# Star Trek SuperBowl Spot in HD



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

WOW!


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Like I said, XII is getting a greenlight no matter how much it sucks.

I guess what I'm looking for in the performances are not, say, Pine playing Shatner playing Kirk, but Pine as Kirk himself:

Pike: Don't care for the look or tone. Far too militantly serious in these scenes.

"I'm Leonard McCoy."
If this line is indicative of his full portrayal, then that guy nailed him and will give a great performance. 

"What are you talking to me, man?"
Kirk (not in these scenes necc.) goes around w/ a wide-eyed gaping mouth far too often. From all I've seen now, he misses. There must have been some actor out there w/ Kirk's personality _and_ Shatner's sharp angles... Keanu wold have been a better choice for example. (but maybe getting to old now...) 

I'm hesitant to call it on Spock yet. He could blow it. 

Uhura could be Uhura, tough to say so far. You may as well call Chekov or Sulu now.

While not alot of Scotty has been seen yet, his performance concerns me. I think another subpar choice of good talent. Barring new footage, the completely wrong choice.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Extraordinary. Enterprise def. looks better in action (and head on.)


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Terrible, period


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, hard to judge anything with that kind of editing and that short a trailer.


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

J.J. Abrams has written a comic book mini-series that will explain a lot about why the Enterprise is different, Kirk has a lower rank than Chekov and so on. It is called "Star Trek: Countdown". I have the first issue, and it is looking pretty interesting. The comic seems to coer several time periods based on the covers for each issue.

I am reserving judgement, at least until someone has actually seen the finished film.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I just hope it's a good movie.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I think I'll see the movie before I pass judgment.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

We finally get to see the Enterprise firing phasers, though only a quick shot.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Looks promising to me.



Model Man said:


> Pike: Don't care for the look or tone. Far too militantly serious in these scenes.


Bruce Greenwood has always been one of my favorite character actors, I imagine he'll be better than he appears in that particular 2 seconds of footage.



> While not alot of Scotty has been seen yet, his performance concerns me. I think another subpar choice of good talent. Barring new footage, the completely wrong choice.


I've liked Simon Pegg in everythings he's been in(Well, except _Run Fatboy Run_, but nobody could have saved that POS). I imagine he'll be better than he appears in the 0.00 seconds he appears in that trailer.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> Well, hard to judge anything with that kind of editing and that short a trailer.


Very true. Although I think we can safely conclude that the trailer is clearly crafted to make one think the movie will be a very exciting one. I hope it hits the mark; time will tell.

Huzz


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

S.O.S. (Same Old Sh**) No way, no how.

Larry


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Roguepink said:


> I think I'll see the movie before I pass judgment.


That's crazy talk! Don't you know that you can accurately assess movies that haven't even been _rumored_ yet?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Hate it. It looks stupid. The actors can't act, the ship is a turd and it should be on the Cartoon Network. Oooops! Sorry. I just wanted to fit in too.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Outstanding commercial. Looks great!


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

"Why are you talkin' to me, man"


Ugh, the kirk wannabe sounds like a 20th century jerk off. I know this is a short ad meant to appeal to the mouth breather crowd but honestly, in my opinion, this ad makes it look like ****. 

Empty. That's a good word for what I just saw. Like anything off of the menu at Mcdonalds.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Feel the rush, feed the urge and use your wide mouth slam can!

Why are you talking to me man?


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Now it's unavailable... Super Bowl must be playing.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Try this one:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Roguepink said:


> I think I'll see the movie before I pass judgment.


Oh, come on! Those few seconds of action clips are more than enough to critique the film's premise, directing, character interpretation, special effects, audience appeal, repect of Trek mythos, acting, cinematography, etc.
Try to be a bit more perceptive!!!


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Seeing as _nothing_ looks terrible about it a few of those posts shall now be corrected to say it looks great. :thumbsup:


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I have been a long time Trek fan (since the early 70's) and I really can't understand why anyone would see the trailers that we have seen to date to be terrible.

I realize there are hardcore fans that want what ONCE WAS to be repeated. I really do get all the canon arguments.

But simply put, the past is the past.

Would an attempt to recreate the past, down to last blackened rectangular window in the Enterprise's secondary hull, or a sentence uttered in the perfect Shatnerian Kirk come across as anything more than parody?

Think about that. 

Even if they had gone to great length to MIMIC what was once Star Trek, the chances of nailing it on the head and not looking completely ridiculous in the process are slim and none.

And what new audience...the kind that will ensure that more Trek films follow...would that have attracted?

Please try and let the past be the past.

Shatner's Kirk, Nimoy's Spock, Kelly's McCoy...yesterday's Enterprise...they ALL have their rightful place in Science Fiction history. This movie will not take away from that.

If the story is good...and the film is entertaining and (hopefully) thought provoking...then it will be a success in my opinion...regardless of whether or not I completely agree with how the ship looks or the way Pine plays Kirk.

To limit yourself to your visions of how this film should be, only creates a scenario that will not allow you to enjoy it to any degree.

In the end, no matter how you WANT it to be, it is not up to you or me or anybody else that posts here. The only thing we can control is how we go into the movie viewing experience (hopefully open minded).


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Very good post and dead on I think.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Gee, pretty easy to see where this new version DEVIATES from the original in style, tone, established history, etc. 

It's also obvious from the "whoo-hoos" how the new one fits more into "Starship Troopers" universe than the "Star Trek" universe. 

But, hey, gang! It's got the "Star Trek" brand on it so it must be good!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> Please try and let the past be the past.
> 
> Shatner's Kirk, Nimoy's Spock, Kelly's McCoy...yesterday's Enterprise...they ALL have their rightful place in Science Fiction history. This movie will not take away from that.).


Aye! Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Gee, pretty easy to see where this new version DEVIATES from the original in style, tone, established history, etc.


A Trek that could have been made if Roddenbury had available to him the technology available today. How different would TOS have looked then?



> It's also obvious from the "whoo-hoos" how the new one fits more into "Starship Troopers" universe than the "Star Trek" universe.


Nah...see, that's just your opinion. 

And way more boo-hoos than whoo-hoos 



> But, hey, gang! It's got the "Star Trek" brand on it so it must be good!


Not everything Trek has been good. For me, at least they have been entertaining. And that is the bottom line for me. If I am entertained. And so far I have been


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> But, hey, gang! It's got the "Star Trek" brand on it so it must be good!


Want to hear me rant about the strangely popular _Star Trek VI_ once more and then revisit that statement?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Jeffrey Hunter _wasn't_ "militantly serious"?!? I love reading the critiques. Abrams said something very smart and very obvious recently which is that no matter what he would have done, 50% of the fans would hate it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Looks like my "Battlestar Enterprise" crack several months ago was right on the mark after all.

Yeah, XII will be greenlit no matter what.

What's unsure is whether these jokers will be in charge of it.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> What's unsure is whether these jokers will be in charge of it.


If we're lucky, they'll keep them all involved.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Paramount has been trying to turn Star Trek into an addled-brain Star-Warsy space opera since the late 70's, and now they've finally gotten a director who delivered on that score.

Folks keep bringing up quotes about how Roddenberry thought it'd be just great for someone else to come along and reinvent the whole thing. What they miss is that he predicted that what _would_ happen is they'd wind up killing it, because they simply don't understand it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

jbond said:


> Abrams said something very smart and very obvious recently which is that no matter what he would have done, 50% of the fans would hate it.


I think that's all too apparent.

Even if Abrams succeeded in making the proverbial Citizen Kane of Star Trek films it would still be loathed on principle by those unwilling or unable to judge it on its own merits. 

And that's fine by me.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

*Love the cast*

I'm unfamiliar with John Cho, but everyone else seems to be a great combination of 'perfect for the part' and 'really good actor'. 

Can't wait till May....


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

I make that 12 positive, 9 negative and 8 other comments that don't go either way.

And 4 sarcastic comments about the negative posters.

I'm with them.

Jim


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> I think that's all too apparent.
> 
> Even if Abrams succeeded in making the proverbial Citizen Kane of Star Trek films it would still be loathed on principle by those unwilling or unable to judge it on its own merits.
> 
> And that's fine by me.


If he made JJ's BIG Space Adventure you could judge it on it's own merits (and I would be fine with that).

When you take on the Star Trek name, it is trying to be part of something
else and judging it in a vacuum is foolish.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Paramount has been trying to turn Star Trek into an addled-brain Star-Warsy space opera since the late 70's, and now they've finally gotten a director who delivered on that score.


Really? So you've seen the finished film?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

sbaxter said:


> Really? So you've seen the finished film?
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


SSB -

That's not an entirely unfounded remark regarding the film, whether anyone's seen it or not. I recently read an article over the weekend where JJ Abrams talks about the necessity of Trek trying to escape the "shadow of Star Wars". In terms of a film franchise, Star Wars has outdistanced Trek by a long haul and Paramount has always wanted to capture that larger box office take. What studio wouldn't like to make as much money as another studio with a franchise that performs to that standard.

I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount would be willing to compromise the concepts of Trek if it were to make them a lot more money in the process. Just by viewing the trailers for the new film, it's very easy to tell that they are marketing the film to a completely different group of people than with past Trek films.

Abrams has said more than once that they are looking to expand Trek's audience, but by focusing on one segment of the audience, they might be excluding some portion of the existing audience.

That being said, I'm not overly enthuisastic about the promos so far, but I will at least go see the film and judge it on it's own merit as a finished product and not by bits and pieces.

Bryan


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Gemini1999 said:


> I recently read an article over the weekend where JJ Abrams talks about the necessity of Trek trying to escape the "shadow of Star Wars". In terms of a film franchise, Star Wars has outdistanced Trek by a long haul and Paramount has always wanted to capture that larger box office take. What studio wouldn't like to make as much money as another studio with a franchise that performs to that standard.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount would be willing to compromise the concepts of Trek if it were to make them a lot more money in the process.


I read the same article -- IIRC, Abrams also talks about keeping the things that Trek has done best -- specifically the characters and the overall optimism. And that certainly doesn't sound like the new BSG to me.

Of course, the conclusion will be that Abrams is just a huge, money-mad liar, just as Nimoy's appearance in and endorsement of the movie are obviously motivated either by studio politics (from a guy at the end of his career with very little to lose) or need for money (and I don't buy that either). Whereas, had Nimoy come forward and expressed dissatisfaction or even hints of doubt, then it would be as if The Sage (or The Spock) had spoken, and his words couldn't be doubted.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Folks keep bringing up quotes about how Roddenberry thought it'd be just great for someone else to come along and reinvent the whole thing. What they miss is that he predicted that what _would_ happen is they'd wind up killing it, because they simply don't understand it.


Sure, but at the same time let's not also forget Roddenberry also insisted at one time that what Star Trek fans were _really_ hungry for was Wesley Crusher.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Sure, but at the same time let's not also forget Roddenberry also insisted at one time that what Star Trek fans were _really_ hungry for was Wesley Crusher.


Also the same Roddenberry that wrote and produced Star Trek: The Motion Picture. As he learned, rebooting this sucker for the big screen is difficult. My bet is that we'll get a better movie than TMP (not that TMP is bad - just not tonally right for Star Trek).

Just like in '79, there'll be no shortage of wailing and gnashing of teeth. And also like then, it'll be successful enough to give this fictional cat another life to play with. 

And maybe, just maybe, we'll get the best Trek movie yet, to boot. This might just be Star Trek's best year ever...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Gemini1999 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount would be willing to compromise the concepts of Trek if it were to make them a lot more money in the process.


I suppose that depends on which "concepts of Trek" you're referring to. 

The Wrath of Khan eschewed some of the more cerebral aspects of TOS and ST:TMP in favor of a straight-forward revenge plot. No doubt the studio was motivated in part by financial concerns, but by most accounts the conceptual departure was a welcome one. 

Point being that it's possible to make a good adventure movie without asking the audience to check its collective brain at the door.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

As much as I love Trek, sometimes I grow weary of the turned up nose attitude of some fans that it's so much deeper than movies like Star Wars and yes even Starship Troopers. But to be honest, those films don't have anything as far fetched as God-like 'Q' characters with unlimited power popping in and out of our universe and playing with us. And while entertaining, what makes those certain episodes of Trek any more realistic than an episode of I Dream Of Jeanie? Star Trek is not always a cerebral experience either-and that's fine. Point is; if you're living in a glass house...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> A Trek that could have been made if Roddenbury had available to him the technology available today. How different would TOS have looked then?


I think we got a good taste or idea of what he'd have done with a bigger budget by looking at the _Phase II_ preparations and _ST:TMP_--for good or bad.





> Nah...see, that's just your opinion.


Yep 





> Not everything Trek has been good.


Amen!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think we got a good taste or idea of what he'd have done with a bigger budget by looking at the _Phase II_ preparations and _ST:TMP_--for good or bad.


Fair enough and good point. The refit was a totally new design. Very different than TOS E or the Phase II ship. And Yet the Refit has found her way into our hearts. Uniforms changed, props changed, sounds changed. My point being is that TMP brought with it change. Just as this new film does. For good or bad


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I loved the refit the moment I saw it... then again it was an extension of TOS, not a replacement as this is meant to be.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I loved the refit the moment I saw it... then again it was an extension of TOS, not a replacement as this is meant to be.


From looking at the Phase II Jefferies' blueprints and comparing them to the original 1701 drawings, I can't help but think that there was no intended scale change as was ultimately and arbitrarily decided upon by the powers that be.

The changes were the engines and the bridge module, deflector/sensor array, and that's pretty much it. The saucer and engineering hulls seem to be idealized versions of the original--not 100% accurate to the original plans or model but obviously meant to represent the original components unchanged in dimensions.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I loved the refit the moment I saw it... then again it was an extension of TOS, not a replacement as this is meant to be.


The refit was not a replacement for the TOS E? 

Then why did we not get the phase II design??? 

Could not disagree more with you on this. 

Especially since there are great debates regarding weather or not the Refit was a Refit or totally new design. Which I am inclined to believe the latter. Which then would make the Refit a new ship of a possible new class (enterprise class).

Like it or not, the new film is simply bringing change just as TMP did.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> I loved the refit the moment I saw it... then again it was an extension of TOS, not a replacement as this is meant to be.


Even if this movie is universally hailed as the greatest _Star Trek _film ever filmed, _and_ makes more money than _Titanic, Star Wars_, and _The Dark Knight _combined, it's never going to "replace" the TOS.

I don't know if fear of this "replacement" is why some Trek fans seem so determinedly convinced to loathe the movie before seeing it, but if so it's a ungrounded fear. IMHO the _Star Trek _TOS holds a special place in science fiction and television history that no movie or remake is ever going to change, no matter how good or bad. And deservedly so.


----------



## hell_fighter_8 (Oct 4, 2005)

I don't think its too bad. Did notice something else people probally won't like, the phasers (I'm assuming) firing from multiple points.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

This was posted over on the RPF...


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

A permanent red tip? Hmmmm, was somebody in licensing thinking of future @bay & international sales?

That's one butt-ugly phaser in that picture, hope it looks better onscreen.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

I kind of like that hand phaser. In the initial images, I didn't care for it much. That new image is better. Not crazy about the red beam emitter, but I like that this one looks like metal. It has echoes of the phaser from _Star Trek: Enterprise_ and the one from the fifth movie, as well as the TOS phaser.

I will now relinquish the floor to the naysayers.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

The real problem ends up being our inability (or desire) to reconcile how real world changes result in changes to the Star Trek universe. We think the first should not affect the second. But that is nearly impossible.

Since this movie is supposed to be a REMAKE of the orignal series...or at least a prequel to that series...we have trouble seeing technologically advanced images or altered characters in a place where we expect to see (or once saw) something else.

It's art and technology imitating a future reality. But the art and technology of today is much further ahead of where we were when TOS was envisioned and filmed.

With TMP, 10+ years had passed since TOS originally aired so having the story move forward was easy. The look and feel of the Star Trek universe in TMP was much more advanced than TOS. Movie making had changed and special effects were taking giant leaps forward each year (kind of like now).

But now Star Trek The Movie is going to take us back to a time between two established Trek universe time frames (between Archer and TOS Kirk) and we are being asked to try and reconcile this 3rd imaging of the ST universe.

I completely see how people have trouble with this.

Part of me wishes they could have found a way to do it and make it appeal to today's movie audience. I don't know the story line, but I have heard theories of "alternate" paths in time. That's the only way I can see them doing it and staying within established and accepted visual representations of the different ST time periods.

But I don't want to get started on that whole time travel thing. There have been so many disruptions in the space time continuum that I am not sure how I am even here typing this message right now.

Personally, I have tried to close the book on all of the ST that has ocurred before today. I am trying to see this movie with an open mind and have already accepted that it will be different.

P.S. - I have had at least a 1/2 dozen people tell me this...
"I was never a big Star Trek fan, but that new movie looks really good!"

Unfortunately for a lot of life long trek fans, that is EXACTLY what Paramount wants to hear. I am hopeful that JJ has found a way (alternate time lines or not) to bridge this gap and create a movie that both parties can enjoy.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I like the phaser overall.

The red emitter is a bit distracting, but when you have your weapon on kill, the red emitter is a quick visual confirmation that you are on the right setting.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

sbaxter said:


> I kind of like that hand phaser. In the initial images, I didn't care for it much. That new image is better. Not crazy about the red beam emitter, but I like that this one looks like metal. It has echoes of the phaser from _Star Trek: Enterprise_ and the one from the fifth movie, as well as the TOS phaser.
> 
> 
> SSB


Yeah, the darker picture looks a lot better than the garishly chromed phaser picture originally posted.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Wonder if that red barrel is actually part of the prop meant to add an interactive flash of light when fired on set?


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I was thinking the same thing. Also, an illuminated barrel would make it an easy motion-target source when the CG artists create the phaser beam firing, and the software could keep it in register no matter how much the actor jostles the prop.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The barrel is designed to rotate on an axis depending on the phase setting. The switching action is quite rapid, and I suspect the red emitter is intended to help make the effect read better on screen.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The phaser is not too bad in and of itself--I like it. :thumbsup:


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*The movie must suck......*

The Paramount Gestapo has pulled the trailer from Youtube. Can only mean they don't want people to see it.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

bigjimslade said:


> The Paramount Gestapo has pulled the trailer from Youtube. Can only mean they don't want people to see it.


If you're talking about the ad during the Super Bowl, it is available from official sources. That is probably why it was pulled from Youtube.

See here: http://www.hulu.com/superbowl/55616/super-bowl-xliii-ads-star-trek-trailer#s-p1-sn-i0

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

bigjimslade said:


> The Paramount Gestapo has pulled the trailer from Youtube. Can only mean they don't want people to see it.


They fact that they spent $3 Million to advertise it during one of the largest television events in history says differently 

Yes, it is available on Myspace and Hulu and other official sources.


----------



## Darkhunter (Dec 17, 2003)

[edited] Due to improper language.


----------

