey (761299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734551)

In terms of the Star Trek time line, there is no significance to May 2009. It just happens to be the date the movie is coming out. =)

Re:I know I am risking my geek card here, but... (3, Informative)

leamanc (961376) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734853)

They just want to get it out in time for the Memorial Day holiday in the USA. It's one of the bigger box-office weekends of the year, and perfect for a release like the new Star Trek flick.

Ridiculous post (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734135)

If the post is about a new trailer, wouldn't it be a good idea to have the trailer for viewing?

I hold this up there with the articles about images that don't even show the images. A WASTE OF TIME!

Re:Ridiculous post (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734817)

Try using Firefox instead of Lynx.

JJ Abrams (3, Funny)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734141)

Ok, this may sound childish, but I fear I might hate Spock being locked in a planet with polar bears, killing smoke and never-ending nonsense.

Re:JJ Abrams (3, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734835)

Personally, I can't wait to see Spock point his index finger at someone slice their head open.

Forward to the Past (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734153)

Why do Star Trek producers keep going backward in time?

We want the Next Next Generation, not a bunch of back story.

Re:Forward to the Past (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734449)

I agree, something set after TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Oh and the ship doesnt have to be called Enterprise.

Re:Forward to the Past (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735019)

I agree with you, but look how poorly Voyager did... Granted, I loved watching all the episodes after it was canceled, but when it was originally aired, it wasn't ST. The Defiant was a ship I was more interested in.

They've run into a problem of power (4, Insightful)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734745)

The constant push of limits on the supposed speed of the craft, capabilities of the ships, and expanded population of the available area took away too many plot devices.

In the original series, they were kind of out there on their own without help available. By the time the big war with the Borg came around in TNG, they got to the point where anything that was a threat could wipe them out entirely, and anything else was easily dealt with.

Both DS9 and Voyager were attempts to revive the sense of frontier self reliance. DS9 was more of a city, and a sort of 'futuristic cop show' was the original goal. Voyager was to be an attempt to get back to the spirit of the original series.

Going forward you have a more urban setting with the known region pretty much all settled and all the borders drawn.

Going backward just gives you more room to work in.

Re:Forward to the Past (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734787)

> Why do Star Trek producers keep going backward in time?

Great question, pity it was posed by an AC -- I'd love to see a good discussion about this. I've heard theories about how we as a generation are not forward-looking (or starry eyed optimists) like the folks in the 60s or even the 90s. This may be true -- we have religious fundies of various stripes and a bad-ass economy to worry about.

But my private theory is that the Trek universe simply ran out of room for exciting new storylines, making people care less about future Trek extrapolations.

After all, TNG's morality plays and utopianism are nice, but they were not the main reason people saw Star Trek. The lifeblood of any series is dramatic conflict, and
by the time Voyager and Nemesis ends, there's very little dramatic conflict left in the Trek universe. How many "Enterprise visits planet-of-the-week and gets into trouble" episodes can you then do?

Re:Forward to the Past (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734989)

But my private theory is that the Trek universe simply ran out of room for exciting new storylines, making people care less about future Trek extrapolations.

What about Star Trek: Fall of the Federation?

Re:Forward to the Past (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735375)

That was the idea Gene Rodenberry had that ended up being used (after he died) for Andromeda.

The original story idea (before it morphed into what it was), was someone in a far flung future of the Start Trek universe where things have all gone to heck in a hand-basket.

This was combined with another idea he had of someone waking up after 500 years in suspended animation and exploring their new universe, and then the universe was switched to something that wasn't Star Trek since it was an independent enterprise (pun intended).

Inner Fanboy vs. Inner Normal Person (1)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734155)

The new Enterprise looks neat, but the fanboy in me wishes the change to the secondary hull hadn't been so pronounced, because the part of my brain that can explain away the differences ("Obviously, they did another refit between when this was shot and when Pike was captain, yeah, that's it!") would have trouble understanding why the entire shape of that secondary hull is so different.

But then again, I don't want to be one of those sad Battlestar Galactica fans who still hate the new series because they DARED to change things from the original one.

Blast! Different nerds are fighting it out in my head, and the only constant is the martial trek 'fight music' that's playing right now.

Re:Inner Fanboy vs. Inner Normal Person (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734459)

but the fanboy in me wishes the change to the secondary hull hadn't been so pronounced

The fanboy in me wishes that they had stopped at "All Good Things...", and that Voyager and Enterprise had never happened.

Oh well. It can't possibly suck as much as the new Babylon 5 offering [wikipedia.org] did.... Who would have thought that JMS would stomp all over his universe for a cheap vomit joke.

first link to the bbc new website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734171)

is that grant from myth-busters in the background?

Continuity problems already (3, Insightful)

viridari (1138635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734235)

Kirk is subsequently seen being smuggled on board the Starship Enterprise on its maiden voyage by doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played by Karl Urban.

McCoy isn't the original ship's surgeon on the Enterprise. I guess nobody who worked on the film ever saw The Cage [wikipedia.org] .

And as others have mentioned in comments to previous stories here, Chekov wasn't on the Enterprise until later on well after Kirk took command. He really doesn't fit into this movie.

And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"

Re:Continuity problems already (1)

Main Gauche (881147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734559)

And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF?

Yeah, they've never done something like that [memory-alpha.org] before.

Re:Continuity problems already (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734585)

OMG!! STARBUCK IS A GIRL!!!!! WTF!?!

Because that is what you sound like you pissy little Trekkie. This is a reboot things are going to be different. Canon is nothing but a guide here.

"Chekov wasn't on the Enterprise until later on well after Kirk took command"

Someone didn't see fit to inform the writers of "Wrath of Khan" of this either. Do you bitch about that too?

"Chekov wasn't on the Enterprise until later on well after Kirk took command"

And they have an Englishman playing a Scotsman too! Those swines!

Fuck I hate fanboys.

Re:Continuity "problems" (2, Informative)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734697)

Kirk is subsequently seen being smuggled on board the Starship Enterprise on its maiden voyage by doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played by Karl Urban.

McCoy isn't the original ship's surgeon on the Enterprise. I guess nobody who worked on the film ever saw The Cage [wikipedia.org] .

They're not following canon at all, they're re-booting the series.

The canonization of the 20 year history of the Enterprise before Kirk took command was mainly just a way to recycle the pilot episode that used a different cast and FX model. I wouldn't say it's necessarily the best thing for the story to keep that around in a reboot.

Re:Continuity "problems" (3, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734911)

They're not following canon at all, they're re-booting the series.

Except that the official line [trekmovie.com] is that they are NOT rebooting the series. Which is rather two-faced when you think about it. On one hand you're telling the fans that you're not rebooting the series (at a time when fans are probably most receptive to a reboot) then you go and reboot it anyway.

With PR management like that, is it any wonder that fans are upset?

Re:Continuity problems already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734781)

Sulu was never meant to be Japanese. In fact, Roddenberry did NOT want a specific nationality for him (Sulu is not a Japanese surname in any case). According to "canon", Sulu is half-Japanese half-Filipino... and was born in San Francisco.

Given Roddenberry's original intentions it seems quite appropriate to have a Korean play the character.

Re:Continuity problems already (5, Funny)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734863)

> And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF?

I know! And I heard that the guy who's playing Spock isn't even a real alien!

Re:Continuity problems already (1)

HertzaHaeon (1164143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734959)

Yeah, that would be like having a Brit playing an American. Preposterous!

Also, "Sulu" isn't a very Japanese name, AFAIK.

What makes you think they give a rip? (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735121)

What makes you think they care about continuity? As much as JJ Abrams is hyped to be a great sci-fi writer, it's obvious he didn't know and didn't care about the history of the series. And in Star Trek, the history of the series... the canon, if you will, is very, very important to Trek fans.

I think this movie will appeal to teenagers who don't know and don't care about Star Trek. But it's looking like it'll absolutely horrify the rest of us with it's typical Hollywoodish "who gives a fuck about the details?" attitude. If it's turning out how I think it will, I hope it crashes and burns and Paramount refuses to make another Trek movie for 10 years. Then at least it'll be another ten years before they fuck things up again.

As A Cracker I Take Offense At Your Remark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25735203)

And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"

Crackers do too know the difference: Korean food hot and spicy, Japanese food cold and slimy.

Please stop stereotyping us as ignorant backwoods rednecks.

Thanks y'all.

Re:Continuity problems already (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735231)

And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"

Picard was an English Frenchman. They're just continuing the storyline...

Re:Continuity problems already (5, Informative)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735259)

And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"

No kidding. It'd be as silly as an Irish Canadian [wikipedia.org] playing a Scotsman, an Englishman [wikipedia.org] playing a Frenchman, an American [wikipedia.org] playing a Russian. ;)

Re:Continuity problems already (1)

STrinity (723872) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735287)

Not only haven't they seen the Cage, they apparently haven't seen Where No Man Has Gone Before, where the Enterprise had a completely different CMO even with Kirk in command. There also hasn't been any reference to Gary Mitchell, who's another key figure who should be aboard for Kirk's first mission.

Re:Continuity problems already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25735363)

And with the roomer that Scottie is gay, is in conflict with the series. ("The Lights of Zetar", "Mudd's Women", "Wolf in the Fold")

Don't read these unless you want the storyline (2, Informative)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734303)

There are a couple other sites that give a lot more detail on the clips that were shown. From the description it seems easy to piece together the overall storyline of the film. If you don't want to know what the storyline is then don't read these links

http://denofgeek.com/movies/144620/star_trek_four_full_scenes_and_new_trailer_reviewed.html [denofgeek.com] http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=313 [empireonline.com]

Hey JJ.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734319)

Get to the Dark Tower movies already!

Release date (1)

incripshin (580256) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734321)

I thought this movie was supposed to come out this Christmas season. Now I see on the Star Trek movie website 'Summer 09'. Am I imagining things?

Re:Release date (1)

chfriley (160627) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734479)

It was supposed to be out then, but they thought they'd make more money with a summer release (per EW iirc) and they also wanted time to have Abrams and others out there talking about why it is a mainstream movie and not just more of the same (per EW iirc too - was reading it at the dr's office this morning). In other words they wanted more time to have them out and about talking about its optimistic vision of the future vs things like Batman etc in order to attract a wide audience that includes more than just the regular Trek fan base.

Re:Release date (1)

TrekkieTechie (1265532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734627)

Apparently, once studio execs had a chance to look at dailies and storyboards and so forth, they realized the film had an excellent chance of attracting a broader audience than just Trek fans. They pushed the release date to May '09 so it wouldn't have to compete with other Christmas releases for general audience attention; a May release also gives it the chance to become a runaway summer blockbuster hit. (I'll believe it when I see it.) Abrams decided this was a good thing after all, because it would give him the opportunity to make sure everything (including the all-important special effects) are as good as they can possibly be.

What this means for Trek fans, myself included, is that the film better be damn good if they got an extra four months to work on it. Personally, I'm expecting it to be a fairly lukewarm experience -- but then again, there are always possibilities...

Re:Release date (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734727)

I thought this movie was supposed to come out this Christmas season. Now I see on the Star Trek movie website 'Summer 09'. Am I imagining things?

The word is that they decided this picture was worthy of a summer release. The release date did change.

Anybody else wish .... (1)

phoxix (161744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734523)

... producers would stop obsessing about the original series, and make like ... an updated Star Trek movie ??

Maybe with the casts of TNG and DS9 ??

I wouldn't be surprised if there were many other trekkies who love the newer stuff, but don't give a damn about the old material ...

*raises hand*

Its interesting because in the Slashdot poll of Which Trek is Best [slashdot.org] , the original series actually lost to DS9. If Slashdot isn't a place to guage this sorta thing ... you couldn't do it anywhere else.

Soaring Heights (2, Funny)

speroni (1258316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734571)

This really brings "News for Nerds" to a whole new level....

construction of the enterprise (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734605)

I liked how the original trailer looked like a Rammstein video, iron workers constructing the ship by hand on a planetbound spacedock.

Strangely enough, our modern warships are essentially built by hand because the volumes aren't large enough to warrant assembly lines with robots. The ships are built in large assemblies that are joined together, huge machines moving the parts but humans inspecting every piece as they go together. But trying to model the construction of a futuristic starship after a modern-day navy vessel is about as silly as modeling space combat tactics after WWII....ok, yeah, they do it but it's still silly! Though I did dearly love the depth-charging scene from the Wing Commander movie, especially the part about the crew having to remain silent so the Kilrathi couldn't hear them, presumably on space sonar. :)

But aside from the issue of how the pieces would be put together on a starship, there's the question of where it would be built. Trek has always had a thing for spacedocks in space. I remember asking my dad questions when we were watching Trek and was amazed when he told me the ship could never land. It blew my mind to think of a ship built in space, always in space, never landing.

Anyway, I wonder just how awful this movie will end up being. Is it considered an even or odd-numbered film?

Re:construction of the enterprise (3, Informative)

bitrex (859228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735307)

Another thing that got glossed over in the TNG films is just how long it supposedly took to construct a Galaxy-class starship. A long time ago I owned a copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual, and it had a timeline of the construction process for the Enterprise D. If I'm remembering correctly it took the better part of 40 years to complete a Galaxy class ship. Building a single one would be a huge multi-generational task, which is why it's understandable the Federation Council would have been pretty pissed at Kirk after Star Trek 3. In the TNG movies it seems like they blow one up every installment.

I hope that Star Trek learned from Star Wars (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734635)

in that they make the Prequels better than the Original films.

Otherwise it will become another Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and mess up some of the continuity in the original films and TV series, and have a plot that does not make sense, and acting that was not as good as the originals as they are using new actors and actresses that hardly anyone heard of before and have not yet fully learned the art of acting.

At least make the Prequel better than the Star Wreck [starwreck.com] parody. I am sorry to say but Even Stark trek fan based films [wikipedia.org] seem to be better than the original most recent Star Trek films, since Gene Roddenberry passed away. Maybe they should hire some of the Star Trek fans who made those films to help make the Prequels, if the current Star Trek film bombs? When Gene Roddenberry was alive, he was able to write or at least inspire the writers to have a good plot that follows logic and inspire the actors to act better, and have better combat and drama and more Sci Fi than Space Opera. I got a bad felling that this Prequel will end up more Space Opera than Sci Fi and deal more with relationships and personal issues between the characters than the Sci Fi story it should be. I hope it does not become, gasp, "Broke Back Starfleet Academy" or something. ;)

Re:I hope that Star Trek learned from Star Wars (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735163)

"and acting that was not as good as the originals as they are using new actors and actresses that hardly anyone heard of before and have not yet fully learned the art of acting."

I was going to write a snarky comment about how little experience the original series actors had before Star Trek but blimey if all of the main characters (Nimoy, Shatner, Kelley, and Doohan) all had a significant number of roles under their belts by then. But then I checked the new and old actors' profiles on the IMDB. Chris Pine probably has the weakest resume of the new main characters but he's not exactly wet behind the ears.

At the very least, they're already one step ahead of the Star Wars prequel. They put someone in charge who knows how to write dialogue.

International Space Station anyone (1)

Xerolooper (1247258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25734893)

The original enterprise from tos is more like what real space gear looks like. ie. no need for aerodynamics and clean lines/utilitarianism that don't waste precious living space. That is why the sweeping aerodynamic design is just stupid and insulting. Having said that I would rather have a wacky low IQ starship and still keep the dream alive than have no dreams at all.

Star Trek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25734977)

Star Trek has always been a predictable mirror image of what Hollywood multicultural world-government pseudo-Marxists would like the universe to be. They hope if they push enough of this thinly veiled propaganda through films and the Talmudvision it might actually come true.

Legitimate and Real? (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735067)

In his introduction, Abrams said he wanted the film to be released in May 2009, to feel 'legitimate and real.'

So, films not released in May of 2009 do not feel "legitimate and real"?

Re:Legitimate and Real? (1)

bbroerman (715822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735367)

I believe the "legitimate and real" was referring to the movie, and not to the choice in date... Bad placement of punctuation...

New Enterprise... (1)

bbroerman (715822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25735293)

This new Enterprise (the ship & bridge) look way too advanced. They should have made the exterior the same as TOS, but maybe modernized the bridge a *little*. Maybe somewhere between TOS and ST-TMP. I definitely think they went WAY too far.

Now, if they wanted to acknowledge that the "old" consoles, etc. are just because of our real-life tech limitations, then I could go with touchscreens like TNG on the bridge, but the Enterprise was also a warship, and they wouldn't use the latest and greatest tech on it. They would rely on older "more proven" technologies for critical systems.

Also, if you look at the novels (as Abrams supposidly did) you'd learn the control systems of the Enterprise was designed by an Alpha Centauran, and they are aesthetic minimalists.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?