×

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!

New Star Trek Trailer

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the please-jj-don't-hurt-em dept.

Sci-Fi 591

roelbj writes "The full trailer to the next Star Trek movie is now available at the movie's official web site. The upcoming J.J. Abrams-helmed installment represents a changing of the guard, a reboot of the franchise, and a return to the original-series crew. It should prove interesting to see how Abrams' writing staff (Cloverfield, Lost, Alias) tackles the Star Trek universe and all the continuity and baggage that comes with it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

591 comments

Fuck Star Trek, Here Comes Watchmen! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25792915)

Well, I don't know why I should sit through another 3 minutes of arc welding when a new Watchmen trailer [warnerbros.com] with music from Philip Glass & Muse was released on Quantum of Solice.

Guess because it's Trek, it gets day to day duplicate coverage.

Re:Fuck Star Trek, Here Comes Watchmen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25792967)

The Watchmen? Is that about the NSA?

Re:Fuck Star Trek, Here Comes Watchmen! (4, Funny)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793055)

No silly, it's about watches.

Quis custodiet ipsos chronos?

Uh oh (5, Funny)

Aeonite (263338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792941)

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 (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793111)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793153)

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

If it isn't, it should be.

Yep, modded the OP troll. Be my guess to mod him offtopic if you want. :)

Re:Uh oh (5, Funny)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793481)

Totally. I think it requires Spock to use the 'deadlock' on the offender. Kirk once managed the deadlock on a computer himself; but it was trying to sterilize him and you know how he felt about that.

Both franchise shared the same fate. (5, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793327)

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.

Uneasy (5, Interesting)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (4, Interesting)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793083)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793215)

The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick

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).

I couldn't agree more. Thus my tag of "jumpedtheshark"

Re:Uneasy (3, Interesting)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793225)

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...

Re:Uneasy (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793773)

One thing to be careful about is that there needs to be 2 captains of the Enterprise _before_ Kirk...

Re:Uneasy (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793283)

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 is just beyond me. Gah, lawn, etc.

Did you laugh during the homage segment? (spoiler) (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793535)

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 (1)

kelnos (564113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793603)

I didn't think QoS was good, exciting, tight film making, but I did find it enjoyable, and a decent way to tie up some loose ends from Casino Royale while leaving others open (and creating some new questions) to pave the way for a third film.

Yesterday's re-watch of Casino Royale reminded me how much better it was, though.

Re:Uneasy (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Star Trek Continuum (5, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Star Trek Continuum (2, Interesting)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793837)

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:Uneasy (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793239)

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?

Re:Uneasy (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793473)

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.

Re:Uneasy (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793539)

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 seeing it.

Re:Uneasy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793547)

The Star Trek TOS tv series was always a "mindless summer action flick" type show, only shorter and on weekly instead of once per every few years.

Re:Uneasy (4, Insightful)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793557)

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.

Re:Uneasy (0, Troll)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793681)

complete cheese-fest

[as opposed to] Firefly/Serenity

!? Huh? I couldn't even make it through the first episode of Firefly because the "space western" theme was so god damned cheesy it made me gag. I wouldn't exactly hold that up as an example of high-quality sci-fi these days. BSG, yes. I love BSG and am tormented by the wait for more episodes. That's high-quality sci-fi, and if the new Trek can live up to that, I'd be ecstatic.

Apart from that though, yes, Trek hasn't been as good as it ever has been lately, but honestly, I'd still take everything up through and including Voyager (for the series) or Insurrection (for the movies) over a mindless action flick.

Re:Uneasy (1)

Brian_Ellenberger (308720) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793805)

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.

Uh, as opposed to the TOS? You know, the one where there was almost always some sort of fistfight and Kirk hooked up with the alien of the week? You know, the fact that Star Trek started out as a "Space Western"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Western [wikipedia.org]

With both Star Trek and Star Wars, I think nostalgia overtakes reason for most people. The writing took a shotgun approach IMHO. Star Trek had some great episodes mixed with mostly mediocre ones at best. We remember "The City on the Edge of Forever" and forget "Spock's Brain".

And don't forget one of the "best" Star Trek movies is "The Wrath of Kahn", which is pretty much a total action flick.

Age of the actors (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792953)

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

Re:Age of the actors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793633)

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

In 1966 the bridge cast was in their early 30s. The doctor and head engineer were in their 40s.

This made sense to the audience of that time, as WW2 was fresh in memory, a time of great military expansion that placed relatively young people into senior positions. Realistically, the senior officers should have been older as the 23rd century was relatively peaceful, but it worked due to that collective memory and the gravity brought to the roles.

Looks like.. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792989)

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

Re:Looks like.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793087)

If you get all the episode 1 trailers every released, you can edit them together to produce the complete film.

Re:Looks like.. (0, Offtopic)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793453)

Yousa people gunna die?

This looks like a train wreck from that trailer. Who knows, the trailer may not be representative of the movie, but yeah, Fast and the Furious XI: Jupiter Drift springs to mind.

Sorry, but... (5, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793007)

"It's dead, Jim."

Re:Sorry, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793067)

"It's dead, Jim."

I shot it.

Denny Crane.

Re:Sorry, but... (2, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793233)

Agreed. I still think more could be done with the Star Trek universe in general, but they need to stop trying to squeeze more out of the original series. It has run its course, move on.

Of course, the same can be said of TNG, and nobody seems to want to even acknowledge the possibility of making movies from Enterprise, DS9 or Voyager, so the alternative would be to make an entirely new set of characters. There isn't anyone left in Hollywood with that kind of creative talent, so it looks like Star Trek as a franchise is screwed.

It's Alive, Jim! Alive! (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793625)

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!"

I here Jar Jar Binks is going to be in this one (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793019)

Let's hope Kirk teaches him a lesson with the business end of a federation light saber!

another quicktime update (5, Insightful)

ufpdom (556704) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793041)

Could this be available in something other than requiring me a update in software to my machine?

Re:another quicktime update (0, Offtopic)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793173)

Could this be available in something other than requiring me a update in software to my machine?

Yeah, you can find it here [warnerbros.com] with no update required!

Re:another quicktime update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793431)

Could this be available in something other than requiring me a update in software to my machine?

...and from some source that doesn't require me to enable js and install flash?

VLC (4, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793467)

works nicely with VLC under linux too (that is with native linux opensource codecs as FFMPEG. No evil closed source QuickTime DLLs required).

mplayer also does a nice trick impersonating a quicktime plugin.

Re:another quicktime update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793733)

If you're not running the latest Quicktime, you've got a security hole. Go ahead, update. It's ok.

Re:another quicktime update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793757)

Yes [wikipedia.org] ,
runs also on these acient computers from the times when basic was popular and com. Kirk was in charge.

Young Star Trek (2, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793045)

I don't think I can take 'Young Star Trek' seriously. In TOS, Kirk was already a youthful commander. What a joke.

Re:Young Star Trek (2, Insightful)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793257)

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.

Re:Young Star Trek (1)

kelnos (564113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793637)

I'm guessing you didn't watch the trailer, then. It's not about the academy (or, at least, it's not *only* about the academy).

Reboot! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793049)

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?

Re:Reboot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793321)

Wouldn't Bermanesque have everything return to normal at the end of the episode?

XviD trailer please? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793061)

I fucking hate Apple and their bastard offspring called Quicktime, fucking proprietry shite that won't play easily on Windows machines.

I once installed iTunes on my laptop to get an iPod nano configured so I could use 3rd party software (the piece of shit iPod died a month later anyway, I stick to my iRivers), but the installer insisted on installing Quickshite. Upon uninstalling iTunes & Quickshite it killed the wifi drivers, I had to reinstall the drivers TWICE before to get the wifi working again. Fuck apple.

Could someone convert+distribute the trailer to XviD/mp3 avi format please?

Re:XviD trailer please? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793197)

Wow, you must really be inept. Quicktime sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as you do at maintaining computers. Maybe you should seek a career as a short order cook.

Re:XviD trailer please? (3, Informative)

jdb2 (800046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793501)

Use Mplayer [mplayerhq.hu] .

mplayer -fs -cache 1024 -cache-min 99 'http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/star_trek/startrek-tlr2_h.640.mov'

works just fine on my crappy K7 system. ( Kubuntu 8.04 )

jdb2

I for one, welcome... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793073)

I for one welcome the new movie. As a fan of the old as well, I think this refresh/reboot/prequal/timeline-warping/whatever it is has a lot of potential. The pacing of the trailer alone is very promising. And what's with those dudes skydiving from orbit - if you view frame by frame you can see the parachutes. It reminds me of the Kirk skydiving scene that was cut out of Generations / that I always wanted to see.

scantily clad people (3, Interesting)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:scantily clad people (4, Insightful)

sl0ppy (454532) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:scantily clad people (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793259)

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.

Re:scantily clad people (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793285)

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:scantily clad people (2, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793325)

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:scantily clad people (2, Insightful)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793403)

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 this new movie is going to be 98% flash and maybe, maybe 2% substance. That car chase scene? My suspicions are that this film is largely going to consist of tits, explosions, and weirdly shaped evil aliens. That's fine for a mindless action flick for the summer, but Trek can do better. It has been a (small) force for social change in the past, and I would like to see that again. If I want to see boobs and bombs I can get those from a million other sources. This movie may indeed be immensely popular and make scads of money but I'm no longer holding out much hope for it challenging people's deeply held views about any of the issues of today.

Re:scantily clad people (1)

the phantom (107624) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793583)

Context is important here, methinks. The original Star Trek came out in the 60s, when the bedrooms of sitcom couples often had separate beds, there were no fart jokes on television, a kiss might be considered risque, and a naked navel might get censored. There was as much sex in the original Star Trek as the writers and producers could get into it at the time.

Re:scantily clad people (1)

kelnos (564113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793699)

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

Perhaps because that sort of thing was unheard of on a network TV show in the 60s? If Star Trek had never existed, and TOS just first aired today, I imagine it would be a lot more explicitly sexualised than it was back then. (I'll leave the answer to the question of whether it would be better, worse, or the same as an exercise for the reader.)

Wasn't that Starship Troopers 3? (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793793)

My suspicions are that this film is largely going to consist of tits, explosions, and weirdly shaped evil aliens.

Wasn't that the plot of Starship Troopers 3?

I'm serious here. Go watch it and mentally replace the names of the characters with names from Star Trek.

I would have thought that a franchise would be more than the trademarked names of the characters and toys. But I guess that I'm wrong.

Re:scantily clad people (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793789)

even TNG had commander "horndog" riker.

I might be mistaken, but I think Picard got more "action" than Riker did.

Re:scantily clad people (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793651)

The old methods /were/ using scantily-clad women. Remember the provocatively swooping necklines and miniskirts in the original series? The Orion Slave girl? Women were exploited all over the place in the original series; it's nothing new to Star Trek.

Actually, look at any of them. Deanna Troi was just eye candy for a while in her skintight jumpsuits baring cleavage. Ditto on Kira Nerys. And Seven of Nine. It's not like the movie is degrading the franchise by blatantly espousing sexuality.

Re:scantily clad people (4, Insightful)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793803)

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

Stop right there. Tits are always the answer.

The writers of... LOST? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793121)

What?

The next star trek film is going to be written by some of the very worst writers the TV industry has ever seen? Does this mean we should expect a dumb plot that makes no sense, and ridiculous dialogue?

Oh boy.

Re:The writers of... LOST? (2, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793315)

Oh boy.

No, no, no... you got it all wrong... you're supposed to save "Quantum Leap" references for discussions about "Enterprise"...

Looks like crap (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793159)

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.

Re:Looks like crap (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793255)

So, to summarize your post:

Crap...looks like crap, which is impressive considering...crap?

That's smurfy!

Re:Looks like crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793499)

Strong Bad? That you?

Re:Looks like crap (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793579)

None of the follow on series have been nearly as good as the original series. They've ranged from mediocre (TNG) to downright horrible (DS9). This movie doesn't seem to be raising the bar.

What people seem to forget is that the success of the original series was a fluke. No one will ever accuse Shatner of being a good actor, but he fit the role perfectly. Additionally, Roddenberry wasn't a genius sci fi writer, but Star Trek was his baby and he shepherded it well. And the original series wasn't a success at the time it was broadcast, finding its fans only later in syndication. Despite this the various people who have been working on the news ones are all trying to recreate something which was accidental at the time.

Huh? (1)

Captain Jorge (1396017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793229)

Too much whiz boom bang Bourne-style speedy action. I hope the movie is more cerebral, but I doubt it. The space combat scenes look straight out of Star Wars - figures since JJ Abrams is more of a Star Wars fan. I saw a lotta 'splosions, lasers, and some sex. But I still don't know what the hell the movie is about. The teasers for the original series usually left the audience with the beginning of a mystery or somesuch and was usually quite intriguing. I give the trailer two 'mehs'.

slashdotted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793267)

All I get is a blank screen.... Slashdotted? Microsoft must still be used 400 years from now....

Baggage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793273)

It costs too much to check baggage these days.

I expect they'll just toss out all the old baggage and start over.

I hear that's all the rage with old movie franchises these days.

Corvette Top Up or Down? (1)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793293)

That Kirk, he's really something. He can put the top down on a Corvette at 70 mph so fast you won't even see it happening.

Re:Corvette Top Up or Down? (1)

fonik (776566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793825)

Kirk topless for no reason in the blink of an eye? They REALLY ARE staying true to the original!

---GO BACK--- (4, Funny)

ErkDemon (1202789) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793361)

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.

Robots? (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793367)

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:Robots? (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793531)

I think it was a meat-cop in an intimidating leotard. He was speaking through a voice modulator, because all cops are required to speak through voice modulators in the future.

Quicktime? Seriously? (5, Insightful)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 5 years ago | (#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"

Re:Quicktime? Seriously? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793631)

In truth there IS no standard for video, DivX certainly isnt and never has been. And the implementation Apple uses is completely compatable with the standard. Whenever I see people bitch about quicktime 9 times out of 10 its completely because they have both no fucking clue what they are talking about, and dont know a damn thing about properly supporting their PC.

Re:Quicktime? Seriously? (1)

gehrehmee (16338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793719)

"let me download the damned trailer"

I think you answered your own question.

Forcing you to use their software gives them power. Forcing you to update regularly makes it difficult to find ways to download the content without their software.

Controlling how you use their media is good in the minds of these people. They want to know how you view it, when you view it, where you view it, why you viewed it, what you were wearing when you viewed it, what you ate for dinner afterward......

Star Trek Episode One (1)

jwriney (16598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793411)

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

Re:Star Trek Episode One (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793635)

I loved this trailer, except for that first part, like what the hell, Kirk was a little extreme and rebelious, and I know that he came from Iowa, that's why it started out in the corn fields. WTF was that tho, he drove a car off a cliff for what reason? I think the effects looked great and all, but the car thing is totally not what I can think of as Kirk. He is more like James Bond than Evil Kinevil.

my prediction (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793433)

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.

Something wrong with the movie (4, Informative)

prakslash (681585) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Something wrong with the movie (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793663)

He would have been only 12 years old at the time they show him racing his bike and seeing the enterprise being built.

Precocious little SOB, isn't he?

Can they make a more useless website? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25793505)

Flash, javascript, quicktime, all to watch two crappy trailers?

Take a lesson from youtube. People like quick & easy video that doesn't make you install a lot of software & codecs.

Hard to understand the bitterness here (5, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793701)

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.

Abrams' writing staff (3, Interesting)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793717)

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?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...