# OT: Star Trek Trailer in front of 007: Quantum of Solace



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

It looks as though the first full theatrical trailer for J.J. Abrams' Star Trek will be released on November 14th in front of the new James Bond movie Quantum of Solace.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/13/update-on-november-star-trek-trailer-and-marketing-plans/

Trekmovie has confirmed that it will show the Enterprise exterior and also some interiors, including the bridge.

I hope someone comes out with a kit of the new redesigned Enterprise. That would be awesome. Hey, at least you won't have to be so tight lipped about the new Enterprise design after the trailer, Carson, heh.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Hey, at least you won't have to be so tight lipped about the new Enterprise design after the trailer, Carson, heh.


CAN'T WAIT.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah me too!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> I hope someone comes out with a kit of the new redesigned Enterprise. That would be awesome. Hey, at least you won't have to be so tight lipped about the new Enterprise design after the trailer, Carson, heh.


I thought I read on Trekmovie a few months ago there were plans for a toy of the New Enterprise from Playmates. I would think a model would be in the works as well.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> CAN'T WAIT.


Yeah, me too. I have been dying to know what the new design looks like. I hope it's not ugly. I'm not a TOS purist, so I don't mind the ship being redesigned as long as it looks good.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They screw up the ship, they screw themselves out of an audience.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Ryan Church and John Eaves designed the ship together. So I have a feeling the Enterprise will look great.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Actually, if you'd said Andy Probert then my mind would be at ease. Is John Eaves responsible for the E-E from First Contact? That's the absolute worst-looking Enterprise of them all.


----------



## OneAM (Jul 9, 2008)

In your opinion, perhaps. It's my second favorite.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Hey I know; let's start a thread on how much we all hate it right now before we even see it. You know...to save time!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> They screw up the ship, they screw themselves out of an audience.


I'm no fan of the new E, but if you think the re-design is going to have any sort of impact on the box office returns_ whatsoever_, you're kidding yourself.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm no fan of the new E, but if you think the re-design is going to have any sort of impact on the box office returns_ whatsoever_, you're kidding yourself.


Are you not a fan of it because it's not a good design, or are you not a fan of it because you are a TOS purist? 

See, I have no problem with major changes being made to the shape, since the 1960s Enterprise, while beautiful, looks quite dated.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Says you, bub. In my opinion, it's the _*least*_ dated of the entire series.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm no fan of the new E, but if you think the re-design is going to have any sort of impact on the box office returns_ whatsoever_, you're kidding yourself.


I guarantee you that if the redesigned E is atrocious, it most definitely will impact box office returns because I for one will not bother to see the movie if I think they have ruined the Enterprise.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Are you not a fan of it because it's not a good design, or are you not a fan of it because you are a TOS purist?


Both.



PixelMagic said:


> See, I have no problem with major changes being made to the shape, since the 1960s Enterprise, while beautiful, looks quite dated.


The only thing about the TOS design that appears dated to me is the warp drive lighting effect (and perhaps the deflector dish). Ironically, the aforementioned lighting effect has been incorporated into the re-design.

Accepting the TOS Enterprise design within the context of a contemporary film wouldn't have required the sort of massive suspension of disbelief some seem to believe. All it would have required is an artistically confident and creatively self-assured director with the will to make it so. 

Look at it this way: Martin Scorsese used Bernard Hermann's original score in his remake of Cape Fear. Far from fleeing in terror from the alleged antiquity of the score, most of the people I talked to thought it was the best creative choice Scorsese made during the entire picture.

Make no mistake, if JJ Abrams had gotten behind the original E design like he got behind the original costume design the audience would have swallowed his choice hook, line, and spinny-light.

As this point the design issue is academic. I just want to see a good movie.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Well, I think people misunderstand me. I LOVE TOS. I love the TOS Enterprise the way it is. I think it's a fine and beautiful design. I'm building a model if it right now, and I have learned almost every piece of the ship. Matt Jefferies was a genius when he designed her.

However, saying this as a fan, it DOES look dated to me. It also looks dated to the average joe out there. The TOS Enterprise look gives away it's 60s origins. Even the 2009 Enterprise will no doubt look dated in 40 years. I'm not saying there is fault with the TOS Enterprise at all. 

I'm just saying that modern movie audiences expect more, and while the exterior looks somewhat dated, the interior sets in a 2009 movie WOULD be laughable. Ridiculously so. No one would buy that as a possible piece of hardware 200 years from now.

I hope people don't really mean they won't see it if the Enterprise doesn't meet their expectations. Even if I turn out hating the new Enterprise, I'm still going to see the movie, because it's Star Trek.

Carson, I respect your opinion, but regarding the Enterprise design, I hope you turn out to be mistaken. I hope it's a good design, and from what I've seen of Ryan Church's designs, they are pretty good. I hope he have the Enterprise a fresh and exciting look.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

First image of the USS Kelvin seen in the movie:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/exclusive-image-from-star-trek-the-uss-kelvin/


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> I guarantee you that if the redesigned E is atrocious, it most definitely will impact box office returns because I for one will not bother to see the movie if I think they have ruined the Enterprise.


I have to agree CD on this, people could care less what the ship looks like. Those of us that would are only a minor fraction of the movie going public. And would have little if any impact on the gross. If the ship designs were more important the studios would be more interested in protecting those designs. 

Who is starring in the movie will have the highest impact, and initial box office draw. 

I'm not expecting anything great out of this movie. ST like SW is a stale franchise, I find the current ST offering nothing to get excited about. 

As far as the original E being dated I do not agree with that either. It is all a matter of perspective, guys that like to apply panels and dirty it up, yea that does make it look dated. If you leave it in it's original state no panel lines or weathering, it looks far in advance of the paneled clunkers they like to do today.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> However, saying this as a fan, it DOES look dated to me.


How so?

Don't misunderstand, your opinion is mutually respected. 

I'm just a little fuzzy on the specifics of what others find dated about TOS E (other than the aforementioned warp lights and deflector dish).


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

It's all a matter of personal taste and/or perspective. 

For me, I find the original TOS Enterprise as we see her in the non-Re-Mastered episodes as looking a bit dated, but still a classic design that I personally have no problems with. 

The Re-Mastered version of our beloved Enterprise, tho.... Rrrrawr! I love the little touches that they gave the CGI model, such as the slight glow to behind the nav deflector/sensor dish area, the more obvious deflector lines - yet still subtle, IMNSHO! - , the impulse engine glow and the addition of the warp chiller glow for the insides of the naclles. Plus, the new phaser and photorp effects are DaBomb! That takes away any sort of "dating" of the original design, IMNSHO.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

New Cast photo










Is this the Enterprise bridge?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Is this the Enterprise bridge?


The one and only.

Oh, wait.

Nevermind.

Someone on the RPF likened it to the cosmetics counter at Macy's.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

The bridge looks ok, but I think it would look much better if it didn't have all those free standing consoles. The uniforms are cool though.

I wonder if we'll get to see the exterior of the Enterprise before the trailer next month.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Or a Starbase's Apple store?

Gene


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

ugh... that bridge sends a chill through me... I'm worried about the art direction... but seeing the young McCoy, Uhura, Spock, and the gang... I'm still very psyched for it! I expect mixed emotions, but it will still be a great night at the movies, I think, hope... oh I really don't know.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Y'all are gonna kill me, but the bridge deco and display graphics remind me of the Lost In Space movie. Its looks flashy, retro '60's, and yet utterly cheesy and overworked. The original bridge looked FUNCTIONAL.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Oh jeez...stop it!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> As this point the design issue is academic. I just want to see a good movie.


Sorry, but that's crap. The design of the new Jupiter II in the LIS movie made me walk out after the launch. If the Enterpise is screwed up, I'll walk again. The Enterprise is as important as the crew. If you say not, then *I *have to say you aren't a true fan.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Ewww. The U.S.S. Kelvin from the movie....


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

PixelMagic said:


> Ewww. The U.S.S. Kelvin from the movie....












I KNEW I saw that somewheres B-4.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Sorry, but that's crap. The design of the new Jupiter II in the LIS movie made me walk out after the launch. If the Enterpise is screwed up, I'll walk again. The Enterprise is as important as the crew. If you say not, then *I *have to say you aren't a true fan.


Ex_cuse_ me?!? _You're_ opinion is more important... more RIGHT... than his?!? Or mine?!?! _Or anyone elses_?!?

Now _that_, is _crap_, dude.... :freak:

Let's make one thing very clear here - _you're_ opinion stinks just as badly as _anyone elses here_. Don't even _think_ that you can dictate what's right or wrong for other folks on an issue such as this. If you think that the ship is that important to you, than that's just fine - _walk on out_! 

Don't presume to tell me or anyone else that because we think otherwise that it's crap, tho.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

This topic has gone round and round countless times and what I find most remarkable is how some folks can boil down the worth of Star Trek to what the ship looks like. Obviously, this being a model building post, this discussion has it's merits. But when you say that you're gonna walk out if you don't like the ship or they better not change this or that-this, to me, is not how a true fan of 'STAR TREK' would respond. This merely sounds like someone who's more concerned about keeping memories of his or her past intact. I love TOS too, but bear in mind that there is a whole new group of filmgoers who could care less about what a phaser or a flux chiller looks like and want to just go see a good film. 

This debate is like saying 'I'm not gonna go see the next Bond film because he's not driving a silver 1965 Aston Martin DB 5'. And before that starts the 'But if it were a period Bond piece...' Sure, I'd expect to see the DB 5, but if they changed it to an Alfa Romeo I suppose I'd live because Bond is no more about just what he drives than Star Trek should be just about what the ship looks like. No sooner does someone post pictures of the bridge than people start nitpicking and complaining about it. Personally I think it looks fine. What's wrong with it? It's different?

The only thing that this topic seems to accomplish is reinforce how rigid and hard wired some 'fans' can be. I'd suggest not even going to see the film when it comes out. I've heard they changed a few things.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Good points, JG! These are the sort of threads that I should just stay out of because of how extreme some folks will react. That alone sort of bugs me. But when someone comes in to a thread and insists that someone elses opinion is "crap"? 

That downright makes me angry. 

Good points, once again. If you'll be so offended by the Enterprise not being 100% exactly like what we saw in TOS, then don't even bother going to the movie. Save yourself the money in ticket and gas prices and save us the aggravation of having to listen to how "horrible" it was.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG said:


> This topic has gone round and round countless times and what I find most remarkable is how some folks can boil down the worth of Star Trek to what the ship looks like.


Well, obviously you're NOT A TRUE FAN!

You are NOT OF THE BODY!

SEIZE HIM!!!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Good one (lol)!


----------



## ModelN00b (Aug 27, 2008)

JeffG said:


> Good one (lol)!


He was serious.

*gets out shotgun*


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Well, on a positive note, it looks like they kept the little black symbols inside the gold "delta" emblems on their uniforms the same -- at least from what I could see on Lt Uhura's uniform -- hers is a little squiggle, Spock's was the CBS eye icon and Kirk's was a five-pointed star with the top point being the tallest.

And as much as it will shake things up on this forum, what I can say with 100% conviction is that if they change the crew uniform emblems, the entire movie will be poopie and I'm walking out of the theater.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> Well, obviously you're NOT A TRUE FAN!
> 
> You are NOT OF THE BODY!
> 
> SEIZE HIM!!!


Take him to Landru! He will be purified and made one with The Body.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

He will be... AB-SORBED...


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Griffworks said:


> Ex_cuse_ me?!? _You're_ opinion is more important... more RIGHT... than his?!? Or mine?!?! _Or anyone elses_?!?
> 
> Now _that_, is _crap_, dude.... :freak:
> 
> ...


Take a chill pill, dude. It's my opinion. Don't like it? Too bad.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Roguepink said:


> The original bridge looked FUNCTIONAL.


Yeah -- presuming you already knew what all those colorful, unlabeled buttons would do if you pushed them.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Hand Solo said:


> I KNEW I saw that somewheres B-4.


Looks like Dave Merriman.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

PixelMagic said:


> Ewww. The U.S.S. Kelvin from the movie....




Between this and the bright technobabble over the top bridge, this ain't looking too good. Also, Pine looks like a kid in that bridge shot. 25 at the most. They all look too young.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Let's also be aware the Kelvin appears BEFORE Kirk is even born, per the EW article. The design is similar to the NX-01 which would keep with cannon. This is from the opening sequence of the movie which begins the whole plot of the film. 

Of course I have no doubt die-hard Trek fans will walk out of the theater anyway because the Enterprise won't look like the one in the original TV show, or the plot doesn't follow exact cannon. But be aware the movie is designed to appeal to today's audience. In a recent poll, most Trek fans put TNG over TOS. Funny considering when TNG first premiered, many fans declared "It is not TOS" and refused to watch. I heard the same thing back in 1979 when TMP premiered and everyone bashed the refit E. So the cycle comes around again and we hear it again. My feeling is that Trek fans are the ones that will kill the franchise, not those making these movies because the fans are too caught up in what everything should look like and not look at the heart of the story. Star Trek has always been about mankind's push for the future, not what version of the big E they use. I hope this film is a major blockbuster and kicks butt, renewing the franchise for a new generation regardless of what the ship or cast looks like!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Interesting bridge shot I've never seen before:










And article:

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/10/1...irk-spock-sulu-and-the-uss-enterprise-bridge/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Take a chill pill, dude. It's my opinion. Don't like it? Too bad.


It's not your opinion that rubs people the wrong way, AN. It's the rude and disrespectful manner in which you express your opinion.

You disagree with a point someone makes, fine, disagree, but there's no need to be obnoxious about it. Someone might mistake you for a troll.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

OMG are you kidding me? It looks like the freakin Sunglass Hut at the mall! AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGgg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I agree it seems to be a bit much (I even liked the reference to it looking like an Apple Store), but then I thought it isn't too different from the Refit E-A at the end of Star Trek IV and in VI. Personally I prefer a darker bridge like the NX-01 then a sterile looking environment. However, it is still pretty cool.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Take a chill pill, dude. It's my opinion. Don't like it? Too bad.


As Carson Dyle already mentioned, what I do take issue with is your disrespectful attacks on the opinions of others. I don't have to like your opinion and don't take umbrage with it. It's your attacks I have an issue with and they'll stop now. Particularly since this isn't the first time that you've done something like this. You can address the opinion you disagree with and not attack the person - as I'd think you'd have learned by now. Just as you have the right to your opinion, so do others - and per Hank's rules folks are supposed to be able to feel comfortable giving their opinion w/o having someone make a personal attack on them as you did previously in this thread. 

Got a beef w/someone's opinion and want to take a shot at _them_? Take it to PM or email. Make another attack in the forums and I'll skip the Infraction/Warning part and go right to a Ban.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Opus Penguin said:


> I agree it seems to be a bit much (I even liked the reference to it looking like an Apple Store), but then I thought it isn't too different from the Refit E-A at the end of Star Trek IV and in VI. Personally I prefer a darker bridge like the NX-01 then a sterile looking environment. However, it is still pretty cool.


Agreed on both parts. However, I feel that the TOS bridge had a fairly sterile look to it, as well. 

I dunno... I don't much care for the look of the bridge, but that doesn't mean I'm going to condemn the movie before I see it - or at least hear a couple of reviews from sources whom I trust. I'm not exactly a TOS Purist, but I don't feel that things need to be changed just to change them, either. 

Time will tell, of course.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

What's that podium thing that the girl (who doesn't look like Uhura) is standing at? That's not the communications station or Worf's security station is it? It all looks very high tech with the background screen, etc. But as a kid I thought the TOS bridge was both futuristic and stylized in a not overdone way at the same time.

[EDIT] Newer Kelvin image here:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/16/exc...-uss-kelvin-and-kirks-shirt-new-kelvin-image/


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> What's that podium thing that the girl (who doesn't look like Uhura) is standing at? That's not the communications station or Worf's security station is it? It all looks very high tech with the background screen, etc. But as a kid I thought the TOS bridge was both futuristic and stylized in a not overdone way at the same time.


She's the futuristic tour guide and that is her information booth 

Okay seriously ... it doesn't look like the communication station since it appears all the locations are the same as in TOS so Uhura would be the person directly behind Kirk in the shot since Spock seems to be at his station. So I am not sure what part that station plays.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

^ Espresso maker?

And I'm quite relieved to see that NCC-0514 is NOT the USS Melvin.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> It's not your opinion that rubs people the wrong way, AN. It's the rude and disrespectful manner in which you express your opinion.
> 
> You disagree with a point someone makes, fine, disagree, but there's no need to be obnoxious about it. Someone might mistake you for a troll.


Had I just said you were wrong you would still be whining. You post in public, expect a reply, if you are unhappy with that, then leave.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Had I just said you were wrong you would still be whining.


What on earth are you basing that on? 



Admiral Nelson said:


> You post in public, expect a reply, if you are unhappy with that, then leave.


As I said, I don't mind being disagreed with. It's the "that's crap, dude" I have a problem with. 

As for you suggestion that I "leave"...

PM sent.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

How 'bout those Seahawks?


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Griffworks said:


> Make another attack in the forums and I'll skip the Infraction/Warning part and go right to a Ban.



Put away your little theats. I'll save you the trouble. I'll join the many who don't post here anymore.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> I'll join the many who don't post here anymore.


It's quality, not quantity, baby.

:wave:


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

New image of the U.S.S. Kelvin. The saucer seems to be similar to the new Enterprise's as well. Carson, is that blue thing a nacelle or deflector dish?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Interesting pic. Sorta has a TOS MOvie Era look to it. I think that the thing on top is indeed an navigational deflector. And are those Tholian ships surrounding the _Kelvin_? 





Hand Solo said:


> How 'bout those Seahawks?


I dunno. I don't follow hockey. 





Thanks, Rob. Now we can hopefully get back to folks expressing their opinions about what they think is going to be so wrong or right about this movie. 

Me, I still just want a good story, character development and some kewel ship designs. I'll be disappointed if we don't see the Grand Old Lady in some form very similar to her TOS days in the movie, but still plan to see it and will have respect for those who don't want to go see it based on that same thing. I don't agree with it, but I ain't gonna start insulting folks for thinking differently, either.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Deflector and secondary hull on top, warp nacelle on the bottom? We've been seeing bizarre configurations for years in drawings and prints. Looks like they're bringing some of these ideas to fruition. I think this film will be really cool from a design standpoint because we have to remember that this is technology 200 years from what we have today-and we've got some pretty damned slick technology now. The IPhone makes the tricorder of TOS look like an oven! Projecting tech stuff that far from now SHOULD bear little resemblance to the hardware of TOS. Sorry folks, just calling a shoe a shoe.I'm kind of surprised though how closely they kept to the original costumes and to some degree the hairstyles even of TOS. I like what I'm seeing though. It seems to that they made a conscious effort to change what they 'had to'. Notice that they didn't radically have to change the fashion-the tech stuff had to be updated to lend a realistic credibility to it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Carson, is that blue thing a nacelle or deflector dish?


Engineering section on top, warp nacelle on bottom.

As JeffG points out above, this is the producers' attempt to incorporate one of Matt Jefferies early concept designs into the re-boot.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson, with all these images being released, do you think we'll get a look at the Enterprise soon, or do you think they will hold that until the trailer?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Well, JJ can release anything he wants anytime he wants, but so far as I know the E reveal is being withheld for the trailer.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Well, JJ can release anything he wants anytime he wants, but so far as I know the E reveal is being withheld for the trailer.


That's what I figured. Ok. Thanks. I've loved seeing all these images, but I wanted to see the Enterprise more than anything.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

PixelMagic said:


> ...but I wanted to see the Enterprise more than anything.


Be very careful about what you wish for! I wished to see it. Then I saw it.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Model Man said:


> Be very careful about what you wish for! I wished to see it. Then I saw it.


How did you see it?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I don't know, I'd still like to see the ship and unless they went waaay off the mark, I'm pretty flexible and almost sure I'll like it. But then once a friend told me I needed my head examined because I think Rachel Ray is cute. I guess to each his/her own!
P.S. She's got a standing invitation to bake my cookies any day. There, I said it!


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I worked on a few thousand frames when the show came through our (to remain nameless) facility. The ship was not prominent on any of those frames, but it was there. A full profile shot. I don't know that my NDA would allow me to say more. 

I hope they do show more off in the trailer so I can be relieved of this burden. Once its public, it's public. There would still be more I could not discuss, but the ship is such a burning concern for so many that I just want the freedom to express my mind again. 

Since starting work back in July or so, I've had to bite my tongue and ignore threads like this. It's tough! I went from being a fan to a 'co-conspirator'. And if Paramount is dropping 150 million on an 1.5hr film, the lower ranks don't want to express opinons about proprietary and secret stuff -unless you're JJ and can do as you like.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Model Man said:


> Once its public, it's public. There would still be more I could not discuss, but the ship is such a burning concern for so many that I just want the freedom to express my mind again.


Amen!


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Heh, sorry guys. I probably put too much strain on you with my curiosity. However, I get the general impression you guys think the ship is ugly. I must say, I'm a bit worried.

I'll try to keep my curiosity about the look of the Enterprise out of this thread from now on.

Model Man, if you work at a VFX facility, that's cool. I'm an aspiring VFX guy myself.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Interesting bridge shot I've never seen before:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Honestly, I'm keeping an open mind. I really have *no* preconceived opinion on how awesome or crappy the movie is based on what I've seen. So I don't want to catch the wrong flak if anyone reacts to my post (assuming someone's reading it).

Having said that....

I agree that Pine looks young. I know that people's appearance at a certain age have changed over time. A 35-year old today looks younger than a 35-year old 50 years ago. I saw a picture of a 22-year taken during the early 1930s whom I would've sworn was in her 30s. I know rationally that Kirk's age in TOS was 35 but to me he looks older than what I looked like at his age (I'm 37 now). So Pine is at the "correct" age for Kirk but in stills he looks too young and too close in age to Chekov, who is 13 years his junior. So it's jarring. Again, I'm not knocking the movie and it's possible that Pine's performance would give him the aura of authority that the character demands and that would bely his appearance. So I guess what I'm saying is that the stills my be subconsciously undermining my view of how well Pine interprets Kirk and so I'll have to keep that preconception in check when I view the finished product.


----------



## Ruckdog (Jan 17, 2006)

Another interesting thing I've heard (no idea if it is true or not, though) is that a lot of time older actors are used to portray younger characters. As a result, when actors that are the same age as their characters are chosen, it is a little more jarring.

Bridge looks interesting. I'd like to see it "in motion" though. It looks a little busy in the stills so far, as most Star Trek bridges seem to be pretty minimalist in comparison.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> What's that podium thing that the girl (who doesn't look like Uhura) is standing at? That's not the communications station or Worf's security station is it?


Maybe it's a mixer console for disco parties -- and she's the deejay?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I get the general impression you guys think the ship is ugly.


I admit, I'm not crazy about the design. Then again, it's a very subjective thing. No doubt it will have plenty of fans.

My advice, for what it's worth? Continue to keep an open mind, and when the time comes draw your own conclusions.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I admit, I'm not crazy about the design. Then again, it's a very subjective thing. No doubt it will have plenty of fans.
> 
> My advice, for what it's worth? Continue to keep an open mind, and when the time comes draw your own conclusions.


Will do, Carson. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions all these months. It's been fun.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I'm assuming about as much difference as TOS Galactica to the re imagined Galactica. I also assume a fusion between TOS Enterprise, the 1701A and a bit of the NX-01. I can live with that. If I'm right.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> As this point the design issue is academic. I just want to see a good movie.


Lucky for us, there will be plenty of good movies coming out in May.

Pity this won't be one of them.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

I too just want a good film. I am more of a Trek purist than I was a Galactica purist. That being said, I hope I am as open to this film as I was to neo BSG. 

I don't like the new bridge shot, but the glimpse of the E in the teaser looked pretty cool to me. I'm willing to wait and see.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Here's what an attentive reader over on trekmovie.com managed to piece together from the EW article:



> After seeing the pictures and reading the EW article, I think I can glean a few things about the plot of the film.
> 
> 1) James Kirk has been shamed somehow. He’s a lone wolf on the Enterprise, and he is not trusted. A black uniform is a (rather obvious) physical symbol of being a “black sheep.” We know Kirk is rebel of sorts as a basic character trait. We also see Spock attacking Kirk for some unknown reason. We ALSO have been led to believe (by the MTV blog and photo on the bridge) that Kirk and Sulu have gotten into a fight of some kind. Kirk is not the regular captain of the Enterprise. He has somehow taken command against the will of the crew or has been given command in a crisis. My best guess is that Kirk is on the Enterprise as either a prisoner or as a ward of the Enterprise. Kirk could have been kicked out of Starfleet for some indiscretion, but is being protected by the Enterprise because they believe his life is in danger (from Nero, obviously). Captain Pike’s injury takes place during the film, putting him out of action, giving Kirk a chance to step up and be in charge.
> 
> ...


I think we'd have been better off if they'd taken a fanzine story and adapted it.

This plotline shows no understanding of Star Trek, or of even basic military protocol. Kinda like the set design.

Have fun, kids. I ain't goin'.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

_Pixel > I'll try to keep my curiosity about the look of the Enterprise out of this thread from now on._

Don't worry about it. Everyone wants to know. There are only a few hundred people that have seen it so far. I feel sorry for the guys who actually worked on the ship. It hit me a while ago that this is STAR TREK. A 15 billion dollar (last I heard) Paramount franchise empire. It's a heavy responsibility for anyone. Imagine being an artist on the last round of Star Wars flix.

_Pixel > I'm an aspiring VFX guy myself._

Whittle down a core set of skills and put those aspirations into positive motion like I did a few years ago and you will get here too. There are at least several of us here at HT plus many former and current industry people (such as many of the Garage Kitters (Cooper and Cpt C. to name but two)).
_
El G >d it's possible that Pine's performance would give him the aura of authority that the character demands_

Well stated! 
In the chair, in that pose, that is certainly Shatner's aura. Same can almost be said for Kelly... It's a bad angle. This Spock IS too young. 

They must have used Nimoy's publicity stills from way back as reference... Knowing that Vulcans go to 200+ means they age more slowly. He looks as relatively bad as Yoda did in SW I. A thirty-fifty year difference to a 900+ year old is going to be a year or so for us. And so similarly for Vulcans. The dude needs more wrinkles. More character/life. The face is too plastic. A malformed clone of sorts perhaps.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Have fun, kids. I ain't goin'.


Yeah, we know. Honestly, you don't have to keep reminding us. It's not like we've bought you a ticket and will be saving you a seat. 

By the way, for what it's worth, that conjecture-filled "analysis" you seem to place so much stock in is pretty far off the mark.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

RossW said:


> Actually, if you'd said Andy Probert then my mind would be at ease. Is John Eaves responsible for the E-E from First Contact? That's the absolute worst-looking Enterprise of them all.


I think you might have goofed, you ment BEST right. :thumbsup:

Ducks and covers.

Ok....catching up.

Sounds like Griff still has his secret buttons and opened a can of Whip on a bad apple - Thank you.
Love the costumes - updated nicely, keeping the spirit of the originals.
Bridge - Yeah, don't care for it. The original could have been updated the same way as the costumes.
Exterior - Curious to see what they do. Probably won't like it at first, but like all the previous new designs, it will eventually grow on me.

Hopefully it will be a good story.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Model Man said:


> _Pixel > I'm an aspiring VFX guy myself._
> 
> Whittle down a core set of skills and put those aspirations into positive motion like I did a few years ago and you will get here too.


Actually, I've been doing just that for quite some time now. I've been focusing on lighting, rendering, and compositing for about 8 years now. I am putting a demo reel together currently, and will be sending it in to many studios in California next year.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I'm sure this new TOS will become a series of movies, but will we get a new TV series out of it too?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

In a sense I hope not. I think Trek should now stick to films because I'd like to see it done on a grand scale. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to see a few good movies where all the stops are pulled out than barrel full of watered down and forgettable TV episodes. There's also the issue of over saturation to the point of numbness. I don't want to see that happen again.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

While people focus on the design of the soon-to-be-revealed and redsigned Enterprise, and they rightly feel that the E is a character in her own right, you must remember that the other living and breathing characters will be the ones who determine whether or not this film is a success.

Based on what I see so far, those characters look to me like they can pull it off. I look forward to the movie.

Huzz


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Presumably us Brits won't have this in front of the 007 film as it opens earlier on 10/31. It has to be shown in the US first.

Not seen anything much about this over here, and only saw some photos when it was pointed out to me by an old friend, but this looks encouraging - a homage to the original, neat bridge design (too clean perhaps, someone mentioned 'sponsored by Apple'?), but who's the kid in the captain's chair? No way is that Kirk? Still, probably just a bad camera angle.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

[Post deleted because I just read the rest of the thread. Hey, I can't help it; I wanna be surprised when i go to see this thing.]


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Flux Chiller said:


> No way is that Kirk?


Yes, it is.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

We're boned.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Captain April said:


> We're boned.


Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Didn't Kirk say that?


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

LGFugate said:


> Didn't Kirk say that?


I think maybe it was Hicks, in Aliens.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

It was Kirk to Scotty in Wrath of Khan. In other news, this looks like it could be the new official logo from the film...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Interesting the emblem part of the logo is black. Something to do with young Kirk's black tunic perhaps?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PixelMagic said:


> It was Kirk to Scotty in Wrath of Khan.


Actually, it was _The Search for Spock_.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Argonaut (Feb 11, 2007)

If I see zippers on the women's boots I'm walkin' out of that theatre boy...


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> It was Kirk to Scotty in Wrath of Khan. In other news, this looks like it could be the new official logo from the film...


I thought this was for the new comic book mentioned on Trekmovie.com.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> We're boned.


The good Captain's quote is pretty close to a line from a character called "Joe" from Dog Soldiers, not Star Trek. :devil:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Actually, it's a frequent quote from Bender, usually in the face of almost certain annihilation.


----------



## OneAM (Jul 9, 2008)

Everybody out of the universe, quick!

The film's aesthetic has thus far not been quite to my tastes, but I consider it passable. It may well look better on-screen and in-motion, I don't know. It certainly doesn't put me off from seeing the film.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Exactly my thinking, as well. Regardless, I still have every intention of seeing the movie and keeping an open mind while doing so. 





Captain April said:


> Actually, it's a frequent quote from Bender, usually in the face of almost certain annihilation.


Ah... Well played, sir. I'd just watched _Dog Soldiers_ a couple of nights ago and haven't seen an episode of Futurama in... well... months.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Somehow, I don't think motion is going to magically transform that set from white, plexiglass, oval, and lit like the Las Vegas strip, to black, round, and more sedately lit.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

In general, I've found movie sets to appear more convincing on screen than in person. Oddly, in this case, the opposite is true.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Somehow, I doubt that it looks any closer to the original set in person.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Of course you do know that he could say: „ remember… this is an alternate time line you are seeing! Who says you won’t see what you expect to see once that timeline has been corrected?” 

Which is kind of THE “drop dead” argument for every “alternate timeline” story and am sure is the reason why Paramount picked that story. If the movie is a hit: they’ll go on in the altered time line. Effectively erasing what ever Trek canon existed prior to that movie. If the movie bombs: they can still explain changes away in a second movie where the “restored timeline” leads back to known Trek lore. 

As I pointed out in the other thread I don’t like this new bridge design. Its TOO far deviating from what we know what a bridge looks like in 225x to 226x which is the time this movie is playing (Pike to Kirk era).

With the bridge already being one big disappointment… should the 1701 re design stink too…. this movie will loos lots of viewers I can tell you that.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Somehow, I doubt that it looks any closer to the original set in person.


That's not what he said. He said more convincing. The closer to the TOS set, the less convincing it would be.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Says you.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> New Cast photo


I see this and Trek 90210 immediately springs to mind.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I've looked at this picture at least ten times and only just noticed the warp factor readout graphic on the main viewer. Can anybody make out how fast they're going? Looks like 4.306 to me. And what is Simon Pegg a Scotty holding in his hand. Hopefully not a page from the script.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

My contention is that the only reason you do something over again (go back and redo TOS) is so you can do it better. Can they do it better? These filmmakers are going into this with a lot of excess baggage they will have to lug around during the whole movie.

Why not make a movie that takes place 20 years after Next Gen? They could have done something new and it wouldn't have all the baggage.

Again, it reminds me of the Forbidden Planet remake with Liam Neeson and Brad Pitt that never got off the ground because they could never figure out how to make it better than the original.

Would it make sense to paint a big smile on the Mona Lisa?


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

By the way, the new sets remind me of the hallways that lead up to the Space Mountain ride at Disneyland.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*uniforms*

i guess its just a wait and see be4 i slam it or tell others to go see it, i was never a fan of the newer uniforms, kinda liked the old CAGE and No MAN ..... clothes, so this newer updated togs are no big deal, the story line well make or break this movie.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

CaliOkie said:


> By the way, the new sets remind me of the hallways that lead up to the Space Mountain ride at Disneyland.


Well, at least they don't remind you of _Splash_ Mountain!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Trailer description for those who want to know ahead of time...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39031

Neither report mentions seeing the Enterprise itself. I sure hope to get a look at her in this trailer. I will be very disappointed if they don't show the Enterprise in this trailer.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> Trailer description for those who want to know ahead of time...
> 
> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39031
> 
> Neither report mentions seeing the Enterprise itself. I sure hope to get a look at her in this trailer. I will be very disappointed if they don't show the Enterprise in this trailer.


I can't speak for anyone else but I like what I'm hearing (or reading). It sounds like they're painting a much broader vista for Trek than we've ever seen. It also sounds like the franchise is getting the boot in the a%$ it's needed for a long time now rather than people standing around spewing techno-babble-not so much a problem of the original series as much as the later versions. Looking very much forward to it!


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Woot!!!!!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I was under the impression the trailer would be the first look of the Enterprise. I thought I read somewhere that that would be the case. No mention of the Enterprise in the description. This is a bit disconcerting.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Opus Penguin said:


> I was under the impression the trailer would be the first look of the Enterprise. I thought I read somewhere that that would be the case. No mention of the Enterprise in the description. This is a bit disconcerting.


http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/10/star-trek-trailer-coming-in-november/

The second sentence of the second paragraph states the Enterprise Exterior will be shown. Of course, Carson could confirm this, and end the speculation. Heh.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Oh boy. Get ready for the sh%# storm of complaints after the first matinee on Friday (lol)!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Could be the reason nobody mentioned seeing the Enterprise is that they've changed her so damn much that nobody _recognized_ her.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Little James Kirk driving a 1960s Corvette? 

What’s this ? “Star Trek” meets “The Fast and the Furious”????

Didn’t Paramount realize that having Picard chasing around with a dune buggy in NEM was way off character? 


And why is he depicted as a maverick? I never ever had the impression James T Kirk did not fit in where he was. And he certainly did not have bully behaviour, but preferred an open handed approach to fist fight and blasting phasers. He would only resort to violence when his crew or friends where in danger.

And isn’t it extremely cliché that Spock and Kirk are supposed to start off their friendship with being adversaries? Isn’t this the “Lethal Weapon”, “Die Hard with a Vengeance” cliché of tow different characters having to forge an alliance to get through troubles they together face? 

And that’s supposed to be the “that’s how Kirk and Spock came together” story? I cant help myself but I feel a big let down as of now when ST XI boils down to this rather standard Buddy Action movie depiction of how it all started with the two most famous SF characters in TV/Movie history.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I was wrong; it's Monday and it's started already!:thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I'm not really encouraged by what I read about the trailer.... sounds exciting yes... but it doesn't sound at all like the Star Trek characters I know. Kirk and Spock in a fist fight? I don't think so... and they just HAD to throw in the gratuitous sex angle too, seems like it might be Uhura too. Classy, just lovely.

Gene must be rolling in his grave right now.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

It's really amazing that any new Star Trek film is made at all based on many fan reactions and responses. 

If It were up to me, I would shelve ST and wait for the more talented folks who say they are fans to create a film of their own.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I like some of the Internet ST amateur fan movies based on TOS.

I'm still holding out hope this new ST movie does justice to what we are hoping it should be like.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> I'm not really encouraged by what I read about the trailer.... sounds exciting yes... but it doesn't sound at all like the Star Trek characters I know. Kirk and Spock in a fist fight? I don't think so... and they just HAD to throw in the gratuitous sex angle too, seems like it might be Uhura too. Classy, just lovely.
> 
> Gene must be rolling in his grave right now.


I have a feeling Gene would first in line to see a gratuitous sex scene

and I think I saw Kirk in a fistfight with his best friend in "where no man has gone before"

context, people. that's all I'm saying


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Have you seen 'fan' films? Yikes! It would probably be 120 minutes of shots of TOS Enterprise with 'motivational' '70s porn music.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

We all know TOS never had gratuitous sex or fistfights, people!! As a fan I shall hold my breath until I turn MAUVE until they make exactly the Star Trek movie I demand they make!!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I have a feeling Gene would first in line to see a gratuitous sex scene
> 
> and I think I saw Kirk in a fistfight with his best friend in "where no man has gone before"
> 
> context, people. that's all I'm saying


Yeah.. after he was struck by the galactic barriers energy and his ESP multiplied and he became insane because he thought he was a god and mere mortals had to bow in front of him. Kirk just stopped him form conquering the galaxy. Kirks actiosn are all in character even in this early episode since he fought for his crew and the federation. And at the short moment when Garys eyes became normal Kirk stopped the fight and tried to talk in to him. If context is given then follow it right.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

This was posted by someone on AICN who has supposedly seen the Enterprise design from the new movie...

"The Enterprise exterior is atrocious -- the ship has been enlarged to BSG size (it's way bigger than 1000 feet), and the proportions are awful -- a tiny secondary hull and gargantuan engines. (As my friends said, there's a reason Paramount isn't showing the whole thing yet -- the fans are gonna hate it when they see it.)"

I hope this is not true.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Tthe ship has been enlarged to BSG size (it's way bigger than 1000 feet)


Utterly false.



PixelMagic said:


> and the proportions are awful -- a tiny secondary hull and gargantuan engines.


Semi-false.

The secondary hull isn't "tiny," but it does have a fairly pronounced fantail. This, combined with the admittedly oversized engines, gives the profile a bit of a lopsided appearance IMO. 

That said, I like the design a lot more than any other post-ST:TMP incarnation of the ship. And I suspect a lot of the aforementioned fans will too.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I just hope we can see the new Enterprise for ourselves with the new trailer. If we don't, I will be pretty ticked off.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

If you don't see it with 'Quantum Of Solace' Friday, you should be able to see it here maybe Sunday or so.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/

I'm really, really, really hoping this will lay some fears to rest when it's finally seen-let's keep our fingers crossed.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

It seems to me that a few of the sceptics out there are a generation older than myself, I got into Trek when ST3 first came out and well yea I was then officially hooked. 

Then ST IV was released and I remember that was when ST TNG was first introduced and I do remember the "older" fellas around were creating quite the whoop la over it, I heard a lot about how it didn't remain true to ST how the new uniforms sucked, how the ship reminded them of a football... bla bla bla (It sounds exactly like what I am reading now about the future release of the new film)

Now fast forward to today and we look back and see that TNG was in-arguably the most successful series of Trek ever to be released, it even spawned a couple of spin-off series.

Point being only time will tell how successful this will be but if the story hooks an audience anything like the series Lost did then I am confident it will do well.

Also (and I will duck for this one) if they did keep it strictly old school it would never sell to the current generation I respect the naustalgic nature of TOS but that is exactly why it's TOS and not the new movie. Sorry old chapps but you gotta loosen up for the new generation... The Next Generation. 

P.S. take pride in the fact the first generation laid the ground work and without them none of this would have ever happened so in that regard....

Thanx....:thumbsup:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> semi-fals
> The secondary hull isn't "tiny," but it does have a fairly pronounced fantail. This, combined with the admittedly oversized engines, gives the profile a bit of a lopsided appearance IMO.
> 
> That said, I like the design a lot more than any other post-ST:TMP incarnation of the ship. And I suspect a lot of the aforementioned fans will too.



Oversized warp engines, pronounced fantail… sounds exactly like the Gabe Koerner design to me! 

And I too get the feeling that Paramount is withholding the new Enterprise design because they KNOW if it fails the fans it’s going to cause more uproar then thee re cast of the characters did or the redesign bridge spurred when the first pictures where shown to the public! Don’t get me wrong, I happen to somewhat like the Koerner Enterprise and I could live with it if this is going to be the “new” Enterprise in STXI. 

As for the fan reactions to TNG: yeah initially I did not like Picard and thought Riker should be Captain, since he was closer to Kirk! But Picard grew on me and am giving Pine and Co the benefit of a doubt to show what they can do with the characters I know. The Ent-D on the other hand never really did grow on me, because the proportions of the ship are just wrong: nacelles too small, the warp pylons too short and are not levelling the engines above the main hull, saucer way too big. The Ent-E on the other hand I like a lot since it went back to the original design with long warp nacelles, angled warp pylons and a well balanced saucer size.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Mr. Canoehead said:


> It seems to me that a few of the sceptics out there are a generation older than myself, I got into Trek when ST3 first came out and well yea I was then officially hooked.
> 
> Then ST IV was released and I remember that was when ST TNG was first introduced and I do remember the "older" fellas around were creating quite the whoop la over it, I heard a lot about how it didn't remain true to ST how the new uniforms sucked, how the ship reminded them of a football... bla bla bla (It sounds exactly like what I am reading now about the future release of the new film)
> 
> ...



Well said


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

actually you'll be able to see it there sometime next monday...


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

i think the Koerner Enterprise looks pretty damn cool
no apologies!


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

The Enterprise is in the trailer according to British sources
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/11/20-minutes-of-star-trek-previewed-in-uk/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I just hope we can see the new Enterprise for ourselves with the new trailer. If we don't, I will be pretty ticked off.


The Enterprise is in the trailer.



Garbaron said:


> Oversized warp engines, pronounced fantail… sounds exactly like the Gabe Koerner design to me!


There are marked similarities.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I heard this: "Enterprise looks ‘just fine,’ shaped mostly like the TOS ship with TMP level of details (including torpedo launchers), except for the oversized nacelles"


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

It seems to me the Enterprise is going to have the same problem as the President Elect. It is going to be very hard to live up to expectations. Failure to do so, even in a small way, is likely to result in disgruntlement. When ardent fans turn on you, you tend to get eaten alive.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Sources who saw J.J.'s footage says the Enterprise is being constructed in an Iowa shipyard. Surely that can't be right.

I thought he Enterprise was built in San Fran. I know it was commissioned there. If you are going to build it in Iowa, why not commission/launch it from Iowa?

Building it in Iowa and then moving it all the way to San Fran for commissioning seems asinine.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Could this be the new Enterprise??? This was posted in the talkback over on Trekmovie.com...

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5534/enterprise579llx9.jpg


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Sources who saw J.J.'s footage says the Enterprise is being constructed in an Iowa shipyard. Surely that can't be right.


I'm glad this one's out of the bag. 

As seen in the new film, a young Jim Kirk happens upon the under-construction Enterprise in Iowa during one of those hero-meets-his-destiny moments movies are so fond of. Think Luke gazing at the twin suns -- or, more aptly, the beat in The Right Stuff when Chuck Yeager comes face to face with the X-3 in the California desert (I'm pretty sure this is where the Trek writers got it). 

It's actually a pretty effective moment, dramatically speaking, but I know TOS purists will scream bloody murder.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Sorry double post


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Krako said:


> Could this be the new Enterprise???


That's it.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Yep. Its the new Enterprise!

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/200...k': An exclusive first look at the Enterprise


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Could this be the new Enterprise??? This was posted in the talkback over on Trekmovie.com...
[url said:


> http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5...ise579llx9.jpg[/url]
> .



Oh please, I hope not.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Holy crap the Enterprise is horrible.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

If that is it, all the critizisim is more than justified. That ship is disgusting.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Mr. Canoehead said:


> It seems to me that a few of the sceptics out there are a generation older than myself, I got into Trek when ST3 first came out and well yea I was then officially hooked.
> 
> Then ST IV was released and I remember that was when ST TNG was first introduced and I do remember the "older" fellas around were creating quite the whoop la over it, I heard a lot about how it didn't remain true to ST how the new uniforms sucked, how the ship reminded them of a football... bla bla bla (It sounds exactly like what I am reading now about the future release of the new film)
> 
> ...


Agreed! I was into Star Trek from the beginning with TOS. I heard the same thing from fans about TMP and the refit Enterprise. So all this just cycles again. After seeing the new Enterprise ... yes I would say it does not completely meet what I would have liked to see, but I know the design will grow on me. And if the movie is a major blockbuster and fantastic character film, I suspect many fans will suddenly be silent and in support of the new design just like with TMP and TNG.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

I actually like it, even if it does mess with what we've come to know and love.

Guess you can't ever go home again afterall...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I saw the midnight show of Quantum. They didn't have the ST11 trailer on it here in Flagstaff. Anyone seen this trailer yet?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

charonjr said:


> I saw the midnight show of Quantum. They didn't have the ST11 trailer on it here in Flagstaff. Anyone seen this trailer yet?



According to the official site:

http://www.startrekmovie.com/

The new trailer will be available in 2 days on line.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm glad this one's out of the bag.
> 
> As seen in the new film, a young Jim Kirk happens upon the under-construction Enterprise in Iowa during one of those hero-meets-his-destiny moments movies are so fond of. Think Luke gazing at the twin suns -- or, more aptly, the beat in The Right Stuff when Chuck Yeager comes face to face with the X-3 in the California desert (I'm pretty sure this is where the Trek writers got it).
> 
> It's actually a pretty effective moment, dramatically speaking, but I know TOS purists will scream bloody murder.


Iowa? Not San Fran? Iowa?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Iowa.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

charonjr said:


> They didn't have the ST11 trailer on it here in Flagstaff.


Not every theater showing QoS will have the Trek trailer (something like every 4 out of 5 theaters will have it).

When in doubt, call ahead.


----------



## Vaderman (Nov 2, 2002)

Well that blows. Same thing happened to me today.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Nope. No trailer in front of QoS here either. Hope they've got some pretty beefy servers when it comes online.


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

I just saw the new Trek trailer, attached to Quantum of Solace. I don't like to make my decisions on how good or bad a movie will be by the trailer, because that can be quite misleading. However...


All I can say is WOW! Now more than ever, I can't wait for the movie. No, it isn't the Trek I grew up with, but if the trailer is any indication, it will be a Trek that I will enjoy. Please note, I said a movie that I will enjoy. There will be some that will love it, no matter what (because it is Star Trek) and some that will hate it no matter what (because it isn't the Star Trek they grew up with). Heck, half the people here on the board have already made up their minds. I choose wait for the final film before making up my mind, but so far, I am very impressed with what I saw.

The trailer should be online Monday, from what I've heard.


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

I work with a guy who saw Quantum of Solace last night and when anyone asked him about it he would reply that the fight scenes were intercut with other scenes for (in his opinion) absolutely no reason. Then he would describe in detail the Star Trek trailer and talk about how awesome Trek is going to be.
He is normally a casual Trek Fan.. he will watch it if nothing else is on but it's definitely not his first choice.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

This was filmed inside a movie theater before the new James Bond flick:

http://www.vimeo.com/2246656

Here is a good high definition version of the new Star Trek preview that I just found! It lasts 2 minutes. Be sure to click the little full screen "box" (looks like 4 arrows) at the video payer bar lower right corner to see it nice and big 

Steve


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

What's wrong with Spock? Seems he's forgotten all that Vulcan emotion control...

In other words, Eeewwww....!

Larry


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

He's young


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Loved the trailer and the movie. Nice work Carson.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

WoW!!!:woohoo:


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Any minute now, a certain someone will stop by to remind us that the trailer for Episode I looked awesome as well.



Qapla'

SSB


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

It looks like a good movie. But it is not Star Trek as we all have known it for the last 42 years. When I go to see it I will try to view it as something new.

Again, it reminds me of the Forbidden Planet remake that was in preproduction about 12 years ago -- to star Liam Neeson and Brad Pitt -- and I can't remember who was playing Alta. It fell apart. At some point the producers looked at each other and said "we can make it different, but we can't make it better." Oh well.

We'll see.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

CaliOkie said:


> It looks like a good movie. But it is not Star Trek as we all have known it for the last 42 years. When I go to see it I will try to view it as something new.
> 
> Again, it reminds me of the Forbidden Planet remake that was in preproduction about 12 years ago -- to star Liam Neeson and Brad Pitt -- and I can't remember who was playing Alta. It fell apart. At some point the producers looked at each other and said "we can make it different, but we can't make it better." Oh well.
> 
> We'll see.


I remember how exciting the trailers looked for the Motionless Picture. But then that's what they are trying to do. Get as many of you into opening weekend as possible. 

Thank God FP didn't get rebooted. Looks like somebody in Hollywood has some sense.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Well... at least Nemesis had the B-4...


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

CaliOkie said:


> It looks like a good movie. But it is not Star Trek as we all have known it for the last 42 years.












*" It's TREK, Jim...

But not as we know it...

But not as we know it...

It's TREK, Jim...

But not as we know it...

Captain.*


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

To me it was eye candy fast ships, fast women, fast fighting, etc. But will it be good? Bridge looks to clean/stark with one old sound effect. 
I'm not sold but I'll see it.

Bor


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

"No, Luke, I am your father."


If you squint your eyes, it almost looks like the original 1701.


Same for the rear view.


What's with the new transporter effect?


Is this the interracial kiss thing all over again? How original! The other shot of this scene is not family friendly.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Oy Vey! 

It may be a lot of things, but it isn't Star Trek.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

CaliOkie said:


> It looks like a good movie. But it is not Star Trek as we all have known it for the last 42 years. When I go to see it I will try to view it as something new.
> 
> Again, it reminds me of the Forbidden Planet remake that was in preproduction about 12 years ago -- to star Liam Neeson and Brad Pitt -- and I can't remember who was playing Alta. It fell apart. At some point the producers looked at each other and said "we can make it different, but we can't make it better." Oh well.
> 
> We'll see.


I don't know if it holds water CaliOkie, but IMDB shows another Forbidden Planet being made currently. It's a shame too, I've been watching portions of the old one on Tivo'd machines almost everynight at bedtime with my young daughters for the last couple of weeks. I don't mind them remaking FP anymore because I want to see ANYTHING they might try and am comfortable that the original cannot be touched. Yet, I'm a hypocrite for some reason with Trek. Perhaps its because I believe we will never see a 1/350 TOS E now (or any other TOS model for that matter). What we grew up with is dead, Jim. 

At least for several more years...


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

In fairness, How much Jar Jar was in the trailer?:drunk:



sbaxter said:


> Any minute now, a certain someone will stop by to remind us that the trailer for Episode I looked awesome as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

F91 said:


> In fairness, How much Jar Jar was in the trailer?:drunk:


I hear they hired Jar-Jar Binks, on the cheap, to play the new Yeoman on the bridge.


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

hubert said:


> I don't know if it holds water CaliOkie, but IMDB shows another Forbidden Planet being made currently.


It is true. J. Michael Straczynski is writing it, so there is at least a ray of hope.

At least they're not making it into a musical!


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Check this one out.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Hang in there, Hubert. Polar Lights/Round 2 have the 1/350th TOS Enterprise in plans for their 2010 kits.

Larry


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

BlackbirdCD said:


> Check this one out.


Purty Pikshur, but still not really likin' the design. 

Still, I'll be somewhat satisfied w/it if we get a good movie.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gotta love those camera phones, especially when the studio goons don't catch 'em. :devil:


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

BlackbirdCD said:


> Check this one out.


I just check my well worn very old Starfleeet Tech manual and if that is Starfleet HQ then they kept the basic design :thumbsup:

As for the trailer... :woohoo::thumbsup: :devil:

Even my wife who is not a real ST fan says it looks good. The scene showing kirk looking at the enterprise with pikes voiceover is taken from the film just after kirks bar fight with some squibs and Pike give him a life lecture/tip about joing the fleet...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

AJ-1701 said:


> I just check my well worn very old Starfleeet Tech manual and if that is Starfleet HQ then they kept the basic design :thumbsup:


Only vaguely... the real design is this....










Seems like they reversed the spheres and ovoids... looks like a cross between SF HQ and the orbital complex from TMP.


Actually it kinda reminds me of this image I made many years ago....


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Jaruemalak said:


> At least they're not making it into a musical!


Yet.... 



LGFugate said:


> Hang in there, Hubert. Polar Lights/Round 2 have the 1/350th TOS Enterprise in plans for their 2010 kits.
> 
> Larry


Just got back from QOS and saw the trailer... It will certainly be entertaining. I've had no doubt about that. It looks well done. I'm even more convinced that TOS E will be scrapped for 1/350th though, (IMHO) - just don't see Paramount allowing it. I hope you are right. 

They've still pillaged Trek. It's certainly a 're-imagining'. I'm looking forward to see how this either helps or hurts in the long run.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

BlackbirdCD said:


> Check this one out.


What I don’t like about that shot is, that it reveals the Enterprises warp pylons now have a curvature and are angled too steep giving the front profile an off look!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nah, they'll still release the TOS E in 1/350, because of one simple fact that none of the "fans don't matter" twits can refute.

TOS always sells.

Besides, if this thing ultimately tanks, which I still think is likely, they'll need a fallback position, and the only one that works is to reject JJ's as a one-off project and come home to the established library.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Tanks? Cloverfield made money!!!!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Yeah because ppl run into it because off all the hype JJ had created with his viral promotion model and in the end… Cloverfield was Godzilla meets s Blair Witch Project with some Aliens mixed in for good gore measure. 

And the Colverfield Fans are IMO foremost the ones that will go see the new JJ flick. But not average Joe Paramount is aiming at to generate a “new” Fan base for Star Trek. 

The Fans are all still here.. waiting. Waiting for Star Trek to let go off its Boommm… Baaanng character it picked up some time ago and returns to character driven story telling, where FX only aid to convey this is set in the Future. 

The Trek XI trailer shows a lot of Boomm..baaang… I hope that’s only done to lure in “average Joe” but that the movie itself focuses more on the characters we know then on FX action ala Episode 3!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

So, what is it exactly that you guys are trying to say about those of us who are _Cloverfield_ fans? That our thoughts and opinions are less than that of yours 'cause we liked _Cloverfield_...?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Oooooh, boy....


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

No, to each his own and I too liked Cloverfield. But I said that Cloverfield, although a good movie is not very original on its own. It just takes known elements from Godzilla, Alien and Blair Witch shakes them and voila that’s Cloverfield. 

And I am not bashing JJ, but I also see that he only directed only ONE (MI3) big time movie before Trek 11 and as such is not that much an experienced movie director! Even if he did participate as writer and producer in box office blockbusters and TV series and with so few experience in directing movies, I think I am allowed to be a bit sceptical if it is said JJ is the saviour of Trek because he takes a fresh start on Star Trek, especially if he starts to change about everything we know about TOS for no apparent reason. 

And with my Cloverfied remark I was talking about non SF fans that did like Cloverfield and as such will be curious about the new JJ Abrams movie even if it is Star Trek movie and go see it. Like “Sean Connery is in it this MUST be good” without even knowing what the movie is about.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Griff- It's just a running joke I have with Cloverfield fans on various boards. Every one's opinion is certainly as valid as mine. I'm no merriman.....


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Only vaguely... the real design is this....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nicely done, Wes...

Jeez, why didn't they hire you?


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

Jafo said:


> i think the Koerner Enterprise looks pretty damn cool
> no apologies!



plus one of that design of Gabe's the new ship doesnt do much for me but ill wait and see the movie before banging my head against the wall, kinda like after a few shows of Enterprise............


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Fair enough, fellas. I'm not a big fan of generalizations, obviously. 

I'm still willing to give the movie a chance, but not just because it's got Abrams at the helm. It's a combination of the talent involved in this. Still haven't seen this new trailer, but other than the fugly "new" old _Enterprise_, I've not seen nor heard anything to make me think there's still hope for a great story and excellent output from the cast.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

BlackbirdCD said:


> Nicely done, Wes...
> 
> Jeez, why didn't they hire you?



Because I work for DreamWorks! :wave:


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Griff- I really enjoyed the trailer, lots of glitzy, shiny stuff, explosions and space battles. The plot isn't revealed, but I liked what I saw, especially from Bana. Looking forward to more, including the model. I'm really hoping that the new E doesn't have an aztec pattern. THAT would be sweet! (and easier to paint)



Griffworks said:


> Fair enough, fellas. I'm not a big fan of generalizations, obviously.
> 
> I'm still willing to give the movie a chance, but not just because it's got Abrams at the helm. It's a combination of the talent involved in this. Still haven't seen this new trailer, but other than the fugly "new" old _Enterprise_, I've not seen nor heard anything to make me think there's still hope for a great story and excellent output from the cast.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

*Bravo Zulu!*



Nova Designs said:


> Because I work for DreamWorks! :wave:


Glad to hear your talent is not going to waste!

Do you have a desktop size version of that pic you would please share? Very sweet!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> So, what is it exactly that you guys are trying to say about those of us who are _Cloverfield_ fans? That our thoughts and opinions are less than that of yours 'cause we liked _Cloverfield_...?


I can't watch _Cloverfield _because it makes me dizzy (I've got a degenerative inner ear disorder). So, even though I'm inclined to say that the movie is crap and everyone who loves the movie loves crap due solely to my not getting to watch the movie, I really can't justify such an accusation though I'd really like to make it.

Anyways, Jeffrey, love ya, man! Keep up the good work!:thumbsup:




:jest:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I thought Cloverfield was great! I liked the first person perspective. You get used to the shakey cam in the beginning during a party before the monster attacks. Its like watching a home movie thats all, but of a dramatic event like 9/11.

The shakey cam technique is also used a lot in the new Battlestar Galactica during battle sequences to ramp up the drama and urgency of the situation like a war correspondent filming the action.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I thought Cloverfield was awesome. Can't really think of too many ways to convincingly do a giant monster movie these days either, but they pulled it off and made it tense and not hokey. I do understand though that some people can't deal with the motion used in the film. It happens to certain people with video games too. I have a friend that can't watch me play a first person or driving game as it messes with her sense of balance or something and gives her nausea.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I didn't mean to make the thread a referendum on Cloverfield!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Oooops, sorry...thought it was a refreshing break from Trek mudslinging!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

LOL, JG! Indeed! :thumbsup:

I'm still looking forward to the movie no matter what I think of this ship. I reserve final judgement until such time as I actually see this new _Enterprise_ on-screen. Initial reaction, obviously, isn't terribly favorable....


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Mudslinging which I will not be a part of!! I'm looking forward to seeing the new Trek.



JeffG said:


> Oooops, sorry...thought it was a refreshing break from Trek mudslinging!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I thought I'd no longer be a part of it too, but 'Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!'


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Cloverfield was a fun movie... but it was hokey, but to me that was part of the fun. It was very low-budget, blair witch hide things with motion blur and darkness. But it worked pretty well... I especially loved the rescuing the girlfriend from the leaning skyscraper bit. That really had me tensed up!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

At the risk of bringing back the whole Cloverfield thing, check out the behind the secenes features on the DVD. It's absolutely amazing how much effects work went into it to make it look like just random shots with a camcorder! They may have done their job too good in making some folks think that's all they did was just point a and shoot. Okay, that's enough about that film. Getting off on another topic around here is like throwing a machine gun into a room of monkeys (lol)!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah I did watch trhe behind the scenes stuff... that was the best part of the DVD for me, since that is exactly the kind of work I do!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

New Star Trek Movie site is up (refresh your browser if you still see the old site layout) and they link the HD trailer #2 to the apple site. The site Nav takes you down corridors of the new Enterprise!

http://www.startrekmovie.com


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*there she is!*

fresh from the new trailer


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

When I click on low, medium or high res, nothing happens. Is their site crashing I wonder?

Huzz


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Thanks for the screen cap. I have to wait until I get home from work to download the Large (HD) one and get some screen captures too. What resolution (width x height in pixels) is the HD video done at if you can tell from the video properties? Do they have a regular download link of the large Quicktime video itself instead of watching it in your web browser?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> fresh from the new trailer



I am in love with that shot Lou. I am so excited to see this film!!


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Can anyone explain to me why there are 1960s Corvettes and motorcycles in the 23rd century? Gotta love the over the cliff epic save that makes Spock's ankle grab in ST V look pretty tame by comparison.

This movie looks to be rubbish for the 'Owww pretty explosions' crowd.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

This is exactly the sort of thing that keeps the mudslinging going. I suppose there's no suits of armor, castles, horse drawn buggies or anything like that to be found nowadays. Perhaps in a museum or by collectors, but they haven't vanished from the face of the earth. It must get hard sometimes inventing things to find wrong with something.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Edge said:


> Can anyone explain to me why there are 1960s Corvettes and motorcycles in the 23rd century? quote]
> 
> For the same reason that folks still race horses and sailboats today?
> 
> Huzz


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^Well, clearly Jim Kirk is feeling "the need for speed"

The apple site offered all manners of sizes and resolutions, but you can only download if you have the pro version of Quicktime. You can watch but not keep.

As I do not have the pro version, I'm hoping one f my fellow nerds will post a direct link so that I can save a copy of my own.

Oh, and did I mention the trailer has a Green Orion Slave Girl in it?

PS. Someone needs to ask Carson why the "Spock chokes Kirk" shot is reversed. Dramatic license for the trailer, perhaps?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

JeffG said:


> This is exactly the sort of thing that keeps the mudslinging going. I suppose there's no suits of armor, castles, horse drawn buggies or anything like that to be found nowadays. Perhaps in a museum or by collectors, but they haven't vanished from the face of the earth. It must get hard sometimes inventing things to find wrong with something.





Dave Hussey said:


> Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone explain to me why there are 1960s Corvettes and motorcycles in the 23rd century?
> ...


What?!? We are still using horse drawn carriages today? We are still driving classic cars today?? Say it isn't so!!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Lou - Green Orion Chick? You mean John P is in the movie? :woohoo: 
Sorry John - I'm just trying to get a smile!! :wave::hat:

Huzz


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> The apple site offered all manners of sizes and resolutions, but you can only download if you have the pro version of Quicktime. You can watch but not keep. As I do not have the pro version, I'm hoping one f my fellow nerds will post a direct link so that I can save a copy of my own. Oh, and did I mention the trailer has a Green Orion Slave Girl in it?


Over on http://www.treknews.de you can download the new trailer files in all resolutions! 

Orion slave girl, huh?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

got it, thanks. also here

http://www.davestrailerpage.co.uk/


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

JeffG said:


> This is exactly the sort of thing that keeps the mudslinging going. I suppose there's no suits of armor, castles, horse drawn buggies or anything like that to be found nowadays. Perhaps in a museum or by collectors, but they haven't vanished from the face of the earth. It must get hard sometimes inventing things to find wrong with something.


It must be hard to keep justifying swallowing the garbage they keep shoveling at you?

I'm sure in your world 12 year olds steal their daddy's buggies and drive them toward perilous cliffs only to slam the gears and jump off at the last second all the time.

Sorry if I don't feel like singing 'Kumbaya' over this piece of drek, labeled as Trek.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Someone needs to ask Carson why the "Spock chokes Kirk" shot is reversed


. 

It was an editorial decision made with the intention of maintaining the flow, screen direction and eye movement wise. Trailers do this sort of thing all the time (no, the shot will not be reversed in the actual film).


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Thankx Carson! I figured it was something like that

Great work BTW:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Edge said:


> It must be hard to keep justifying swallowing the garbage they keep shoveling at you?
> 
> I'm sure in your world 12 year olds steal their daddy's buggies and drive them toward perilous cliffs only to slam the gears and jump off at the last second all the time.
> 
> Sorry if I don't feel like singing 'Kumbaya' over this piece of drek, labeled as Trek.


you must get tired from jumping to so many conclusions like that..

do you do stretching exercises first?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Anyway, the new HD trailer quality is great!

One thing I'm wondering, is in that great Enterprise under construction scene, there seems to be no visible support to hold the ship there! All the scaffolding is next to the ship, not actually propping it up.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Anyway, the new HD trailer quality is great!
> 
> One thing I'm wondering, is in that great Enterprise under construction scene, there seems to be no visible support to hold the ship there! All the scaffolding is next to the ship, not actually propping it up.


Yeah, I've assumed they have anti-grav support at the stress points, since (and I have to forgive TOS TIS episode) the ship was never suppose to be in the atmosphere and would probably fall apart. This is just copying the same stuff from Star Wars II where we saw SD in the atmosphere (wow). We'll get to see her 'float' like the Macy's day balloon up to space... unless that's a 200,000 ton cargo transporter underneath her.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Garbage that added nothing to conversation deleted by original author.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

ENOUGH of the Trolling, Flames and cheap shots - from everyone. That goes for using words like rape and related connotations. This isn't the place for that. Respect the opinion of others or I'll start locking every thread on the subject. 

Any more TROLLING will get someone a One Week BAN. 

Honestly, you folks are supposed to be adults. A small few of you, however, aren't acting at all mature.....


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

One last thing on the subject....

If you want to go somewhere that you can insult each other, go to Resin Illuminati. Register there, pop down to the Gladiators Forum and have at it. That sort of stuff isn't for this forum, as every one of you know that the rules here are a lot different.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Having seen the trailer in much better resolution and with quality audio, my impression of what's to come has gone up a little. Carson, you guys at Ant Farm did a great job on that trailer!

By the way... you're all welcome at the RI, too. More meat for the grinder! But really. It's a nice place. With genteel folks with victuals to stimulate the palette and tall tales to stimulate the mind. Truly!


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

My apologies.

No piece of entertainment is worth the anger I vented at the members of this forum.

Peace and long life.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

So Say We All and Amen! 




Hand Solo said:


> By the way... you're all welcome at the RI, too. More meat for the grinder! But really. It's a nice place. With genteel folks with victuals to stimulate the palette and tall tales to stimulate the mind. Truly!


Yes, sorry, Bob. Please don't think that I meant that the only good about R.I. is the Gladiators Forum. The only reason I brought up the Gladiators Forum is for the fairly obvious reason - you can Flame each other and Troll to your hearts content there. 

I seriously recommend checking out the Finished Models and Works In Progress forum sections at R.I., as well. Some of the best model work I've seen online in more than ten years can be seen at R.I. in those two sections. I find something almost every day that someone posts to aspire to as far as my own meager modeling skills are concerned.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

This is a theory of mine - I hope this doesn't turn out to be a spoiler so fair warning:

I was thinking with all the non-canon and timeline issues with TOS - maybe it's by design in this new Star Trek, possibly due to the story rumour we've all heard before about the older Spock travelling back in time to pre-TOS? Since in theory that could have the effect of altering the (Star Trek) future, maybe this is what has happened in this story line and explains all the changes we are seeing and spazzing out over? This Enterprise may in fact be more advanced on purpose because of the possibility that Spock's actions/mission gives the Federation a techological advantage from the future to defend some new dire Romulan/Nero threat from the future too? If true then Star Trek has not only been re-imagined, it has been re-invented historically.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I seriously doubt it.... that's way too much time, money and effort into building this "new" look to have it all be a one-off.

I wish you were right though.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Nova Designs said:


> I seriously doubt it.... that's way too much time, money and effort into building this "new" look to have it all be a one-off. I wish you were right though.


If it were something like that I wouldn't declare it a one-off. It could spawn a whole series of new movies and/or TV shows with a Trek alternate timeline based universe. How else would you continue something that until now we already know what happens next from the old TOS series and onward?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> This is a theory of mine - I hope this doesn't turn out to be a spoiler so fair warning:
> 
> I was thinking with all the non-canon and timeline issues with TOS - maybe it's by design in this new Star Trek, possibly due to the story rumour we've all heard before about the older Spock travelling back in time to pre-TOS? Since in theory that could have the effect of altering the (Star Trek) future, maybe this is what has happened in this story line and explains all the changes we are seeing and spazzing out over? This Enterprise may in fact be more advanced on purpose because of the possibility that Spock's actions/mission gives the Federation a techological advantage from the future to defend some new dire Romulan/Nero threat from the future too? If true then Star Trek has not only been re-imagined, it has been re-invented historically.


Great idea! I hope they will come out with something like this as an onscreen explanation if there's ANY respect for the original series at all.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

I just watched the trailer. Is it an optical illusion? If you pause the trailer where the ship they are calling Enterprise is warping away from the space station and you get a near frontal shot.. are the warp pylons curved? I looks like it to me.

I'm still up in the air over seeing this, but probably will. I think the story is going to be good from what I see on the trailer, my thoughts on that ship notwithstanding. I'm not to keen on the bridge, but at least they have the klaxon sound right.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I made a composite image from the Enterprise under construction so you can see as much of the ship as possible while they panned back with Kirk watching on his motorcycle:

http://home.comcast.net/~photonlasertag/trek/trek11construct.jpg

By the way, there is another quick shot later in the new preview with something about to explode behind the Enterprise, you can see a blue glow in the engine nacelle caps:

http://home.comcast.net/~photonlasertag/trek/trek11o.jpg


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

In the shot where it warps away there's also an engine light effect at the back of the nacelles as well as what appears to be impulse engine glow on the back of the primary hull in approx. the same place as the refit. Despite how the secondary hull appears to taper thinner than the original ships, it does look like there is a hangar area at the back of the engineering hull in the last several frames when it warps away, though it's kinda hard to make out for sure. There definitely appears that the engine pylons do have a slight curvature when viewed from the front or rear.

Also it looks like somebody (possibly McCoy?) is delivering a mighty 'whap' upside somebody's head in a swing that looks like it started in Cleveland!


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

The trailer was on the Sarah Conner Chronicles tonight, in HD!! I will watch it again in slow motion, but I've already noticed a few things that I hadn't before.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Edge said:


> Can anyone explain to me why there are 1960s Corvettes and motorcycles in the 23rd century? Gotta love the over the cliff epic save that makes Spock's ankle grab in ST V look pretty tame by comparison.
> 
> This movie looks to be rubbish for the 'Owww pretty explosions' crowd.


don't forget what a love Kirk has for antiques, quite a passion in fact.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Considering no one knows the context of the scene with the Corvette, there can be a dozen different scenarios. Should a been a Mustang anyway.....:0


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

F91 said:


> Considering no one knows the context of the scene with the Corvette, there can be a dozen different scenarios. Should a been a Mustang anyway.....:0


Found out his daddy just died on the _Kelvin_ and is acting out..? Who knows.

Has anyone else picked up on (prolly has been mentioned in one of the posts) the new _Enterprise_'s windows around the saucer? Same placement and arrangement as the refit and _A_. Nice touch, I thought.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Ok I am probably gonna get blasted for this...

After watching Menagerie Prt 1 I couldn't help notice that there are similarities between some of the scenes of the interior of the new Enterprise and "Pike's Enterprise" (Not Kirks).

-I noticed that the hallways of both ships are similar, grey and silver colour and more somewhat triaglular shape rather than the square shape we see with Kirks E.

-I noticed that we see the "possitional Heads Up Display" in both Pikes E and the new one.

-Pikes E doesn't have the bright colours that we see on Kirks E

I always found Pikes Enterprise did look more believable and futuristic with the choice of colours for the sets rather than Kirks Enterprise.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> This is a theory of mine - I hope this doesn't turn out to be a spoiler so fair warning:
> 
> I was thinking with all the non-canon and timeline issues with TOS - maybe it's by design in this new Star Trek, possibly due to the story rumour we've all heard before about the older Spock travelling back in time to pre-TOS? Since in theory that could have the effect of altering the (Star Trek) future, maybe this is what has happened in this story line and explains all the changes we are seeing and spazzing out over? This Enterprise may in fact be more advanced on purpose because of the possibility that Spock's actions/mission gives the Federation a techological advantage from the future to defend some new dire Romulan/Nero threat from the future too? If true then Star Trek has not only been re-imagined, it has been re-invented historically.


Posted this over hat Starship Modeller: 



> I am not so sure that they will hit the rest button at the end of JJs flick.
> 
> Why? Because of Spock and how he appears, well at least form what we know of the 20 minutes description.
> 
> ...


Nimoy Spock might show up more often, probably at the beginning to realize something has changed and look for a way to fix it and perhaps at the end to see if his help created the desired effect. Wouldn’t be Spock if he just poops in alters the timeline and does not check if what he did set things right, right?. 

Granted that’s what I pieced together form what is known as of now and must in no way reflect what really happens in JJs Trek but maybe the ppl in the know can say a “yeah” or “nay” at that?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^_Deus ex machina!_

Such convenient time traveling elements arbitrarily thrown into a plot are contrived and cheat the audience out of a real, character driven solution.

If the whole plot centers around the traveling in time, that's another thing, however.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Sounds like a clever Sci-Fi way to justify having things end up non-canon to mess with our heads, or should I say it's a new-canon Star Trek from this movie forward. Like my theory, something had to happen involving time travel to change the TOS era timeline. That's smart story-wise in a way, because it opens endless possibilities not restricted by any other past TV episode or movie.

The Kelvin from the preview looks to be attacked by some kind of jagged alien (Romulan?) ship, which reminds me of the crab-like Shadow ships from Babylon 5 in a way. There is one bridge shot, which I'm assuming to be on the Kelvin, with different crew members but appears to be the same layout as the new Enterprise's.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Wouldn’t be Spock if he just poops in alters the timeline and does not check if what he did set things right, right?


If he's pooping in the timeline, it's going to hit the fan of the new 1701's Bussard scoops.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

LOL.. yeah... sorry for that


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

This article has a review of the new trailer. They get a few things wrong and even refer to the under construction Enterprise as an "unusual building" that Kirk is looking at, LOL. Also, that sex scene with Kirk - they say it's Uhura but the girl doesn't look like her and is wearing a black patterned bra, while Uhura sports a white bra! They basically call Kirk a peeping tom hiding under the bed!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...-film-love-scenes-motorbikes-hunky-stars.html

"TRAILER: Star Trek gets a sexy makeover in new film with love scenes, motorbikes and hunky stars"

"The trailer moves on to an adult Kirk, speeding through the desert on a motorbike, before stopping by a futuristic factory - suggesting it could be a take-off location for the Starship Enterprise.

'Do you feel you were meant for something better?' A pre-Enterprise Kirk spots an unusual building and wonders what the future holds for him."


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> . Also, that sex scene with Kirk - they say it's Uhura but the girl doesn't look like her


Last time I checked Uhura wasn't green.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

In my best British Monty Python voice:

*Say no more!!!!*

Huzz:woohoo:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

My kind of woman! Bring her on


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Found out his daddy just died on the _Kelvin_ and is acting out..? Who knows.



I do...


* *




The car is Kirk's uncle's (think Uncle Owen, only younger and more obnoxious). Kirk trashes the prized antique in an act of defiance following a bitter and heated argument re: his future.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

I figured out it wasn't Uhura. But, I couldn't tell that she was green. I thought maybe it was Carol Marcus. 'Cuz later on there's a scene with a blond who looks like she's giving birth.

Todd


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Good trailer. Looks like a fun movie. Who cares about the ship?

(ducks)


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson, I formulated that theory on another board. Looks like I was right about the car.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Prowler901 said:


> later on there's a scene with a blond who looks like she's giving birth.


Kirk's mom, aboard the Kelvin.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

You don’t say your uncle Own remarks means, that Kirks parents die on the Kelvin while he gets rescued in an escape pod or something and then gets raised by his uncle. That the death of his parents leads to him being the a$$ he appears to be when thinking of the described bar scene and no going to the academy. 

You know, taking what I said before about old Spock (page before this one). What kind of a friend would Spock be if he knew about Kirks life being messed up because his parents died and Spock not trying to rescue Kirks parents but just making sure he takes Command of the Enterprise later? Ah…. “they where meant to die” argument eh? That leaves the question, if they died in the original timeline, why would Kirk become “stack of books” the first time and “jerk” the second time around?


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Kirk's mom, aboard the Kelvin.


Ahhhh..... Well, there ya go :thumbsup:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Know the proverb “silence says more then a thousand words”?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, but sometimes silence just says nothing.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

And I also assume that Kirk is on one of the shuttles leaving the crumbling Kelvin seen in the trailer.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Hey I noticed on the rear car licence plate (as it goes off the cliff) there is a photo of a man with a beard or goatee. Who is it, Kirk's uncle?


----------



## Joel (Jul 27, 1999)

As an architect, I immediately recognized this building as a Fay Jones chapel. Although, I can't be positive, it looks like Thorncrown Chapel in Eureka Springs Arkansas. I've actually been there. That big alter thing in the shot is not part of the building though. The real building is actually very transparent with full glass walls between the structure and no real alter of any kind. Scale looks a little off because the building is not that big, so it could be that all the foreground stuff is digitally composited in.

Sounds plausible though. A lot of Vulcan style throughout Star Trek has been based on Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie Style, and Fay Jones was a student of Wright.

And the woman that Kirk is with is definitely not Uhura. That woman laying down has curly hair, and Uhura's in the previous shot is much straighter.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, but sometimes silence just says nothing.


And I understand what a NDA is...


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

There's a familiar face...










You can seem him in a slightly altered version of the trailer here...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39238


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

It sure is nice to see Leonard play Spock one more time. I really hope his inclusion was worth his while.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Ah.... ya beat me to it. I just saw it at Trekmovie.com. COOL! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Methinks they're trying to suck up to the cheesed-off segment of the fanbase.

What, do they think we missed all the news about how Nimoy was in this thing? Is this supposed to be some sort of shocking surprise?:drunk:


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Wait a minute, they're willfully disrespecting the fanbase with the _movie_ but sucking up to us with the _trailer?_ 

No. never mind. Whatever. Carry on. :freak:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Well at least it comes off as a bit odd if JJ keeps on telling that this movie is not for the fans and then they re release the trailer and include Leonard Nimoys Spock to say the most famous line in SciFi history … who do you think this is supposed to attract? The “non fans”? Heck they won’t even know who this dude at the end of the clip is!

No this re-release is directly aimed at the fans noone else! So if all of a sudden then fans are important again… what changed Paramounts mind? Perhaps the heated discussions in fan message boards on how the fans fee a little discarded after (supposedly) JJ and Co comments like this one: 



> "Trek fans were not able to keep the last show (Enterprise) on the air and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans. And if the old Trekkies like the new movie, great -- if not, too bad.


http://www.cinematical.com/2006/08/21/star-trek-xi-update-screw-the-fans/2

I hope this movie will be good. And I sure prey that when I leave the theatre in May 2009, that I will have watched a Star Trek movie and not some random SciFi flick. But in case it fails I would not be surprised to hear comments like “We made the mistake to not listen to the fans .”, or “Perhaps we have taken it a bit too far and should have stayed closer to the original…” form the power that be.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Respectfully, I think much of the criticism derives from assumptions I can't follow, reading in much that isn't there (well, eye of the beholder an all that) and isn't credible. If I agreed with the more vehement assertions in the criticism thread, I'd have to conclude that Nimoy is holding up three too many fingers. He ought to be wishing everyone an early and destitute death.

Is the recut trailer aimed solely at fans? Possibly, and possibly for the reasons you surmise - this in no way proves the wild allegations of Abrams deliberately disrespecting fans correct. It merely supports the suggestion that he's _aware _of fan discontent. 

However, Nimoy's Spock is an international icon. Everybody knows him - fan, non-fan, casual viewer. I'm amazed that shot wasn't in the original trailer. Of _course_ it's going to appeal to more than just fans.

As a forty-two-year-old who grew up on the endless reruns of the Seventies, I have yet to see anything that says Abrams and company have ever disrespected me. What I see is a director who has accepted some questionable advice on how to approach continuity aspects of the property as well as having sbadly misjudged just how anal and contentious the fanbase is. 

"The fans aren't important"? Not _all_-important, no. If this film fails with general audiences, you can be sure it will not be because of any of the issues being fumed over in the criticism thread. The casual viewers needed for success have no idea about the Iowa/San Fransisco issue, no idea who Kodos is, and won't wonder twice whether these characters went to the Academy together. They're not going to be put off by a less than elegant Enterprise either.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Dreamer, I think you're absolutely right. I've been a Trek fan as long as I can remember, and quite frankly I'm getting tired of having to preface everything with that just so someone doesn't think I don't care about TOS. I love the stuff but from what I read on the other forum, much of it centers around whomever can wave the 'purist' flag the hardest. Iowa / San Francisco? Who the hell cares? 

Case in point; I'm a big Bond fan. So does Casino Royale's reboot somehow take away from You Only Live Twice, or Thunderball? No and you know why? because I still love the old films even though the history has been told differently now. The issue comes in where you refuse to see this as a reboot and insist on figuring out how to wedge and drive it in between the Treks we know. It won't fit because it's not really meant to. And if that doesn't work, try this; it's just a frickin movie. :thumbsup:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

JeffG said:


> try this; it's just a frickin movie. :thumbsup:


Yeah, it really has reached epic levels of silliness. Reminds me of this birthday party i went to as a child... a whole party thrown for the kid and he cries and screams because he didn't get the toy he wanted. 

Moral to the story: Enjoy the friggin' party.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Dreamer, Jeff, Kraco... I'm obviously a die-hard flag waver. 
You guys are correct when you state this is a movie but then you, as grown men, build toys from those movies. 

This is also the only time some of us have every spoken out publicly on any ST movie. It's the first time I have. Maybe these forums aren't the right place to discuss, I don't know. I simply came here at the beginning of the year when I saw some real impressive model work by some real impressive people (wish I had time for myself). 

To equate ST and JB movies, is a mistake though. Both are entertaining, certainly both are fiction. JB is always current with the times and usually about the current flavor of the day. Woody Allen to Daniel Craig, that says a lot, right there. When one actor gets too old (Roger Moore) just replace and repeat. Actor not dynamic enough (Timothy Dalton), get another. If he jumps the shark by going into outer space, reel him in the next time. His character (and the movies) are mostly affected by current state of the cinema. Don't you remember how there changes once he was 'one-upped' by harrison ford in 'Indiania Jones' or how how Casino Royal was influenced because of the success of 'The Bourne Identity'? (Almost) Each movie stands on its own.

I think Garbaron is correct with his assessment. Non fans (younger generation, especially) do not know who this guy would be. He may look vaguely familiar but he is old and half-frozen. Maybe they will think he is Hans Solo being unfrozen. 

This was simply done for the fans.

I would expect some ebb and flow with all franchises and *we all agree* there should be updates. Updates for no reason, however will hurt the franchise in the end (IMO).

I personally am glad that someone is listening and you should be as well. It means that you and your opinion matter. They (you and your opinion) matter to me. 

The most influential character trait once given to me by the director at the Jet Propulsion Labs was ... "passion". Today, I build real spaceships and am fortunate to have a couple of more pieces of equipment just sent up last week. ST is part of the reason I am what I am. 

I see that same passion in most of your collective works. To think it can be marginalized is a mistake. If one simply wants to build models, then so be it but permit me to remind them.. that passion brought back TOS for a third season (I know... spocks brain), led to the renaming of the Shuttle prototype, led to the TMP and even have helped a few people find their way in the world.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Many good points in your post, Hubert. I agree. Trek obviously means a lot to those who post here. And, you're absolutely right, there are few pop culture phenomena that have impacted our world as profoundly as Trek has. 

But, imho, people need to loosen up regarding this movie. It's possible it just might be good! Why not just wait and go on May 8, and then get all worked up if it isn't?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

It would seem that for some, Trek has become a jealous obsession however. Have we really become so arrogant and single minded in that obsession that we feel we have a right to deny a new generation of viewers anything other than what _we_ grew up with?

Even a version of Trek that differs is better than none at all so long as it's done in the spirit of the original, and by that I'm not talking about the Enterprise looking _exactly the damn same_ as the one as on the TV show. I'm talking about the morality of people overcoming problems by working together despite differences and looking to the future with hope-and a fresh coat of paint with a little excitement thrown into the mix doesn't hurt either!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

hubert said:


> I would expect some ebb and flow with all franchises and *we all agree* there should be updates. Updates for no reason, however will hurt the franchise in the end (IMO).


I think that's all anyone who is criticizing the known elements of the film is saying AKA "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Thanks for your work in helping our space program succeed, Hubert! We need more folks like you on this forum! :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

It always amuses me the extent to which the nay-sayers believe they speak for ALL die-hard TOS fans. Some of these folks made up their minds to despise Trek XI _months_ ago, before so much as a single image, publicity statement, or plot point had been released. Suffice it to say many of these guys have an agenda that has ZERO to do with judging the film on its merits; rather, they hate the _idea_ of it on principle. Fair enough. That's their right. What cracks me up is when they try to fob off their fervent, vitriolic, FANdamentalist opinion as being that of Trek fans in general. 

As some of you know I work for the company that cut the Trek XI trailer, and judging from the OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE RESPONSE we've received from the _established fan community_ I can assure you there are a lot of older (mid-40's) TOS fans out there who've liked what they've seen. Whether they'll still feel that way come May remains to be seen, but in any case it should come as no surprise that most Trek fans want to see the film for themselves before rendering a verdict one way or another.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For those who're saying "it's just a freakin' movie", *that's a big part of the problem!*

They've taken something that used to have serious cultural impact and turned it into "just a freakin' movie."


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> For those who're saying "it's just a freakin' movie", *that's a big part of the problem!*
> 
> They've taken something that used to have serious cultural impact and turned it into "just a freakin' movie."


How do you know this? 
Have you seen the movie already? 

Where is it playing? I'd like to go see it too!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The fan base may have grown and broadened, but the cultural impact of Trek hasn't gone anywhere. My well educated guess is that Trek's popularity is about to receive the biggest spike in its history.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Captain April said:


> For those who're saying "it's just a freakin' movie", *that's a big part of the problem!*


Well, I sort of agree, up to a point.

Here's my analogy -- A Ferrari isn't _just_ a car -- it is a work of art that transcends mere transportation (there are any number of cars you apply this to, to one degree or another -- some of which don't cost a mint, but just go with it). However, it is _still_ a car. You still have to change the oil, buy new tires now and then, and keep the plugs clean unless you're just going to let it sit in a garage. _Star Trek_ is the same to me. It isn't "just" a TV show (or movie) -- but it is _still_ a TV show. If it doesn't meet the challenge of drawing enough of an audience to be profitable enough to justify its production, it will go away -- no matter how special it might be.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> It always amuses me the extent to which the nay-sayers believe they speak for ALL die-hard TOS fans. Some of these folks made up their minds to despise Trek XI _months_ ago, before so much as a single image, publicity statement, or plot point had been released. Suffice it to say many of these guys have an agenda that has ZERO to do with judging the film on its merits; rather, they hate the _idea_ of it on principle. Fair enough. That's their right. What cracks me up is when they try to fob off their fervent, vitriolic, FANdamentalist opinion as being that of Trek fans in general.
> 
> As some of you know I work for the company that cut the Trek XI trailer, and judging from the OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE RESPONSE we've received from the _established fan community_ I can assure you there are a lot of older (mid-40's) TOS fans out there who've liked what they've seen. Whether they'll still feel that way come May remains to be seen, but in any case it should come as no surprise that most Trek fans want to see the film for themselves before rendering a verdict one way or another.


Amen, Carson. I'm only 25, but I am looking forward to it and I am excited. My dad, who just turned 53, is also very excited, and is a life long TOS fan.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> As some of you know I work for the company that cut the Trek XI trailer, and judging from the OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE RESPONSE we've received from the _established fan community_ I can assure you there are a lot of older (mid-40's) TOS fans out there who've liked what they've seen. Whether they'll still feel that way come May remains to be seen, but in any case it should come as no surprise that most Trek fans want to see the film for themselves before rendering a verdict one way or another.


Good to know you're coming at this from a totally objective viewpoint and not the least bit defensive in your remarks 

We'll see what happens in May. If it's not a huge blockbuster it's going down in flames, you know, and will reap vitriol more surely than _ST:TFF_, _Insurrection _and _Nemesis _combined. 

I was, up until I actually saw stills and clips from the film and heard factual reports of the plot, VERY enthusiastic about this movie and looking forward to it. From what I'd heard before then, it appeared that they were going to flesh out an "in between" period of _Trek _that could have a lot of fun and excitement. 

From what your company and others have helped to convey to me about the movie since then, however, I've been totally underwhelmed. I'm not interested in a so-called "fresh" perspective on _Star Trek _that *arbitrarily* turns it into something Abrams and company consider hip and cool for the "Short Attention-Span Theater" generation. If they didn't want to do _Trek_, they should have, as one of them admitted, just made a non-_Trek_ sci-fi movie if they weren't going to respect canon to any significant degree. 

This appears to be a case of someone wanting to smear his perspective all over an established mythology for no other reason than a cat sprays on a bush. It will probably reek just as bad.

I really hope I'm wrong because I don't want this to be the final nail in _Star Trek's_ coffin for the foreseeable future. However, I refuse to suffer from unwarranted optimism this time as I did for _Insurrection _and _Nemesis_ before they came out. I've been burned twice and no amount of "happy, happy, joy, joy!" talk will bring me around this time.

BTW: When I do get around to seeing it and if I am impressed by it and really like it, I'll be more than willing to admit it and praise it--just as I did (in other venues) when I came around on the new _Battlestar Galactica_. I hope the starry-eyed lads pinning their hopes for Star Trek's revival on this movie are willing to admit they were wrong if this thing crashes and burns.:thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Good to know you're coming at this from a totally objective viewpoint and not the least bit defensive in your remarks


Now, now, Lee... just because I have an open-minded opinion with regard to Trek XI doesn't mean I'm being defensive (but if it makes you feel good to spin it that way, knock yourself out). :thumbsup:

I work on a lot of movies, and if you think I drink the Kool-Aid on _any_ of them you're out of your mind -- and I mean that with all due respect.  If anything, I'm more cynical about movies than you are, by virtue of having to work on so many bad ones.

What I _do_ find mildly irritating is the oft-stated assertion that those of us who work in Hollywood must by definition be craven, disrespectful, money-grubbing jerks. As an ugly generalization, it's as misinformed as the notion that all Southerners are inbred racist alcoholics.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> As an ugly generalization, it's as misinformed as the notion that all Southerners are inbred racist alcoholics.


I'm a Southerner, you insensitive clod...
Not all of us drink....:thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

hubert said:


> I'm a Southerner...


Me too. 

Hollywood by way of Atlanta.

Worst of both worlds, I guess.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Now, now, Lee... just because I have an open-minded opinion with regard to Trek XI doesn't mean I'm being defensive (but if it makes you feel good to spin it that way, knock yourself out).


I thought the smiley face would let you know that I was _*KIDDING!*_ But if you want to be serious about it, knock yourself out  Next time I'll put ten or so smiley faces for you or just put in small print that I'm kidding if that helps. I do indeed try, sir, to convey my humourous intent.



> I work on a lot of movies, and if you think I drink the Kool-Aid on _any_ of them you're out of your mind -- and I mean that with all due respect. If anything, I'm more cynical about movies than you are, by virtue of having to work on so many bad ones.


I've always liked and respected your input on movies in the past. If I haven't made that clear, I regret that omission. I think you're healthily pessimistic about them. Please keep up the good work.



> What I _do_ find mildly irritating is the oft-stated assertion that those of us who work in Hollywood must by definition be craven, disrespectful, money-grubbing jerks. As an ugly generalization, it's as misinformed as the notion that all Southerners are inbred racist alcoholics.


How did you know that my parents are related to each other? (I have ancestors on both sides of the family going back to the very early 1800s in Pike County, Alabama and I defy* anyone **anywhere* who has family in one, even relatively large area for any length of time, to not have some distant relationship between parents. What makes me a little extra healthy genetically compared to many other folks in the area is that my father's father was from Tennessee and my mother's mother was from north Alabama.) 

I'm not racist (I have mulatto cousins, American Indian ancestry, have black acquaintances and friends and I even voted for Obama so I've pissed off all the KKK folks in the area) nor alcoholic--just can't seem to get addicted to anything despite my many attempts.

But, you definitely got me on the inbred part, so you must be at least *partially* a "craven, disrespectful, money-grubbing jerk"


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I thought the smiley face would let you know that I was _*KIDDING!*_


I _did _know you were *kidding*, Lee. Hence my own smiley face usage.

Here's another one, just in case there's any doubt:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> I _did _know you were *kidding*, Lee. Hence my own smiley face usage.
> 
> Here's another one, just in case there's any doubt:


Whew! That's good! I don't want to get you mad at me. You might delete my deleted comments!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I don't want to get you mad at me. You might delete my deleted comments!


Just tryin' to keep the peace. Given the strong passions surrounding Trek XI, that's easier said than done.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I do think the movie will be a hit. Having seen I think almost a half hour of it between the Abrams presentation and other venues, I have a bit more in the way of reservations than I did just based on the trailer. There was a lot of comedy in what Abrams showed, some of it pretty broad. It's very fast-paced, not ADD-level but frenetic at times (I wouldn't describe this as "shaky-cam" but full of fast-paced, gliding camera moves)--I'm waiting to see if there's a balance of thoughtful scenes (and ideas) along with what looks like bravura action and visual effects (I seriously doubt anyone will complain much about the Enterprise EXterior after they've seen the film--the INterior is another story because of the mix of art directed design and "found" locations that make up the interior). 

I do think the performances look very good--particularly Karl Urban, a revelation as McCoy, and Bruce Greenwood as Pike. It's a little harder to get a read on Chris Pine and Zach Quinto--there wasn't enough shown of Quinto in action but his body language and demeanor seemed right, he did get across the internal anguish Nimoy did. The Kirk scenes they showed are mostly about Kirk before he becomes the Kirk we know--and it's unclear if he EVER reaches the point of being the Kirk we know in the film. Pine was good at what he was doing, and you do see hints of Kirk there, but it's clear the idea is to give the general audience a Kirk they can relate to a bit better.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Wonder if the 'found' portions of the interior were finished shots or whether they'll be augmented digitally? There were those who were initially worried about Urban being a 'terrible' actor, but I'm hearing more and more reports that his performance is pretty much on the money. See...just goes to show, Aww Hell, never mind. It's just good to hear things are shaping up. As a famous tough guy would say 'I love it...when a plan comes together!'


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Hubert, you and I are much closer to agreeing than you might think. We agree on the passion, at least, and that Star Trek is more than "just a tv show". Or movie. There's a divergence in how we're seeing the response to it, though, that I can't quite put my finger on, and I've been wondering how to convey it. Sitting here, listening to Chris Franke's Bab5 scores, and figuring out how to spruce up a Base Star kit. I know what it means for this stuff to get into one's blood.

And I know what it is to be frustrated when Trek (or other franchises) are not (in my opinion) treated with respect by their stewards. Thgroughout the course of Voyager and Enterprise (and any of the last four films you care to include) I was one of the outspoken critics of Berman and Braga precisely beacause those shows had no passion. They were a cynical product, rigorously cleansed of ingenuity, intelligence, curiosity, and humanity. It's my belief that Berman was put in place by Paramount to supply exactly that, to ensure the lowest-common-denominator no-risks stewardship of a cash cow after DS9 was roundly rejected as "not real Star Trek - too different". 

Star Trek means something to me, certainly enough to care what becomes of it. I agree, Trek has been a moving force in popular culture for the bulk of our liftimes, for some of us all our lives (this is why I'm flabbergasted at the suggestion that Nimoy isn't recognized as an icon outside our little circle). When I watched it as a child, it was an adventure that filled my imagination. Returning to it later as an adult, I was amazed to see so many of my values and beliefs mirrored in it, and wondered how much an influence on me it may have been.

What you and I are seeing through different eyes is not Star Trek but the criticism here of thenew movie. I can imagine what moved you about Star Trek. The humnity? The boundless optimism, the faith in humankind to overcome our own lesser instincts? The overwhlming deisre to explore, to learn? I cannot read your mind, of course, but I feel sure it wasn't whether a dedication plaque read San Fransisco or Iowa. It wasn't the dry details (as important as they are) that supported the stories but the spirit that informed them. 

I do understand that the violation of those details by Abrams' script authors raises alarms (I can forgive this - honestly, I never wanted this movie to be made in the first place, but here it is...). More so, the troubling aspects of Kirk's first encounter with Uhura (as one example) are easy to sympathise with. Along with reports of sophomoric humor, this is my own largest concern. 

I _get_ the trepidation. To a degree, I share it. What I just don't get is the hyperbole - the passion - the _hatred_ for a film we have yet to know anything substantive about. This _surely_ must be better than Rick Berman's output, if for no other reason than that Abrams and his crew have a passion for what they've wrought and want to pass that passion along to their audiences. That's no small part of what has been missing from Star Trek since DS9 went off the air.

I have no idea whether the film will be good. Abrams is an admitted newcomer to Trek. He does not know what Trek means to us, nor could he. Neither did Nicholas Meyer. I didn't expect them to. I can say that what I've seen so far does not fill me with utter dread. In fat, despite misgivings, the trailer looks pretty good to me.

And for that, for not having immediately condemned the film and heaped outrageous accusations on Abrams that he is "out to piss off the fans", I'm scorned (not individually, of course) as "dripping love all over" the new film. That's a direct quote, though I don't single out whoever it was that posted it - I've nothing against him, it's merely a perfect example of the general atmosphere that's arisen here. Abrams can't be a bad director, or one whose used bad judgement - he has to be the villain of the decade, the worst thing that's ever happened to Star Trek etc. The "real" fans have already decided for me what to think - TOS is part of who I am, therefore I'm morally and mortally outraged. Either that, or I'm not a real fan.

That to me is passion gone sour. 

Anyway, we may not see eye to eye on this but I don't see the need for the enmity that some have posted with. Your own post on the matter is thoughtful and well-considered, and I applaud you for every bit of it.

Let's enjoy Thanksgiving, and deal with one turkey at a time.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> And for that, for not having immediately condemned the film and heaped outrageous accusations on Abrams that he is "out to piss off the fans", I'm scorned (not individually, of course) as "dripping love all over" the new film.


Was that me? If not, I wish it had been! What a great descriptive phrase! If we can be siad to be "heaping abuse" on the new film without having seen it, then it's appropriate to state that others are "dripping love" over it without having seen it.



> That's a direct quote, though I don't single out whoever it was that posted it - I've nothing against him, it's merely a perfect example of the general atmosphere that's arisen here. Abrams can't be a bad director, or one whose used bad judgement - he has to be the villain of the decade, the worst thing that's ever happened to Star Trek etc. The "real" fans have already decided for me what to think - TOS is part of who I am, therefore I'm morally and mortally outraged. Either that, or I'm not a real fan.


No one is telling you what to think. There is no conspiracy against you and others' opinions of the new movie. Just relax. It's not YOU that's getting the abuse no matter how much you may wish you were JJ Abrams' buddy and personal defender.

If you were angry about, say, _BSG _which I happen to love the reboot of, I would let you go for it, get it all out of your system and, above all, RESPECT your opinion. I've gushed love all over the new _BSG _but you've never seen me crawl all over, for example, Lloyd Collins for his distaste for the violation of something he holds near and dear to his heart. I fully respect the man and respect his opinions and do not take it as a personal insult to me at all. He can be as nasty as he wants about the new series and I'll bless him for it. 

I DO NOT GET this idea that if I mock, deride, criticize, whatever, something you're excited about (NEITHER OF US KNOWS IF IT IS ANY GOOD YET AS A FUN ACTION/ADVENTURE MOVIE--REGARDLESS OF _TREK _ASSOCIATIONS--OR NOT) you've got to take it personally. WTD??? Are opposing opinions not worthy of your respect?

I never said you were an idiot for thinking that this new movie will be all that and a bag of chips. It's all so freakin' subjective in what one's personal reaction to the new movie clips and ads that one must take it with a grain of salt. That's what the old "IMHO" is all about. 

If you think we've somehow "poisoned the atmosphere" with our criticisms--so what? What is it to you? Your apparently thin skin feels scorn where there is none. The only thing I've really seen going on is the vitriol against the naysayers and doubters for merely expressing their opinions. Trying to shut people up who disagree with you, no matter how negative they may be, is just not cricket, to put it politely.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Perf, I apologize if you took that as an atack. You've seen a number of people now saying they've felt browbeaten not to express any hope for this film, that we are being made to feel we have to prove our Trk creds as "real fans" if we don't already hate this film. Whether you think that impression has a basis in fact or not, you know it's there. And you know it affexts how this Bb gets along. What's it to me? It ougth to be something to you too, unless you thricve in conflict. We all ahev a vested interest in peace here, lest Hank or the mods step in. My intention was to point out what I'm seeing and hopefully explain where I'm coming from so that the chasm between the two camps might _lessen_, not increase.

I'm _not _taking it personally - I'm reporting what I'm seeing as a general atitude from some of the people criticising the movie. I understand you don't see it, but some of us do. We're seeing a huuuuuge over-reaction, and the kind of hate being aimed at Abrams that Moore was getting before BSG aired. Remember how ugly that was? We don't know that he's earned it yet. You can already see from others that I'm not the only one seeing it. And, yes, it flavors interaction at the board. I just posted what I thought was a reasonable plea - not to drop the complaints but to tone it down a little, or at least try to see where the rest of us are seeing the scorn that's been directed our way. Re-read Carson's post about the attitude in the thread: some of you guys (I haven't paid attention to who) speaking for all of Trek fandom. Treating the rest of us as lesser fans if we're not wanting Abrams tarred and feathered. The sentiment is there. It poisons the atmosphere here. The exchange between us just now is proof enough. You don't think a wait-and-see reaction being characterized as "dripping love" is dismissive? Insulting? Wildly exaggerated at least?

Again, apologies, I wasn't trying to insult you. I was trying to make a case for more civility, not less. Obviously I made a poor job of it.

It's not the criticism, It's the outraged, angry over-reaction. Not all of you guys are doing it. Unfortunately, it has been allowed to set the prevailing tone. I don't know that anyone asked you to stop criticising the film. I'd just like it to come back down to reality.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> Perf, I apologize if you took that as an atack.


NOOOOOO! That's exactly NOT what I'm saying! It was not an attack and I didn't take it that way. There's nothing personal on my part. I will debate points and such but I don't hate anyone over such trivial matters. It's a matter of interest but it's not a matter of survival



dreamer 2.0 said:


> You've seen a number of people now saying they've felt browbeaten not to express any hope for this film, that we are being made to feel we have to prove our Trek creds as "real fans" if we don't already hate this film. Whether you think that impression has a basis in fact or not, you know it's there.


I think you're inferring, at least in the case of me and several other fellows, what is not meant to be implied.

There are plenty of folks who, since ST:TNG came out, have made it plain that they despise the original series. I see where they are coming from though I disagree with them. 



> And you know it affexts how this Bb gets along. What's it to me? It ought to be something to you too, unless you thrive in conflict.


Nope, but I tolerate deep diversities of opinion and can discuss them without getting personal. A thin-skinned reaction is what I see going on here more than anything.

A attacks C

B supports C

A does not attack B

B attacks A for attacking C

A is irritated at B for its reaction




> We all have a vested interest in peace here, lest Hank or the mods step in. My intention was to point out what I'm seeing and hopefully explain where I'm coming from so that the chasm between the two camps might _lessen_, not increase.


My point is that you can be any kind of fan of anything you want and you don't have to apologize to anyone for it nor feel the least bit insecure about it. A disagreement over a bunch of TV shows or movies is just subjective opinions being aired and there should be nothing personal about it. Politics, even among fandom, should not be personally antagonistic even though based on personal preferences.



> I'm _not _taking it personally - I'm reporting what I'm seeing as a general atitude from some of the people criticising the movie.


There are plenty who are at least reacting as if they're taking it personally if they're not really taking it personally. Essentially, what I've witnessed is that the naysayers' opinions are being jumped on at every opportunity, being dismissed rather rudely on the basis that the entire movie hasn't been seen yet. 

There is plenty of solid, openly admitted evidence of the movie's art direction and story not respecting the established canon and THAT is what a lot of us are upset about. Most of us are not upset at you for supporting it. We do have a negative reaction when we're jumped on for attacking it.



> I understand you don't see it, but some of us do. We're seeing a huuuuuge over-reaction, and the kind of hate being aimed at Abrams that Moore was getting before BSG aired. Remember how ugly that was? We don't know that he's earned it yet.


And you and the others are the "Warriors of Abrams?" It's not your responsibility to bring us into line. People over-react all the time. They also under-react sometimes. Whatever. I live with it. I suggest you do the same. 



> " . . . some of you guys [are] speaking for all of Trek fandom. Treating the rest of us as lesser fans [badly?] if we're not wanting Abrams tarred and feathered. The sentiment is there.


I seriously think that mistaken assumption is your own over-reaction.



> It poisons the atmosphere here. The exchange between us just now is proof enough. You don't think a wait-and-see reaction being characterized as "dripping love" is dismissive? Insulting? Wildly exaggerated at least?


It is simply the rhetorical equivalent of "heaping abuse" that has been used to characterize the "other side." It is just as exaggerated and, I think, just as harmless. 

Honestly, if folks here are going to have skin as thin as an inflated balloon here, I'm going to go through them with pins. I don't think a little "stick" here and there is the equivalent to pouring mustard gas in your trenches. 



> Again, apologies, I wasn't trying to insult you. I was trying to make a case for more civility, not less. Obviously I made a poor job of it.


Again, no insult taken. It's just frustration on my part. Let us attack Abrams and we'll let you support him. We can do this without a "poison" atmosphere IF we respect each others' opinions and not get nasty to each other. If we get nasty towards Abrams and company, however, that's our choice and does not mean we won't respect YOU in the morning. (Abrams, on the other hand, may be a lost cause.) 



> It's not the criticism, It's the outraged, angry over-reaction. Not all of you guys are doing it.


That's our right. We should be able to express our opinions of JJ Abrams and his lack of respect towards canon, sometimes in hyperbolic terms, without your jumping on us as if we've committed an unpardonable sin. 



> Unfortunately, it has been allowed to set the prevailing tone.


You and the others who are "dripping love" all over the movie without having seen all of it can make as many posts as you want to countervail the tone you perceive here. :thumbsup:



> I don't know that anyone asked you to stop criticizing the film. I'd just like it to come back down to reality.


Have you published the "rules" yet--"This line and no further!"? 

You've just indicated that we're going too far in criticizing the movie--according to YOUR humble opinion. Again, if you blow up like a balloon, someone's going to stick a pin in you. You and the others are taking on the role of protecting JJ Abrams and he doesn't need your help. He can take all the abuse we heap on him and plenty more. 

If I refer to him as a "giant gorilla stomping over Star Trek canon" for example, does it really help for someone to jump up and say, "He is not a giant gorilla!"


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Yes, I might be well inferring what's not there. Personally I think that it _is_ - but only from a very few. More to the point, enough have said the same thing to be clear that the impression of condescencion of direspect, _is _coming across strongly, intended or not. All I'm asking - not playing thread police, it's just a request from someone who wants to get along here - that there be a little caution taken on that count. It's hard enough trying to guess someone's disposition online as it is, so when you know there's a mass disconnect going on caution seems in order.

It ain't defending Abrams to say "we're not ready to condemn the film yet." Seriously. I don't understand where that comes from. If it's bad, we will. From my vantage point, the condemnation of Abrams is starting to approach the level of hate that Ron Moore got treated to. The man received death threats, for cryin' out loud. Yes, I do think that the criticism thread is abusive toward him - that's an accurate description. That's not an accusation, it's an observation. He may deserve it. And as you say, it's your right. If he can't handle it he picked the wrong business.

"It might not suck", OTOH, does not reasonably translate to anything near adoration, which _is_ wielded with scorn. You see the disparity? It's condescending. You don't see it. Those of us it's directed at do. 

I don't disagree about him stomping on history. Or being a gorilla! It's the paranoid assertions that he's got it in for Trek fans somehow that bothers me - some of the posts of this kind, they don't read like guys who know they're venting. They sound like guys who are a little too wound up. The kind you don't want to sit next to on the bus, y'know? Afew of you ae over -the-top in that kind of way: not just fans venting but sounding the slightest bit unhinged. The kind of people you fel uncomfortable arguing with becaue they take the subject a little too personally. Abrams may be screwing up the film, but it's not really a conspiracy to piss us off. It's just ignorance.

Let me reiterate, _most_ of ithe criticism has been well considered and without rancor. It's the few that have grated on nerves.



> There are plenty of folks who, since ST:TNG came out, have made it plain that they despise the original series. I see where they are coming from though I disagree with them.


Ah! Do you think that's playing a part here? You might be right, I didn't spot it. I do run across it now and then, did plenty in the past...frankly, I wasn't looking for it. But I can see how it would be expected.




> My point is that you can be any kind of fan of anything you want and you don't have to apologize to anyone for it nor feel the least bit insecure about it. A disagreement over a bunch of TV shows or movies is just subjective opinions being aired and there should be nothing personal about it. Politics, even among fandom, should not be personally antagonistic even though based on personal preferences.



I agree, but I also lament that people don't take that to heart. Especially not on the net! I can't look at this without recalling how worked up people got arguing over the various other incarnaions of Star Trek. Same crowd, same subject. It got personal and ugly. It's a pattern. Same crowd, largely, here and worse elsewhere. I know a few people that love Voyager and Enterprise, privately, but publicly pretend to hate both shows because they feel they've been browbeaten and just don't want the hassle. Which is what I see happening again now. That's why I'm posting about it. For my part...well, when DS9 was on the air fans hated it. "Not real Star Trek! That _thing _on a space staion." The few who supported it were hit with a bias: "You don't know real Star Trek if you like _that_." A few years after being told that I don't like TOS, I'm being told by angry Voyager and Enterprise fans (becaue I criticized it) that "You just don't want change! You don't like it because your precious Roddenberry had nothing to do with it." Oy vey. I mean, this was directed at whole segmments of fandom from one to another, not me personally. Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't have any hope that this time is anything different. The Trek fans have a history I have to take into account.

Anyway, that's the lens I'm seeing it through. I hope I'm wrong, but doubtful that's the case.

(Sigh), like I said before, I _get_ the vehemence. Rick Berman, yada yada yada. I've been on your side of it before. But the vitriol is feeding a growing divide I'd rather not see yet again. You don't sound as if you want the fans at each others' throats either. I don't give a Tribble's butt about the criticism, except for the stuff I mentioned above, and not because I'm upset on Abrams behalf. It upsets me because it makes us _all_ look like a bunch of friggin' loons en masse. I care about how we fans treat each other. If we can manage to do that well, I'd also like to hold my head up as a Trek fan without people crossing the sidewalk when they see me coming. It's been a while, because fandoms of all sorts keep getting ugly these days.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I have to say that I am astounded and confounded at the sheer level of hatred that's being directed at this film, a lot of it before we even saw _anything_ in the way of pictures and when that first picture of the "new-but-old _Enterprise_ (???) well, for some, that was it.

FOR THE RECORD... I do NOT hate the new designs as we've seen. I'm not blind and it's clear that this new _Enterprise_ is nothing like the original _Enterprise_.

However, I do want to see the movie first, to see just what has been done, how the story will play out.

Ever since the criticism thread was created along with it's opposite, I have stayed out of those. I cannot believe that I am seeing people whipped up to such a frenzy over this!!!!

This will be the only word I will ever have to say on this subject. I have been withdrawing from most of the forums lately because of this - not that I've posted much anyway, but this is really just too much. I used to think that despite our passion, most _Trek_ fans were a level-headed bunch who would take the time to think things through.

I guess I was sadly mistaken.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> Ah! Do you think that's playing a part here? You might be right, I didn't spot it. I do run across it now and then, did plenty in the past...frankly, I wasn't looking for it. But I can see how it would be expected.


Maybe.

I think I see a case of a few of the same folks looking for an excuse to rumble. Just as you're making a plea for toning down the rhetoric, I'm making a plea to folks on either side to not over-react to these and others who have jumped on the bandwagon. 

When you're dealing with upset folks, IMHO, you just have to let them ventilate. Forgive them for some of their hyperbole and don't take it too personally. After that initial reaction, you can get some calmer, more logical thinking out of those who may have reacted very emotionally at first. Time may not heal all wounds but a little patience does make for better conversation.

As I've already said, I may totally change my mind about the new movie when I see it. It happened with _BSG_, though a very different situation, and it may happen here. I do have an open mind in that regard. 

I'm just saying so far, what's been exposed, does not thrill me (okay, that *is* an understatement ) and does not put me in line on opening day by any means. I may be dragged to it at some point by a friend of mine who wants to see it and will at least post a review on my MySpace.com webspace.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

WarpCore Breach said:


> I have to say that I am astounded and confounded at the sheer level of hatred that's being directed at this film, a lot of it before we even saw _anything_ in the way of pictures and when that first picture of the "new-but-old _Enterprise_ (???) well, for some, that was it . . . Ever since the criticism thread was created along with it's opposite, I have stayed out of those. I cannot believe that I am seeing people whipped up to such a frenzy over this!!!!


This is the first time that a major reset has, to such an obvious degree, negated the original series. People love the product that has come before and they're bound to be upset.



> This will be the only word I will ever have to say on this subject. I have been withdrawing from most of the forums lately because of this - not that I've posted much anyway, but this is really just too much. I used to think that despite our passion, most _Trek_ fans were a level-headed bunch who would take the time to think things through.
> 
> I guess I was sadly mistaken.


If fans (or fanatics) were too level-headed, they wouldn't be fanss. The love for and attraction to the series is, no matter how one may try to rationalize it, basically emotional at its core. Passion, as in love affairs, can be intense love--or intense hatred if scorned. Love and hate are two sides of the same coin in emotional terms. 

So, ironically, the level of passion here among some simply indicates their great love for the original series despite what others may see as a portion of _Trek _that is so seriously flawed as to be nearly irrelevant to the rest of the _Trek _series.

It doesn't mean the rest of fandom is wrong--they just happen to have an affection for a different part of the whole franchise. :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I hope that folks on both sides of the equation here will take a step back and respect the thoughts and opinions of others. Just because I don't agree w/the criticism that's being brought to bear on the new movie doesn't mean that I have to get nasty and criticize the "nay sayers". Yeah, I've done some of that a few weeks ago, but had to step back from blasting at others when they don't deserve it for having their opinion. 

However, as both a member of these forums and a moderator, there are those of you whom need to remember that this is still a family oriented forum. There are young folks who come here - most w/their children - who don't need to see where people are using words to describe how their childhood and/or memories were "pillaged", but using the alternate words that mean the same thing - and are of a much more adult nature. Please keep that sort of stuff in mind when you're posting and/or creating Polls and use those words - or you'll force Carson Dyle, myself or Hank to take action. 

Contrary to popular belief, I'd much rather just sit back and enjoy the posts that most of you make on a regular basis. I do _not_ enjoy having to make these "speeches" and/or BAN someone.




PerfesserCoffee said:


> As I've already said, I may totally change my mind about the new movie when I see it. It happened with _BSG_, though a very different situation, and it may happen here. I do have an open mind in that regard.


I'd argue that it's actually very much the same. There were actually even _more_ radical changes on the BSG "reboot". Heck, the changes are what got a lot of "purist" TOS Fans (I use the term because I'm a fan of TOS BSG, but also love TNS BSG!) all spooled up and bitter because they were making it such a different show, w/characters changing sex and/or race, such as with Boomer now being an Asian female. The changes w/this TOS reboot aren't quite as extreme as what appearred in TNS - if it's really a reboot and not some sort of alternate timeline story, as I still think it might well be. 

Or maybe hope that it will be....


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Captain April said:


> For those who're saying "it's just a freakin' movie", *that's a big part of the problem!*
> 
> They've taken something that used to have serious cultural impact and turned it into "just a freakin' movie."


'Serious cultural impact'? 'Serious cultural impact'? I remember when Mark Hamill said 'Star Wars' was as significant as a road-runner cartoon. I could say the same of Trek. ITS JUST A TV SHOW. MOVIE. Whatever. Yes, I've loved it since I was 12, but it's not 'serious cultural impact'. It's a HOBBY.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> . . some sort of alternate timeline story, as I still think it might well be.
> 
> Or maybe hope that it will be....


Yeah, I *hope* you're right. But there's a lot more hope involved than realism there, considering Hollywood's record in such things.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jodet said:


> 'Serious cultural impact'? 'Serious cultural impact'? I remember when Mark Hamill said 'Star Wars' was as significant as a road-runner cartoon. I could say the same of Trek. ITS JUST A TV SHOW. MOVIE. Whatever. Yes, I've loved it since I was 12, but it's not 'serious cultural impact'. It's a HOBBY.



I prefer to regard it as an "inspirational future mythology." It's more than just a TV show precisely because it has more meaning than that put into it by the fans. It's impact on our culture has been huge even among non-fans just judging from the socio-cultural impact on our language and arts.

Just about everyone in America and much of Europe and many other countries knows what "warp speed" is and are familiar with the phrase, "Beam me up, Scotty!"--to name just two examples.

Also, a lot of folks claim to have become interested in science and engineering based on their love of the show. I take them at their word in the matter.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. On one level it *is* just a bunch of TV shows and movies but they do encompass a mythology that is beloved by many and that mythological impact has been serious just as the myths retold by people over the eons have given inspiration and special meaning to people's lives and actions.

Besides which, all those English and other literature majors have to have had some motivation to give such high regards to mere stories than just getting a degree. :tongue:


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Gotta agree with the good Perfesser on that. Trek still has a grip on popular cutlure today, and we hardly need to be reminded of all the stories of it's impact on people's lives from the practical to the inspirational.

I do have to balance that with a recognition of the process and practicalities of crafting a new movie or series, from the studio board to the artistic bent of the artisans involved. They're not going to be on our wavelength a lot of the time. Scott Baxter expressed it pretty well. So did Doug Adams - it's like having tea and no tea at the same time. Yes, it's _just_ a tv show. _Yes_, it's _not_ just a tv show. It has meaning (which we endow it with), it has impact, but it's not worth becoming destructive over.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> . . . So did Doug Adams - it's like having tea and no tea at the same time. Yes, it's _just_ a tv show. _Yes_, it's _not_ just a tv show. It has meaning (which we endow it with), it has impact, but it's not worth becoming destructive over.


Very good point and very well stated, sir! :thumbsup:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

The one thing about Trek and popular culture was that when Trek first started out, it was indeed just a TV show and a short lived one at that. Trek didn't really find it's way into popular culture until it was syndicated in the 70's. That's when it really took off and made it's mark. In general, the original series is what propelled Trek into popular culture. The series that followed just rode the wave once it started.

I guess the really interesting bit is that Trek is the one SciFi franchise that has had an exceedingly long life. Because of that long life, all of the films and all of the series, Trek is so ingrained into modern popular culture, a lot of people can't even imagine Trek not being there any more.

Even if this film never got made, Trek would still be around in some fashion. When you look at all the internet Trek series....Hidden Frontier, New Voyages, Exeter, etc., Trek never really went away. It just passed back into the hands of the fans. One thing that I will say about online Trek is that it is some of the best Trek in a lot of ways. The online series are Trek made by people that love Trek and they make it for themselves and others that love Trek as well - which is what makes it so bloody good.

I'm a bit dubious about this new film, but I really hope that it's better than it feels (to me) so far. Only time will tell, eh?

Bryan


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Gemini1999 said:


> The online series are Trek made by people that love Trek and they make it for themselves and others that love Trek as well - which is what makes it so bloody good.


Well, you had me until this sentence. 

No one loves TOS more than I, but the fan produced efforts I've seen have made me want to stick hot pokers in my eyes (that, or gouge my eyes out with a spoon; I go back and forth). 

Of course it's just one man's opinion, but the aforementioned fan efforts make a compelling case for keeping said fans in front of the TV instead of behind the camera.



dreamer 2.0 said:


> ...the condemnation of Abrams is starting to approach the level of hate that Ron Moore got treated to. The man received death threats...


So has Abrams. 

I'm all for Trek as a pop-cultural force to be reckoned with, but the day it becomes a zealotry-inciting _religion_ is the day I toss my collection of Captain Kirk action-figures on the bonfire.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Well, you had me until this sentence.
> 
> No one loves TOS more than I, but the fan produced efforts I've seen have made me want to stick hot pokers in my eyes (that, or gouge them out with a spoon; I go back and forth).
> 
> Of course it's just one man's opinion, but the aforementioned fan efforts make a compelling case for keeping said fans in front of the TV instead of behind the camera.


Glad you said it. I was biting my tongue to keep the peace. :thumbsup:


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

Science FICTION.......
Not nearly enough perspective from some on this issue. Vitriol should have no place for an occasion such as this - a movie company heaping $$$$$$$$s onto a tired franchise that even though we love it is in dire need of a professional makeover.
We stand every chance of being given an epic story, epic style and a new life line for something we ALL hold very dear. Considering that we have hundreds of hours of TOS in one form or another to go back and enjoy this seams much better than the alternative - which is Trek quietly dying with its loyal fan base.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, most of my cinicism comes from seeing the kind of output the film and TV industry has put out with regards to prequels and remakes, and how bad I thought the last few Trek films were. In Trek XI we have all those things combined - a remake of an old TV show like Starsky & Hutch or Mod Squad, a prequel like Enterprise, and another Trek movie, all at the same time. 

That concrete past experience certainly informed my cinicsim before I saw anything of the film. 

Then hearing some fairly arrogant public statements from Abrams about not caring about the fans and screwing with established background right off the bat certainly didn't build any enthusiasm in me.

And of course seeing that they'd redesigned the iconic ship I've loved, studied, and built models of for 40 years, and turned it into an ugly modern industrial sculpture, simpley made me angry.

Mind you, the ONLY things I'm carrying on about are the uglifying of the ship, and the breaches of established lore. The quality of the story and performances, obviously, are yet to be seen, and I will not say anything about that until I've seen them (although, yes, I'm the one who thinks Karl Urban stunk up the screen during his appearances on Xena).

Again, it's the industry's track record that makes me cinical. In the past few decades the only good remakes I can think of are The Addams Family and NuBSG, and I can't think of one prequel I liked. Trek XI may be the next Addams Family/NuBSG, who knows? That'd be great. But given the odds, I'm afraid it's more likely to be Wild Wild West or Bionic Woman.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

NJFNick said:


> . . . Trek quietly dying with its loyal fan base.


What a sweet and lovely thought to express! Thank-you! :thumbsup: 

I'll try to hang on long enough to see the movie.






John P said:


> Well, most of my cynicism comes from seeing the kind of output the film and TV industry has put out with regards to prequels and remakes, and how bad I thought the last few Trek films were. In Trek XI we have all those things combined - a remake of an old TV show like Starsky & Hutch or Mod Squad, a prequel like Enterprise, and another Trek movie, all at the same time.
> 
> That concrete past experience certainly informed my cynicsim before I saw anything of the film.
> 
> ...


B-b-but, John, they're changing everything so it's GOT to be better!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

That's it, Lee. I thought we covered this in PM about taking jabs at the folks who have a more positive outlook about the movie. All comments like these do is to get those folks riled up. 

*Thread Locked.*


----------

