# Brand New Trek Trailer...



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

Folks,

If you ain't going to see WATCHMEN this evening...

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gty9...dassiaprimera.com.ar/&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Please note the new trailer won't be attached to all prints of Watchmen.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

It's supposed to be in 1080p at the apple website after midnight.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

It' ain't ST to me, but as a Sci-Fi movie it looks good.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

You could call it "Revenge of the Teletubbies" if it makes you feel better.


----------



## fernieo (Mar 22, 2000)

Jodet said:


> It's supposed to be in 1080p at the apple website after midnight.


Already up:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Just watched this in 1080P. I'm speechless. This looks ASTOUNDING. 

How did J.J. talk Parmount into spending 150 million dollars into what was a DEAD franchise?


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Oh no. Not a chromed boat throttle on the helm console! LOL! Yes I am going to see the movie!


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

^ Infinitely preferable to a spray-painted joystick.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Modeler1964 said:


> Oh no. Not a chromed boat throttle on the helm console! LOL! Yes I am going to see the movie!


Looks like a netflix pick for me.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Netflix if my buddy rents it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Jodet said:


> How did J.J. talk Parmount into spending 150 million dollars into what was a DEAD franchise?


Rumors of Trek's demise were (and are) greatly exaggerated.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Looks like JJ has produced a wonderful Action/Adventure flick

Problem is, he's wrapped it in Star Trek tinfoil

Nothing I've seen so far convinces me that this is in any way related to the Star Trek that I've been enjoying for 42+ years now


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Oh I don't know...I just like that shot of Spock looking at Kirk on the bridge. THAT is a Star Trek moment and takes me back to the original series.

On the other hand...I'm actually stoked to see this top to bottom reworking of the franchise. In one sense I understand the resistance but on the other hand this "I demand that I be given the exact same thing I've digested for the past 42 years!!!" is kind of sad...if you want the last 42 years of Trek there's a whole bunch of DVDs available to be viewed in the basement of your choice...


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

jbond (apt) I concur. I screamed, shouted, decried that next to electiing Obama that casting Daniel Craig as the next James Bond was surely a sign of the coming of the anti-Christ. But what do you know? I loved "Casino Royale" and Craig's Bond worked for me. I'm NOT saying I'm for all re-imaginings (still don't think current BSG is BSG), but I'm going to keep an open mind and not fluff my feathers, beat my chest, and get all self-important and snug slinging "Netflix" smack talk out there...


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

You can say what you want, but this is the best looking work that I've seen with a Star Trek label attached to it in a long, long time. The goal here is to re-ignite interest in a series that's been laying in a coma on life support for a while now. And it looks as if they're pulling it off. Good for them. And (some of) us.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

jbond said:


> On one sense I understand the resistance but on the other hand this "I demand that I be given the exact same thing I've digested for the past 42 years!!!" is kind of sad...if you want the last 42 years of Trek there's a whole bunch of DVDs available to be viewed in the basement of your choice...


Spot on


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

JeffG said:


> You can say what you want, but this is the best looking work that I've seen with a Star Trek label attached to it in a long, long time. The goal here is to re-ignite interest in a series that's been laying in a coma on life support for a while now. And it looks as if they're pulling it off. Good for them. And (some of) us.


Well said Jeff. This latest trailer has me foaming at the mouth for more. The comments I have read regarding the trailer have been very positive. Folks who have never seen a ST film seem stoked for this.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

It's good they're re-igniting it. The 'same old thing' pushed ridiculous further w/ each consecutive film and even a lot of TOS was silly to absurd. The last 'good' Trek may have been the first half of the first season w/ scattered highlights throughout. Some basic 'historical' continuity would have been a nice touch and a nod.

The look is obviously going to be phenomenal. There can be no doubts. 
The action will be stupendous, they can't do less. 
Some of the acting will be great, some will be crap. 
Some of the story will be great, some of it will be crap.

Pike looks to have the best lines. 
Here's the worst line/concept in the trailer, paraphrased.
"We've got no captain or first officer, somebody's gotta pilot the ship"

So like a bunch of D&D players sitting around the table, they vote on who should lead the group? Star fleet chain of command?

Even the naysayers will have to see it themselves and judge then.
'Looks' are set to Hvy stun. 
Substance=?


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Model Man said:


> ...So like a bunch of D&D players sitting around the table, they vote on who should lead the group? Star fleet chain of command?...


Nice.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I'll be there opening night and in costume should I be able to get something together by then.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

jbond said:


> Oh I don't know...I just like that shot of Spock looking at Kirk on the bridge. THAT is a Star Trek moment and takes me back to the original series.
> 
> On the other hand...I'm actually stoked to see this top to bottom reworking of the franchise. In one sense I understand the resistance but on the other hand this "I demand that I be given the exact same thing I've digested for the past 42 years!!!" is kind of sad...if you want the last 42 years of Trek there's a whole bunch of DVDs available to be viewed in the basement of your choice...


The voice of sanity. Thank you.


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

I only have one niggle... Sulu is Korean?!? Like hey couldn't at least try to find an actor with Japanese looks? Ok.. done fanboying.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> 'Looks' are set to Hvy stun.
> Substance=?


That's the real question isin't it.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

jbond said:


> Oh I don't know...I just like that shot of Spock looking at Kirk on the bridge. THAT is a Star Trek moment and takes me back to the original series.
> 
> On the other hand...I'm actually stoked to see this top to bottom reworking of the franchise. In one sense I understand the resistance but on the other hand this "I demand that I be given the exact same thing I've digested for the past 42 years!!!" is kind of sad...if you want the last 42 years of Trek there's a whole bunch of DVDs available to be viewed in the basement of your choice...


Nice!
Looks like we may actually have a watchable Star Trek movie coming out this May!! That will make a total of what...three?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

You can put a sign on a goat that says "horse", but it don't mean it is.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Lloyd Collins said:


> You can put a sign on a goat that says "horse", but it don't mean it is.


No, but some people will follow the rest of the sheep and insist that "The sign says it is, so it must be"


"baaa..... baaaa.... BAH!"


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> You can put a sign on a goat that says "horse", but it don't mean it is.


I'm going to acknowledge Lloyd's feelings on this one as well. To many fans this will never be Star Trek. But that's the evolution of something that needs to stay alive and relevant needs to do. Star Trek will never be what I've wanted it to be, but I accept that and enjoy the scraps they throw my way.

When the scraps are unpalatable like when DS9 started, and continued through rancid fare like Enterprise and the last two ST movies... I just chose not partake. For the first time in my life, when Insurrection and whatever that movie that came before were released, I didn't go to the theater. People who knew how big a Trekkie I was were shocked. Looked like dross and I wasn't interested.

I will, however, be seeing this next one in the theater. So that means something to me.

I just hope it's better than the X-Men analogy. X-Men theatrically is NOT X-Men. Hugh Jackman is NOT Wolverine and Haley Berry is NOT Storm any more than my nail clippings are art. The X-Men franchise to me is utterly forgettable and unwatchable. They screwed the pooch on both fronts. At least BSG now is watchable and good, even though it's NOT BSG. I hope this movie has that going for it.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Those of you who are not looking forward to the new movie, all I ask is that you not allow yourselves to become Trek's version of Languatron. Nobody wants that.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I LOVE the actors! The special effects are unequaled in any scifi movie! I REALLY mean that! If the title didn't say "Star Trek", I'd be as rabid a fan as many of you here. However, Star Trek has become a part of me. It has become an important influence in my life. To have that philosophy (go ahead and laugh, but think about the lessons of Star Trek...) distorted is intolerable to me. 

And know this - if, once the movie is released, it ends with the "proper" timeline being restored, I will gladly buy the DVD, and will be happy to support future movies. If it doesn't, well, I don't plan on being quiet about my disappointment.

Until then I agree to disagree. If you like the movie as we know it now, great. I respect your right to your opinion and to state that opinion. Please respect my right to not like it, and to state my opinion as well.

Larry


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

I don't know if I like the new movie or not. I haven't seen it yet.


----------



## abu625 (Jul 4, 2002)

I'm 55 years old -- a First Generation Trekkie -- and I'm thrilled by the trailer. But I'm even more thrilled that the venerable franchise has a "future" (pardon the pun). How do I know? Because my 23-year-old son, a recent USC grad who believes he embodies all that is cool and relevant, who thinks his old man is a total nerd, saw the trailer and told me HE wants to see the movie.

That's gotta be worth something!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Let's allow for the time being that this overblown turkey actually manages to become a bona fide blockbuster, maybe even making enough at the box office to break even.

Does this mindless flashfest have enough going for it to actually "restart the franchise?" Or are we looking at a one-hit-wonder and another reboot in three or four years?

In other words, should we be looking forward to another round of recasting, with Val Kilmer playing Kirk, soon to be followed by George Clooney and Christian Bale?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Let's allow for the time being that this overblown turkey actually manages to become a bona fide blockbuster, maybe even making enough at the box office to break even.
> 
> Does this mindless flashfest have enough going for it to actually "restart the franchise?" Or are we looking at a one-hit-wonder and another reboot in three or four years?
> 
> In other words, should we be looking forward to another round of recasting, with Val Kilmer playing Kirk, soon to be followed by George Clooney and Christian Bale?


I'm not sure how anyone could view the third trailer, which contains considerable character-driven content, and proclaim the movie a 'mindless flashfest'. However, if the movie does well (both at the box office and in DVD sales), there will no doubt be a sequel. All the main cast were signed to a three-picture deal, IIRC. 

I'm sure CBS will also want to capitalize on the momentum if the movie does well. I wouldn't be surprised if they announced a live-action or animated TV series within the next couple of years.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Is there a downloadable version of the 1080p hi rez version? There are some good reference shots not seen before of the new Enterprise - from below, behind, over the spine, and the rear of the bridge in an upside-down angle.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Check out this thread on TrekBBS for screencaps of the third trailer...

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=84674


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Krako said:


> I'm not sure how anyone could view the third trailer, which contains considerable character-driven content, and proclaim the movie a 'mindless flashfest'. However, if the movie does well (both at the box office and in DVD sales), there will no doubt be a sequel. All the main cast were signed to a three-picture deal, IIRC.


I've already seen "Top Gun", I don't need to see the Star Trek version of it. (Gee, maybe they _should_ have cast Tom Cruise somewhere...)



> I'm sure CBS will also want to capitalize on the momentum if the movie does well. I wouldn't be surprised if they announced a live-action or animated TV series within the next couple of years.


The difference there being that on the CBS side of the house, we're talking TOS, not some rebooted version, so at the very least, those coming in based on JJ's coming-of-age pseudodrama Explodapalooza are going to be very confused, since the audience JJ seems to be aiming for generally doesn't really like to think about what they're watching.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Captain April said:


> Let's allow for the time being that this overblown turkey actually manages to become a bona fide blockbuster, maybe even making enough at the box office to break even.
> 
> Does this mindless flashfest have enough going for it to actually "restart the franchise?" Or are we looking at a one-hit-wonder and another reboot in three or four years?
> 
> In other words, should we be looking forward to another round of recasting, with Val Kilmer playing Kirk, soon to be followed by George Clooney and Christian Bale?


I haven't seen a Trek movie in 15 years but I'm quite excited about this one.

As to the Batman analogy, Kilmer and Clooney were just alternating cadavers employed to perpetuate an already dead franchise. Bale was the "reboot". And that "reboot" seems to have worked _quite_ well.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Why do people who clearly hate the film without having seen it bother putting up post after post about it? There seems to be a tremendous amount of energy spinning wheels attempting to stop something that is going to happen no matter what you do or say. So they didn't make the Trek film YOU wanted to see--boo hoo! Go out and do something constructive, go back and watch some Trek you DO like, build a model or do something besides carp.

I will WELCOME criticism of this film by people who've actually seen it. I've seen about 30 minutes of it and I didn't like everything I saw but I did like some of it--however I'm not prepared to call this film a turkey OR a masterpiece because I haven't seen it all yet! I'm not an all-seeing seer that can predict the future and analyze the aesthetic nuts and bolts of a film based on three minutes of trailer footage. As someone who once wrote a great Star Trek episode once said, 'You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion.' 

While I sincerely doubt anyone who's already making pronouncements about this movie is capable of changing their mind about anything, it is possible to have that happen. After listening to people bitch about Watchmen and reading reviews describing it as the new Phantom Menace, I absorbed and started to regurgitate all sorts of arguments about why the film wouldn't work and all the mistakes the filmmakers obviously made that would kill its chances for success. Then I actually sat through the film...and enjoyed it. I didn't think it was a masterpiece, but a lot of it was impressive, I found it entertaining and well worth seeing on a big screen. Seriously, it is now possible for you to make your own Star Trek, as New Voyages and other ventures have shown. If you are truly so invested in this that you can't do anything but spew venom in post after post, why not get off your butt and go write or shoot the Star Trek YOU want to see? All this anger is bad for your digestion...


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

jbond said:


> While I sincerely doubt anyone who's already making pronouncements about this movie is capable of changing their mind about anything, it is possible to have that happen. After listening to people bitch about Watchmen and reading reviews describe


I think this gets to the heart of what bothers me about some of the negative comments made in advance of the film. I didn't and still don't particularly like _Star Trek VI_ (decided after I saw it, not before). I didn't _hate_ it, as a whole -- and I do own it on DVD -- but I think it was loaded with plot contrivances that do not follow from what we had previously seen. But the point is that certainly don't begrudge any one else's affection for it, and I'm well aware my opinion is the minority. 

I think what bothers me about some of the "criticisms" are that they're stacked with hyperbole and certitude that borders on dogmatic while being based, at best, on an examination of the book's cover (as it were), or maybe two three random paragraphs -- and I further get the impression those espousing these sentiments will hold to them _no matter what is actually presented on the screen._ In turn, that makes me dismiss those comments as not to be taken seriously. Maybe that's not fair, but at this point, I can't help it.

If you don't like what you've seen, that's fine. I'm not totally crazy about every single aspect of it either, though my hope and expectation is for a good film. And that's what it is -- I'm absolutely not taking it as a given that the movie will be great. My prior exposure to the work of Abrams and Lindelof (and I consider the latter's involvement, if anything, better news to me than Abrams') gives me grounds to expect that the movie will appeal to me, at least -- but it remains to be seen. I'm impressed with what I have seen and with the prior work of those involved, but I won't know for certain until I actually see the finished product. And until then, I won't pronounce it a rousing success or a terrible train wreck, nor anything in between. I won't count my tribbles before they multiply out of control.

Those who have already made a firm decision without seeing the movie are welcome to their opinions, and are welcome to voice those opinions here or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned (not that they need my permission). But _to me_, they don't have anything useful to say.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## modelmaker 2001 (Sep 6, 2007)

I agree that unless you've seen the film, nothing you say convinces me that this is a good or bad film. Unfortunately, there is a very vocal core group of "fanboys" who are willing to dismiss this film before - or instead of - ever actually watching it. 

Frankly, I'm glad that we're not being given "same old, same old" rehashed Trek as we have in the past few films and TV shows. Star Trek was getting old, tired, and boring when it had a big budget but no vision. For a while it seemed like it was "Timidly Going Where Many Stories Had Gone Before." Now we have a truly different vision that could great or it could be a flop. It's also clear even in just these short little movie trailers that it will be primarily a character story and not just a fanboy feast of space battles. I'm both excited and apprehensive but I intend to approach Star Trek XI with an open mind.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

A nice little effects note that I just noticed in this newest trailer; during the shot of the Enterprise flying through the debris towards the wrecked saucer section of the Kelvin(?), there is a body floating by on the right side of the screen. Nice! I think the best way to check this stuff out is to download a high def version from iTunes, then you can use your keyboard's arrow buttons to step forward and back frame by frame. Looks like a bit of detail work on the E's fantail section too that was missed in earlier shots. It's gonna be a tricky kit to light someday.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

jbond said:


> if you want the last 42 years of Trek there's a whole bunch of DVDs available to be viewed in the basement of your choice...


I wish I could have both (new "old stuff" and new stuff). Sadly that's impossible.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Captain April said:


> I've already seen "Top Gun", I don't need to see the Star Trek version of it.


Which luckily we aren't getting. :thumbsup:



> The difference there being that on the CBS side of the house, we're talking TOS, not some rebooted version, so at the very least, those coming in based on JJ's coming-of-age pseudodrama Explodapalooza are going to be very confused, *since the audience JJ seems to be aiming for generally doesn't really like to think about what they're watching.*


So you are playing _that_ card huh? Nice. BTW, since a good part of the audience is also Trekkies, with, from what I can tell, even more Trekkies on board after this trailer (even the cynics who realized that some of their previous mudslinging was probably unwarranted, or at least overblown, are now giving this movie a second look) are you also saying that this fanbase "doesn't really like to think about what they are watching?"


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Does this mindless flashfest have enough going for it to actually "restart the franchise?" Or are we looking at a one-hit-wonder and another reboot in three or four years?


Compared to "Nemesis" and the two that came before it?!? I'm hard pressed to think of a villain lamerer than the "S'ona". Ok... maybe they weren't that lame, just the movies.

I love how people just can't get over themselves on something they know nothing but 3 minutes total about....

I'm not saying I love the new movie, but I know enough to say I don't know having not seen it. I'm going to wait and serve judgement until after the show is over. If "Casino Royale" taught me anything, is it's better to shut my mouth and have people think I'm an idiot that to open it and confirm it.

Any way, I don't know what you're harping about.... seems you got your generic mark 1, mod 0, paint-by-numbers Star Trek Villian/Alien with facial prosthetics and makeup. Oooooo.... so straying from the path on that one.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I'm hearing all these terms like 'explodapaloosa' and 'flashfest' as if having action in a sci-fi movie is a bad thing. I for one don't wanna sit through another borefest like Star Trek: The Motion Picture again, and from what I'm seeing so far, this hardly appears to be 'mindless' action.

For those who have forgotten, Star Trek is NOT 2001: A Space Odyssey. That was a story that was driven by milder, deliberate pacing...and it worked for that type of film. But even TOS had action, fist fights and plenty of stuff blowin' up. If something is to be criticized, at least do it fairly and not just because it's new or different.


----------



## 172GB (Nov 1, 2006)

JeffG said:


> I'm hearing all these terms like 'explodapaloosa' and 'flashfest' as if having action in a sci-fi movie is a bad thing. I for one don't wanna sit through another borefest like Star Trek: The Motion Picture again, and from what I'm seeing so far, this hardly appears to be 'mindless' action.
> 
> For those who have forgotten, Star Trek is NOT 2001: A Space Odyssey. That was a story that was driven by milder, deliberate pacing...and it worked for that type of film. But even TOS had action, fist fights and plenty of stuff blowin' up. If something is to be criticized, at least do it fairly and not just because it's new or different.



Well said sir.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The difference there being that on the CBS side of the house, we're talking TOS, not some rebooted version, so at the very least, those coming in based on JJ's coming-of-age pseudodrama Explodapalooza are going to be very confused, since the audience JJ seems to be aiming for generally doesn't really like to think about what they're watching.


I'm not so sure CBS couldn't/wouldn't make use of the universe created in the new film for a possible TV series. It would be very easy for them to work out the details, especially if they were interested in an animated series.

On the other hand, if CBS stuck just to "TOS" stuff, it gives you even more reason to root for the new movie. If the new movie does really well and ignites interest in Star Trek, we could see all kinds of new possibilities. Maybe a direct-to-DVD Next Gen movie? A new series based on the Titan? A series based on the Vanguard books? A series based on the SCE books? Something done online with Cawley's phase two project? The possibilities are many, and a big box office draw for Trek XI will mean that lots of ideas will get examined.

The only way Viacom is going to invest big bucks in any new on-screen Trek in the near future will be because of this new movie's success. 

Guess that means you'll be buying multiple tickets to Trek XI on May 8th then???


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

Rubs chin thoughtfully....



I don't know yet if this will be "my" trek or not but I have a feeling it will lean toward it even if it's not.
Now problems I have? well, I only have one at the moment.

Was that Vulcan that was imploding in the trailer???!!!

Some guys at work were asking about the whole chain of command thing with Kirk taking over but I said that I have no idea how it's going to work and we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm getting the distinct impression that JJ & Co. wouldn't know a chain of command if someone beat them over the head with it.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Captain April said:


> I'm getting the distinct impression that JJ & Co. wouldn't know a chain of command if someone beat them over the head with it.


At least you would _like_ that to be true.


----------



## jonboc (Nov 25, 2007)

*action Trek*



JeffG said:


> TOS had action, fist fights and plenty of stuff blowin' up. If something is to be criticized, at least do it fairly and not just because it's new or different.



Thank you. This is NOT a return to the Snore Trek of TNG and it's brethren of the last 20 years. We're back to drop kicks, fist fights, hand held cameras, ripped shirts and fun. After being utterly bored and un-interested in ANY of the spin-offs, this TOS fan couldn't be more excited. Bring it!


----------



## Quantum (Mar 17, 2006)

sbaxter said:


> I think this gets to the heart of what bothers me about some of the negative comments made in advance of the film. I didn't and still don't particularly like _Star Trek VI_ (decided after I saw it, not before). I didn't _hate_ it, as a whole -- and I do own it on DVD -- but I think it was loaded with plot contrivances that do not follow from what we had previously seen. But the point is that certainly don't begrudge any one else's affection for it, and I'm well aware my opinion is the minority.
> 
> I think what bothers me about some of the "criticisms" are that they're stacked with hyperbole and certitude that borders on dogmatic while being based, at best, on an examination of the book's cover (as it were), or maybe two three random paragraphs -- and I further get the impression those espousing these sentiments will hold to them _no matter what is actually presented on the screen._ In turn, that makes me dismiss those comments as not to be taken seriously. Maybe that's not fair, but at this point, I can't help it.
> 
> ...


Excellent, EXCELLENT post. 

I see a few common threads between the reaction to this movie and last year's Speed Racer, which I feel was never given a chance AND widely misunderstood.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Modeler1964 said:


> Oh no. Not a chromed boat throttle on the helm console! LOL! Yes I am going to see the movie!


Well, let's not forget the "joystick" on the Enteprise E in "Insurrection" and the Refit and Refit A both had the "boat throttle" on their helms stations.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> Well, let's not forget the "joystick" on the Enteprise E in "Insurrection" and the Refit and Refit A both had the "boat throttle" on their helms stations.


I like some actual control hardware. Okay, not the F-16 flight stick on the 1701-E, that was dumb. But having tactile switches, dials, knobs, and levers are not just comfortable to use, but exciting to watch. Compare the flight deck of Serenity to the NCC-1701-D. The Okuda-gram touch-screen was exciting in the 1980's (TNG) when all the world was shiny, but give me a big fat DIAL any day.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I never really cared for the idea on the Next Gen and later series' that the inputs were all done by touch screen. During a fast paced evasive situation, I'd take a throttle / joystick combination any day. After all, surely the ship would have the software to interpret the analog movements into what was the most logical command-heck, we've got that technology now. Not to mention it makes more sense than inputting a line of code just to go left or right during battle.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

A press release has just gone out stating that the new Star Trek trailer has broken all existing records on Apple.com.

1.) It broke the record for the most downloads in 24 hours with 1.8 Million.

2.) It broke the record for the most downloads in a 5 day period with 5 Million Downloads, also making it the most downloaded HD trailer at the site.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

I'll be honest, I was unsure about this film. I didn't like the idea of binning most of the established Trek. But after seeing the third trailer, I'm pleasantly surprised at what I've seen. I think the look of the Kelvin makes sense as it looks post NX-01 in design and style. I will go and see this - but I think I'll treat myself and go and see it at the London IMAX!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

robcomet said:


> I think I'll treat myself and go and see it at the London IMAX!


That's the spirit, mate! None of this "I'll wait for the dvd" crap. :thumbsup:


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

They ran this new trailer during Monday's episode of _Heroes_. I noticed that it was _announced_ as "a sneak peek of _Star Trek: The Future_." The trailer itself was exactly the same as we've seen, but it makes me wonder if the film will have a subtitle after all.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

They indicated over on trekmovie.com that the announcer screwed up the copy. It was supposed to be "Star Trek: The Future Begins" which is the tag they've used in the trailers and in print advertising.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Krako said:


> They indicated over on trekmovie.com that the announcer screwed up the copy. It was supposed to be "Star Trek: The Future Begins" which is the tag they've used in the trailers and in print advertising.


Ah. Okay.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*Now...this is truly inspired*

Folks,

After this, does anything more need to be said?


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

That's GREAT! If Trek xi is half as good as the original trilogy we are in for one hell of a treat and a resurgence of Trek the likes of which we've only fantasized about.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

RMBurnett said:


> Folks,
> 
> After this, does anything more need to be said?


Yes, it's a lame attempt at begin clever.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

TriggerMan: Upset Because Someone Else Got There First

That was fun. It almost made me care about Anakin and his part in the Star Wars story.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Has anyone done a Top Gun version? I think that'd hit closer to the mark.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

TriggerMan said:


> At least you would _like_ that to be true.


How would you explain a character assuming command of a ship he's not even assigned to? _Chekov_ has more authority to assume command that li'l Kirk does!

It's idiocy like _that_ that's convinced me that this thing is just crap on a stick with a bigger budget than usual.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Do we know the events that actually led to him assuming command? I know I don't as I haven't seen the finished film yet. I have a sneaking suspicion there's more to it than what an edited trailer leads you to believe. JJ's not an idiot and I highly doubt that he'd have the captain of the Enterprise chosen by playing musical chairs. I trust there is some logic behind Kirk assuming command that we don't know of yet.

Maybe the same way some folks assumed that the massive hangar shown in earlier trailers was the Enterprise's, they're assuming that Kirk just walks into the role of Captain.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

So many impatient people ...


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Captain April said:


> How would you explain a character assuming command of a ship he's not even assigned to?


How do you explain assuming more than you really really know?



> It's idiocy like that that's convinced me that this thing is just crap on a stick with a bigger budget than usual.


Ahh, compared to previous Trek idiocy on a smaller budget? Okay.


----------

