Brand new Star Trek prequel pics and trailer The eagerly anticipated new Star Trek film is set to enthrall some and enrage others with a young, spunky cast, vicious fights and sex scenes. A new trailer and new pics from the forthcoming film were released online earlier this week, further fuelling the excitement of Trekkies around the world ahead of the film's release on …
I'm sorry they didn't push the boat out and have the interplanetary love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name fuel that fistfight between the Captain and his First Officer. That would have been fun. But then, what to do about Uhuru?? Or is space love a many-splendored thing?
Full of trendy sexy 20 something's who will be the face of some new trainer that all the kids will be wearing in 6 months time.
Perhaps buffy the vampire slayer in space is more apt. absolutely apaling. I dont know how to express enough disgust in words for this movie, and I cant place some of my feces online so Il just go watch StarTrek VI: The undiscovered country and think about what was and the legacy that is being destroyed.
I am from there. There is no cliff like this, except on the western edge, where there would be the flood-plain of the Missouri river stretching out into the distance. They still are not quite like that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess_Hills)
Perhaps it is a big quarry, now abandoned in the saccharin-sweet eco-friendly Federation daze. They never hesitated to axe-grind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_of_Nature_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation))
...or does this look completely pants...
im not a big fan of star trek, but i did like wrath of khan..KHAN..... (sorry)
anyway, this just looks rubbish and what i have heard from real fans is the same..
what the F*ck is up with hollywood, they are messing up all the old movies one at a time...
the thing with star trek is there are so many fans you cant really go wrong, can you?
btw i was once at a 'free' screening of a star trek movie and had to suffer the embarrassment of being the only person in the screen no dressed up in star trek garb...
The trailers and pictures make this seem like it could actually be a good movie.
For any Trek fans waiting for the new Star Trek film, I would recommend they check out http://www.startrekofgodsandmen.net/main/. This is an online fan film starring many former Star Trek alumni, including Chekov and Uhurra.
Well, that looks good. The Register didn't really do it justice with the scene by scene description. The neat stuff:
the believability of the universe (background detail, costumes, dialogue)
the quality of the action (cinematography, cgi, speed+clarity)
the sound effect at the end, and the font of the title
They've done a good job _on the trailer_
Let's see what the film is like now...
I think it sucks. This confirms all the fears I had about this production, that they were going to sex the whole thing up to the detriment of what the original goddamn concept was to begin with. Truly a Trek movie to suit the present age.
Shit sandwich.
Although, I regret to say, I will probably be compelled to see it, being a Trekker and all...
So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear?
You may not share our intellect
Which might explain your disrespect
For all the natural wonders that
grow around you
So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish
The genre's about to be destroyed
There's no point getting all annoyed
Lie back and let the series dissolve
Despite those nets of tuna fleets
We thought that most of you were sweet
Especially tiny tots and your
pregnant women
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish
(yeah)
So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear?
(oh dear)
Despite those nets of tuna fleets
We thought that most of you were sweet
Especially tiny tots and your
pregnant women
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish
Mine's the one with the TOS dvd's in the pocket.
...was my optimism for this film dying. I remember a time when Trek tried to be thoughtful, where the biggest draw (for me at least) was the character interaction and where action was something that happened when it was important to the plot. This looks like the kind of movie designed to cater to people with shorter attention spans and is a lot heavier on the, err, action than I recall the Trek of my youth. Someone else called this Star Trek 90210 and I can't think of a better way to express my reaction to the trailer than that.
Of course I'll probably go to see it anyways, though maybe not for the reason the producers intend. If it's as awful as I'm now afraid it might be, it will be worth the price of a ticket just to heckle the film.
If you want the original series, try http://www.startreknewvoyages.com
Here you will find one of the BEST fan takes on Trek ever, with Trek alumni guesting in episodes written by original Trek authors (eg: DC Fontana, David Gerrold). One of their episodes "World Enough & Time" guest-starring Walter "Chekov" Koenig, was nominated for this years Hugo awards, against Doctor Who, Torchwood & Battlestar Galactica! (Doctor Who - "Blink" won).
Their premise is to make the 1969 (4th) series of Kirk-era Trek, and then go on into the aborted Star Trek:Phase II.
After seeing what he did with MI3 + the delay in release (due to the studio wanting to hit a Summer 2009 release) which always gives the film makers some time to tweak + a kick-ass trailer (and it does look cool to me) and you gotta think that JJ might just pull it off.
I hope so. If you really think about it, the best they could come up with in the last movie was Data's "heroic death" - as, basically, a tripod.
And please - no singing.
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/
Three full length episodes already made of "series 4". They rebuilt the sets to look as exact as possible to the originals and the technology was kept at TOS levels too.
They have had Walter Koenig (Chekov) and George Takei (Sulu) as main characters in the stories too.
The trailers show the ship being put together with antiquated arc welders and Kirk's fingers providing better traction than four skidding car tires. Then the ships smash together over and over like a child playing with toys. Did Vin Diesel turn down the role of Kirk?
>Leonard Nimoy makes a cameo as the older Spock during a scene with his human mother played by Winona Ryder<
So she's, what, some 300 years old then? - tho' I do like Winona.
The bridge of the Enterprise looks like the makeup section of my local Debenhams.
Obviously I'll watch it (I do love me some spaceships and Trek), but not holding any great expectations - whilst Cloverfield was all right, I hated all the characters - except for the younger brother who died too early, and after watching the first episode of 'Lost' I knew it would start to annoy me with unexplained mysteries, so never bothered with it.
But building the Enterprise, giant space battles, expensive special effects - I'll just do what I did with the 'reimagined' War of the worlds, zone out Tom Cruise and hateful children (yea, I hated the girl and the boy - he so should have died when he went over that hill), and just enjoy the FX.
You're from the future Iowa, then? The one where they build spaceships on the ground and have robot cops on hoverbikes?
As for the movie, the interior design of the Enterprise looks super-cheap (Shiny floors? Get out), but the space battles and the chick getting naked look pretty good, which is about all I demand of Star Trek. The fun bit is watching hardcore Treknerds working themselves up into a frenzy of disgust at how their beloved franchise has been bum-raped, even though they should be used to it by now.
Look, those of you complaining are making too many assumptions without seeing the film.
Trailers usually fall into two camps - they either have all the best bits of the film, and the film turns out to be crap (Matrix 2 is a good example), or the trailer understates the film and it turns out OK (LOTR). Either way, judging a film solely based on it's trailer isn't worth a damn.
As for whether it is Star Trek or not, move on, get a life. It's a brave attempt to put some life into something that is somewhat stale. Nay sayers bad mouthed Casino Royale without seeing the film, and it turned out to be one of the best James Bond films ever.
Live long and prosper.
Good trailer. Looks like it might actually be an entertaining movie, which in the context deserves well to be mentioned. Though I thought "entertaining" was identified as a Trek-taboo so once they discovered Enterprise was actually fun to watch they canned it. From the trailer, the bridge will not reek of stale pee mingled with old spice, which is nice.
One of the things I always loved about Star Trek (coming from a non-Trekkie perspective) was that it was a great reflection of the times. Original Star Trek: 60's view of the future. TNG: 90's view.
Then suddenly everyone decided retro was a good idea. Enterprise was (I say, only having seen about one episode) so bogged down with matching up to the existing story that it just felt flat to me... and now they're making a new film based around the original series. Why?!
I'd watch a new series of Trek. Based after the existing shows so it can tell it's own stories. Plus, I want to see things like the Borg, damnit. They're the only villian I give a crud about...
Bad
Kirk kid driving a car off a cliff
Cop with a cheesy sounding synthasised voice and Boba Fett wannabee mask
James Tiberius Kirk announcing name like a James Bond wannabee
Good
Hoverbike
Beaming down bit looked fresh
Uhura
CGI battle sequences in space
What this all tells me
This film is going to be stuffed with more cheese than a cheese stuffed crust on a pizza.
There are going to be loads of cheesy one liners, plot holes, pointless scenes, a decent story in amongst it all (but only for a small portion of the film).
A lot of ideas will be scraped directly off all of their most *successful sci-fi movies inc Demolition Man, Matrix, Starship Troopers, Transformers etc etc.
They might even scrape a few ideas from Judge Dredd.
In short
I'm going to like the CGI and Uhura, I'm going to hate the storyline and hate even more these dumb ass studios who continuously fuck over and destroy the image of classic after classic.
Hitchhikers is my favourite example of their fucktardiness and shitbuggery.
Fuck them.
Hate hate hate hate hate hate haaaaate !!
(Thanks Kefka FF6).
In the original series there is a rare episode in which the crews' brains/emotions are manipulated by that week's bad guys. During this Kirk is "made" to kiss Uhura erotically. It was so scandalous in its day that the US networks did not show it very often and at the time the BBC did not show it all. It may the first white-black kiss on network television.
So now its revealed that they had a major bonk of their own volition - that would have melted the TVs in the 60s.
bloody hell the youth of the bridge crew is just fucking stupid. WTF is wrong with these people?
that cliff scene has to be the most stupidly contrived scene i've seen in a long time. he's not reckless, he's a bell-end.ooh right to the edge of the cliff by his fingertips... cmon. if i want to watch silly childrens movies i'd watch james bond.
im no trekkie, the films are ok, the shows are generally alright if theres bugger all else on, but this film just looks like they about to break out in song.
The odd movies suck and the even ones are usually decent.
The eye-candy looks good, but given the "Cloverfield" credentials (damn... that movie was piss poor in spite of the very limited monster effects) I doubt there will be a real story. I'll go see it for the effects/space battles, but I'll stick with the lower expectations on story.
Problems I seem to have from the trailer:
1. All the young people. It's fine for porn, but not on a military/science vessel.
2. Why would Kirk almost get himself killed driving a car off a cliff? I would think a stint in juvenile detention would dash his hopes of command later in life.
3. Why build a SPACESHIP on the ground. Is it that much easier to self launch the completed thing over the parts?
4. Sex with your staff. I thought Kirk was smart enough to have sex only with non-crew members.
5. Too many story lines seem to be present (there's only so much 'teen' angst you want to see in a movie... before getting to the bad guy).
Why not just make a two hour movie of space battles without any people being shown. Just a nice, CGI budgeted eye-candy fest of some famous Star Trek battle(s). Does the Trek franchise feel the need to pull a George Lucas!
The original series was a little hokey at times (with some questionable acting) but overall, it didn't rely on special effects to carry it through.
...and a film fan in general, I think this looks fantastic. A big budget, special effects galore, Simon Pegg ( :D ) and coolness in abundance. What is there not to like? If you want to wank over plot lines and historical accuracy, go and watch your TNG DVDs.
I for one shall definitely be off to see this when it comes out.
It is all so overdone. The original STAR TREK series really said and did it all, although the sets were a little cheesie. Let it stand for what it was and die a dignified death. This is like looking through your own vomit to see what you had for dinner last and if any of it is salvageable SICK! Give it up! Boldly go where no man has gone before Good luck!
I was a bit disappointed to hear it was a prequel film originally, but this trailer has changed my mind.
Looks visually interesting, might stimulate a new series being created too.
Could the ravine not be the trench left by the big laser thing from the start of S2 of Enterprise?
For me, Trek is about what humanity can do if it sets aside its prejudice, bickering and greed-inducing monetary system, and then layered on that how human interactions change/remain in this new epoch.
I'll be happy with ships exploding realistically. A reworking of TOS with more TNG seriousness would bea good thing, not to mention modern effects. None of this "what is this Earth thing you call "kissing"" crap.
As for Cloverfield.. you barely get to see the only good character in it (the monster); The online hype-generating content was completely removed from the content of the film and the film itself barely touched upon the monster's.. anything. Near invulnerability, some parasites. No real motive for destruction rampage. Not very fulfilling. A follow on about the world living with monster attacks and survivors fighting back would be very welcomed.
hmmm silar plays leonard nimoy... dammit, spock... and everyone moans that they expect him to point his finger at people and instead of performing a vulcan mind probe he decides to laser their skull off and inhale their brains... whilst for me it was the other way around... watching heroes season one (episode 22 - landslide) and sweet little Hero, after breaking his sword, goes to find a sword repair shop (well - this is america, of course there is one nearby) and lo - isn't that dood in the back room a tad familiar - and all I could giggle was... 'beam me up'.
Anything that involves that over rated under talented egomanic JJ Abrams is bound to be utter crap...
If you want someone to arse a perfectly good story get this clown involved...
This twat is more interested in how clever he can make himself look and what a bunch of brain dead pimple faced sheeple thinks is cool - as opposed to what actually is...
That scene had me thinking about something else but in a similar vein.
*IF* the world is so sophisticated by then (400+ years) how would a "brat" who stole a car ever make it to a captain of a stair ship? I am just thinking about the endless testing that you would have to go through just to get into the Star Fleet Academy. The record of stealing a car would be impossible to hide and would disqualify anyone to get into any service by then. To me that alone makes this film more gibberish than anything else.
I see the moaning minnies are out in force, complaining about things even before they see it. I used to run an ST fanclub. When TNG came out the original series' fans in the club panned it for not being Kirk & Spock. When DS9 came out the other series' fans panned it because it was a spacestation and so couldn't "boldly go anywhere". When Voyager came out it was panned for having a politically correct crew list (qua ethnicity). Enterprise was rounded upon for not being Kirk & Spock. Sigh.
I for one like the look of the trailer. I'm especially happy with Quinto who at least passes for looking like a young Nimoy and who seems to be happily running with the original interpretation of Spock (emotional - see the pilot).
Given that ST preaches tolerance for the most part, I'm always amazed that ST fans are so intolerant.
It may well turn out to suffer from the "odd-number" curse - that said Nemesis was desperately disappointing - but at least don't condemn it out of hand before you've seen it.
James T was the only person in Starfleet academy to win the "no-win" scenario. He reprogrammed the computer. Does that ball of teenage angst look like the guy who pulled off that stunt?
And Spock would have calmed down a lot before joining a crew, he served under Cpt Pike before James T took over.
Also, after they qualified, they would not be given a ship and sent on their merry way. They would have been ensigned to other vessels and would have been learning there.
Its too teenage, but I will watch it regardless
Gene Roddenbery must be spinning in his grave. I have had trouble believing just how soon after his death that Rick Berman allowed Gene's vision to be so utterly betrayed, first with crap like Nemesis and then with this piece of awful box-office begging.
I truly resent Rick for what he has done. He may be god-awful, but at least J J Abrams has the excuse of not having seen Star Trek before starting to direct its films.
Burn Rick, Burn!
How the hell is Kirk a starship CAPTAIN at his apparent age? He looks younger than Wesley Crusher! Uhura is barely legal and Spock clearly hasn't started shaving yet.
Will give this a wide miss. Still got 40 hours of TNG on the Sky+ so no need to get out to see this.
F-ing GRAVITAS, bitches.
That comment reminds me of when "Enterprise" first aired. Once the first episode finished, I got a text from a mate saying:
"Great stuff. Nice silicones on the Vulcan"
My response, which got his phone a Stella Artois respray, was:
"Those aren't silicone. They're some advanced type of alien tit-enhancement technology that the Vulcans don't think we're ready for yet."
"Lost" was (IMHO) crap. A load of make-it-up-as-you-go bollocks designed to string viewers along with a load of "mysteries" that even the writers didn't know the answers to. Cloverfield was a 10 minute short stretched well beyond credibility.
Given those two examples of JJ Abrams talent, I don't hold out any great hope of this Trek film satisfying either Trekkers *or* anyone who appreciates a good story. About the only people who will go for this are the suckers who were taken in by Lost.
As to Simon Pegg's Scottish Accent; well, James Doohan couldn't do a decent Scottish accent, either, so as long as Pegg's duff accent matches Doohan's then at least *one* thing will be 'authentic' to the original.
"Could the ravine not be the trench left by the big laser thing from the start of S2 of Enterprise?"
No, that was in Florida and points south.
[ http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Expanse_(episode) ]
So my question is just this: why is JJ Abrams still walking around alive?
I mean, I don't expect hardcore Lost fans to do anything about the four years of their lives they've wasted on that asshole's disjointed opium-and-crystal-meth fantasies; the fact that they've stuck with the show that long proves they're totally sad and can't be expected to act in their own best interests.
But what about the rest of us? You know, the people with taste? The people who won't allow any random self-enthralled Hollywood jerkoff to squirt his acrid asparagus-tasting load onto our tonsils, just for the privilege of pretending to be part of some big secret that would give our lives meaning if only it wasn't all made up in the dubiously competent brain of a rich twenty-something coke fiend while he was getting a blowjob from a $1000-an-hour call girl. Look at what our inaction has wrought! How did we ever let it come to this?
I'm sure I won't pass up seeing it, but I doubt I'll bother seeing it in the theatre. Shame to destroy a centuries-old Corvette--there can't be all that many of them left in the future. Sounds like Kirk would be paying that off for a long time. In the series, starships never landed, so as so many others have mentioned, why would they ever be built on the ground?
And a rollicking adventure is nice, but it's a shame that they've apparently replaced some of the philosophy and elegance of the series with 'shoot em' up' action. But that's the trend, isn't it? It seems that all video games these days are either shooters or driving games. Nothing new and creative there, and doubtful anything creative about the new Trek movie. Maybe at least it will turn some of the current generation on to the original two series', where they may go "Wow, it has a plot, I've heard about plots before but never seen one" All in all, an episode of Atlantis is probably better than this movie will be. (and they're ending this series, which pisses me off!)
I'm sure you could power a warp drive if you could harness the energy of Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave...
"And for a moment we forget that Simon Pegg couldn't even do an authentic American accent in Band of Brothers"
To be fair that goes for 2/3rds of the (predominantly British) cast of BoB - inc. Damian Lewis, who I see has managed to swing a major part in some new yankeee drama show I can't be arsed to recall the name of...!
Every generation has it's own take on Shakespeare so why not Star Trek? The only niggles I have are that it's supposedly a time travel story (i.e. an utter cop-out) designed to shoe-horn Nimoy in,) and young Kirk destroying a Corvette. The rest of it looks like great fun.
This post has been deleted by its author
I guess it's a question of taste, but I thought it was frankly crap, between whatsername blowing up for no reason, the fact that the monster itself was never even *slightly* explained -- I mean, okay, something goes unexpectedly smashing through New York -- no great loss there, by the way -- then I suppose I can see how, at least for a couple hours, things would be totally confused and everybody would basically just be running for their lives and not stopping to figure out anything. I can see that being realistic but that isn't the same as saying it'd make a movie I want to watch -- I mean, okay, verite and that, but let's try to explain *something* so I can feel like I haven't wasted my time on a bunch of painfully disjointed action sequences that not only don't make sense, but will *never* make sense, because the director didn't bother to provide enough information about anything to even *begin* to be useful.
And why is it necessary for every single movie that comes out of Hollywood any more to be peopled with these inhumanly perfect physical specimens? I mean, when was the last time you saw a movie where somebody had a mole, or, or a pimple -- *any* kind of facial eruption or asymmetry at all -- that *didn't* have an entire subplot revolving around it? Cloverfield loses points there too -- you don't go through a frantic escape, refugee pickup, friend-exploding bit, followed by more incomprehensible nonsense, and *still* have perfect hair. Unless, of course, you're in a completely crap movie.
Now, I don't want to sound like I'm just entirely out to run the movie down. True, I can demonstrate that Abrams has never in his miserable, misbegotten life ever even *worked on* anything that was better than "marginally watchable", with half a point's grace awarded in the case of "Regarding Henry", which frankly has to have been a fluke and was a long time ago besides. But I have to say that there are some good things about "Cloverfield", to wit: for one thing, it's a lot quicker to watch than "Lost", and the payoff seems to be about the same; they both seem to be about equally incomprehensible, and neither seems to have any characters at all who're even vaguely approaching the neighborhood of 'sympathetic', but at least it takes a lot less time to get through a feature-length movie than through four increasingly self-indulgent, reentrant, and frankly appalling seasons of what even those Wachowski assholes might recognize as a masturbatorily piss-poor attempt to take a brain-dead pile of limp story-spaghetti and tart it up with the cheap marinara sauce of a hard-core pothead's excuse for philosophy -- it's, like, totally deep, man, you just don't understand, you know?
There was probably another good thing I was going to say about Cloverfield, but I can't remember what it was.
Oh yeah! He somehow managed to leave out most all the stoner philosophy in that one -- no mystic mandalas or Yin-Yang symbols or trigrams or what-have-you, just good old...well, incomprehensible garbage, I guess. But at least it didn't drag into itself a bunch of innocently bystanding symbols which might actually at one time have *had* some kind of real significance, before being sucked dry by our modern reality with its rapacious appetite for anything and everything which might for one ephemeral instant afford it the illusion of meaning. And, of course, one of the chief leaders and standard bearers of this vampiric hologram in which we live is Hollywood, here effigied in the person of JJ Abrams, who has finally, after a long and effortful career working his way up to the top of Hollywood, managed to shit all over something that people other than Abrams and his drooling-moron fans care about -- the trailer linked into the article is sufficient evidence, I think, of that.
And that's why I don't like Cloverfield.
Ok, I am a big Trekkie, I have ALL of the DVDs and even had a uniform when a was younger. Been to the Star Trek Experience (RIP) in Vegas twice (I'm from the UK). I think you get the picture.
But I am looking forward to this film and hope it does not try to mirror the Star Treks before it. Enterprise was quite good, but as someone said earlier it sometimes fell over when it tried to fit into the jigsaw of holes that the other series' has made.
I really wouldn't mind a complete re-boot of Star Trek, using the same concepts but not stuck too ridged to the other story lines. And you do have to use your imagination... the design and effects used in the 1960s came from the 1960s, they look really out of date today "Toggle switches on Enterprise contol panels... what happened to touch screen". Thats why the technology seems to run in reverse!
I also understand that JJ Abrams is trying to recruit (forgive the phrase) the next generation of Star Trek fans. So this film has to apeal to a greater audience. Enterprise was cancelled because it wasn't very popular even amongst Trekkies. Hopefully JJ will generate enough interest in Star Trek as a whole and keep Star Trek going for another 50 years.
Who knows whether the next series will be based on the original crew (like this film) or will be set after Voyager. But it will be a lot of fun when it comes!
I have seen some of the New Voyages stuff and I must admit I was surprised how good it was coming from fans with too much time on their hands. Of Gods and Men was brilliant. Although the guy who plays Kirk in New Voyages is really annoying. Get rid of him (and the corny lines that they recycle from the TOS) then it will be worthy is Star Trek cannon imho.
I also wouldn't mind seeing a darker side to Star Trek. A horror film perhaps set in the Trek universe but will a real scary story and a few deaths (a-la Event Horizon). They have never really done that on Trek (although First Contact could be scary).
Gaz.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
