And Suddenly STAR TREK Is Relevant Again.

Reader Comments

1. Rhythm-X 11/17/2008 @ 7:49pm

   Reasonable, but it looks like the Earth-set portions are going to be retarded as hell.  Building a starship that wasn’t ever meant to land on the surface of a planet in Iowa is borderline unforgivable.  Everyone knows the Enterprise was build in geosynchronous orbit over San Fransisco.

2. MikeEverleth 11/17/2008 @ 8:49pm

   It’s a weird trailer because the first scene of Kirk as a kid is so long and seemingly pointless, at least in a promotional regard. The action scenes look decent, but it really doesn’t give a sense of what the story or the whole film will be like. I’d rather have gotten a better sense of Pine as Kirk than an extended sequence of him as a little kid. Shades of “Phantom Menace” there. And where was Karl Urban as Bones?

3. Papigiulio 11/17/2008 @ 9:40pm

   This looks…AWESOME!! Never been a trekkie, but damn this definitely looks interesting.

4. Agent Orange 11/17/2008 @ 10:08pm

   “Everyone knows the Enterprise was build in geosynchronous orbit over San Fransisco.”

   Haha, please tell me that was sarcasm Rhythm-X cause I sure as hell didn’t know that.

   What are you missing Todd? Only the wildest looking space opera trailer since God knows when. But then again, I’m well a fan of J JAb. Perhaps a little too glossy for my liking but intriguing nonetheless.

5. ChevalierAguila 11/17/2008 @ 11:48pm

   I don’t like Star Trek, and i don’t like JJ Abrams, so no thanks.

6. Rhythm-X 11/18/2008 @ 12:38am

   It was nerdy, self mocking sarcasm.  But…

   http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/San_Francisco_Fleet_Yards

   ,,,the Enterprise was most certainly not built anywhere young James Kirk could casually roll up to on a motorcycle.

7. Swarez 11/18/2008 @ 4:09am

   This is why it’s a reboot. Trekkies need to stop to complain about what’s missing or not in line with the established mythos because they are starting fresh and throwing most of this stuff out. They are not following decades worth of fiction and TV shows. Looks like they are only taking the core concept and going with that. Which is fine by me.

8. Ard Vijn 11/18/2008 @ 6:01am

   Thing is, the Enterprise always looked like it would collapse under normal gravity. Heck, most model toys of it did after a while!
   And the new Enterprise looks equally fragile. Hmm… I’m not even a trekkie but I’m curious to see if this change makes any sense in the new setting. If it’s just to be able to have that one shot of Kirk on his bike in there, then I just think it’s daft.
   The rest of the trailer looked rather more actionny than I expected. Shame to hear Simon Pegg uses a Scottish accent for comic relief (seems a bit too easy).
   Still, I think I saw some damn fine monsters in there, so I’ll definitely have a looksee when it’s out.

9. Kurt Halfyard 11/18/2008 @ 7:20am

   Where is Vin Diesel?  This looks like “The Fast and The Federation”

10. Rhythm-X 11/18/2008 @ 8:51am

    “This is why it’s a reboot. Trekkies need to stop to complain about what’s missing or not in line with the established mythos because they are starting fresh and throwing most of this stuff out. They are not following decades worth of fiction and TV shows. Looks like they are only taking the core concept and going with that. Which is fine by me.”

    That’s fine, but why do pointless, dumb shit that doesn’t make any sense like building a starship that was never meant to land on the surface of a planet on the surface of a planet... and why the hell is Leonard Nimoy in it, then?

11. Swarez 11/18/2008 @ 9:13am

    Cause that’s only a fan boy nitpick that doesn’t bother anyone else. And how do you know that it isn’t supposed to land on a planet’s surface in this one? They’ve changed the look of the ship for the film, who’s to say they haven’t changed something else. Just wait and see the film.

    “and why the hell is Leonard Nimoy in it, then?”
    How is using Nimoy any indication that they are using established storylines? It’s a time travel story, they meet an older Spock. Makes sense to use Nimoy instead of using make up.

    The only thing that bugs me about this are the costumes. Seems silly to use 60’s style mini skirts and high boots for the crew when everything else is state of the art futuristic. But then again fashion goes in circles.

12. Rhythm-X 11/18/2008 @ 10:00am

    “Fanboy nitpick”

    Don’t shit where you eat.  If you post on Twitch, you’re a fanboy too, and the only questions are those of your ability to accept this aspect of yourself.  STAR TREK fans were talking about the details of the franchise on the internet before the internet had a GUI.  If you don’t like it stick to talking about FACES OF DEATH and leave Trek discussion to people who actually care.

    Just wait and see the film?  Let’s apply that reasoning to everything else on Twitch and see how interesting this site becomes.  I suppose I can’t say anything about THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE WEIRD anymore, either?  That doesn’t open here until next year.  Or does this only apply to less-than-enthusiastic responses, that happen to disagree with your own?  I assume you have seen the film; how was it?

    They haven’t changed the look of the ship enough to make it make sense to land on the surface of anything.  If they had done that, I could accept it, but that’s not what they did.  And it makes no sense to use Nimoy but throw out the existing history of STAR TREK.  But I suppose I better watch what I do and watch what I say.

13. Collin Armstrong 11/18/2008 @ 10:00am

    Relevant… eh.  I don’t know.  Looks like a pretty generic sci-fi / action piece.  I’m sure it’ll be entertaining, but so far Abrams’ big screen stuff just hasn’t hit me like his TV work.  Who knows, maybe this’ll reverse that trend.  Not nearly enough Simon Pegg in that trailer.

14. Swarez 11/18/2008 @ 10:59am

    Jesus, aren’t we being touchy. Yes I am a fan boy, never said I wasn’t, just not a fan boy of Star Trek. You are nitpicking about things that aren’t relevant to the fucking story, so they don’t matter, at all. Dwelling on if a space ship should or should not be able to land on a planet surface is besides the fucking point. It’s the film itself we are talking about, not some imaginary technology that isn’t going to push the story forward.
    What does the fact that the Enterprise is being build on earth change for you exactly?

    Also, how does using Nimoy not make sense? It’s not supposed to be TV’s Spock, but an older version of Abrams Spock, and a nod to the fans mostly.

15. Ard Vijn 11/18/2008 @ 12:24pm

    “What does the fact that the Enterprise is being build on earth change for you exactly?”
    For starters it makes it very difficult for me to suspend disbelief. The ship looks like it is space-only. Maybe it lifts itself with some anti-gravity technology and that will be the end of this discussion. I just wondered why they did it. And maybe this IS relevant to the story.
    I’ll be laughing my ass off if that turns out to not be the Enterprise itself, but a rollercoaster in a Federation theme park or something.
    I have no comments on the use of Nimoy. Might work, might not. The new guy does look like a younger version of him, so it might work and is (of course) a nod to the fans. That’s the sort of detail that WON’T bother me. Unless…
    If they put the whole time-travel aspect in just to be able to show Nimoy, then I just think it’s daft.
    And yes, I agree the 60’s silly miniskirts bug me as well. They sort of clash with the rest…

16. Izikavazo 11/18/2008 @ 12:50pm

    That horizontal glare effect looks very unique, the only other time I remember seeing it was in SpeedRacer.  I hope they don’t overuse it though.

17. bonnequin 11/18/2008 @ 2:45pm

    Simon Pegg’s character is Scottish, therefore speaks with a Scottish accent. And there is a bit of Karl Urban in there, and from the looks of it he has Bones down pat. And yes, it’s not going to be exactly the same. Thank god. Although a Trek fan, I’m quite willing to see some things change. I’m cautiously optimistic.

18. shamrock33 11/18/2008 @ 3:11pm

    this looks awful. it looks like TWILIGHT or the CW’s 90210. STAR TREK has always been for nerds (myself included) so i get it, the idea here is to make it “cool” for tweens. But ultimately it’s still a STAR TREK movie, so no matter how much they gloss it up it’s still a nerd movie isn’t it? Cool tweens might not see a nerd movie no matter how many 105 pound hipster dudes they cast in it. As someone who sat in an empty theater opening night of STAR TREK: NEMESIS, I personally feel a little alienated watching this trailer.

19. Swarez 11/18/2008 @ 4:18pm

    Both Nimoy and Shatner were in their thirties when they did the first series so they are not that much older than these actors. I don’t understand why people are complaining about them being too young. Aren’t they the right age for this story? Or is it because they are handsome that people are complaining?

20. Todd Brown 11/18/2008 @ 5:04pm

    You know what pleases me about this trailer?  It looks like a FILM again instead of an extended episode of a television show.

    Too young? I’m with Swarez.  The original series was all about sex appeal, with the girls in tight outfits and short skirts and Kirk bedding anything that moved.  Riker was clearly supposed to fill that niche in TNG but those storylines just got increasingly sillier as he aged and chunked up and the whole swinging adventure vibe got totally lost fast but it was a BIG part of the original show.

    And Shamrock, you’ve just made my point for me about why I say Abrams has made the series relevent again:  the Nemesis screenings were empty as were the screenings for at least three or four previous films.  When was the last time Star Trek was a hit?  When was the last time anybody cared enough to talk about it out in public?  When was the last time websites were tracking which theaters were and were not screening the trailer?  When was the last time you would have seen this sort of discussiona round a Trek film?  The answer to that last question is NEVER because the last time people really cared about a Trek film was before the widespread popularity of the internet.

21. Swarez 11/18/2008 @ 6:25pm

    The last Star Trek movie that was considered a hit was First Contact, which was very good by the way. They went straight down hill after that although I don’t hate Nemesis nearly as much as most do.

22. shamrock33 11/18/2008 @ 7:29pm

    todd brown - u 100% missed my point. I’m saying it appears like they’ve completely sacrificed the soul of the show for box office bucks and as a fan, that sucks. You’re probably pumped about THE BIRDS remake too.

    And at no point did I say anything about the age of the actors? Young/old – I don’t care. But the Gossip Girl-esque appearance of the cast is a disappointing.

23. Brad 11/18/2008 @ 9:24pm

    Wow.

    I never would have guessed Trek would generate this many posts on Twitch.
    I’m a fan of Trek and I am looking forward to this but right now…it all looks garish to me.
    The actors are fine [with the huge exception of a Korean playing a Japanese character..f*** off] and the Enterprise looks ok but ‘less real’ [if it’s possible] with everything squished or fattened.
    The bridge looks like a Japanese nightclub designer had a bit of Dairy Milk chocolate and went on a rampage.

    This is all mute though, show me a good story and some great action scenes [is it too much to hope for a ship battle that beats Jedi’s?] and I’ll be happy.

24. Todd Brown 11/18/2008 @ 10:06pm

    Didn’t miss your point at all Shamrock, just think you’re wrong. Think about how the original series played to the original audience. It was positively littered with otherwise pointless eye candy and Kirk was obviously intended to be an action adventure sex symbol.  You’ve gotten too used to the later incarnations, in the first go around the cast skewed HUGELY towards the young and pretty and the franchise didn’t develop the pretensions to seriousness it is now known for until the original cast aged too much to play that card.  This is aiming to hit today’s audience the same way that the original series hit their audience and there’s nothing wrong with that. He’ll, they’ve even stashed the older / uglier actors in the same roles here that they were in the original. Sorry, Simon, but it’s true.

    And what, exactly, does The Birds have to do with anything? Are you seriously comparing a tv franchise that has been exploited mercilessly from day one to Hitchcock? That’s just silly. And, for the record, if they do a good job on The Birds or at least fail in an interesting way I’ll have no problem with it. And if they totally bung it up I’ll just ignore it. No big deal to me and of no consequence either way to the status of the original.

25. Todd Brown 11/18/2008 @ 10:11pm

    Oh, and I’m mostly with Brad on the Sulu thing. I think Cho will do fine but it would have been nice to see a Japanese actor in the part. Though it’s not like Walter Koening (sp?) is Russian so Roddenberry was obviously not much bothered on this point, either ...

26. shamrock33 11/19/2008 @ 12:58am

    The original series reflected the time period in which it was created – drug addled, space obsessed America in the late 60s. It’s an incredible time capsule whose shortcomings only become apparent when compared to everything that came after it. The “pretensions to seriousness in the later incarnations” reflect a change in all American media post-Vietnam. We weren’t a fun free-loving bunch anymore. I like how you believe that the show has been exploited mercilessly but here you are defending what is clearly the most blatant, smash and grab, exploitative incarnation of the series yet. I definitely went a bit off track with THE BIRDS comment (for which I apologize), I just cringed at your assumption that just because STAR TREK is now seemingly relevant, and websites are tracking it, that somehow equates to fans getting a good film. That sort of thinking is what greedy Hollywood wants. Hollywood needs huge numbers on opening weekend so their marketing departments manufacture pre-release buzz by carefully trickling info to websites and magazines to stoke those flames – but none of that means the movie is any good. I know in 10 months or so we’re going to be force-fed how seemingly relevant THE BIRDS remake is going to be so that’s the (poorly executed) point I was trying to make.

27. Swarez 11/19/2008 @ 1:59am

    “Oh, and I’m mostly with Brad on the Sulu thing”

    Usually that sort of thing would bother me but because the character is called Sulu, and I don’t know a single Japanese person called that nor is it a Japanese name, I don’t care.
    But of course they should cast a Japanese person to do it.

28. bonnequin 11/19/2008 @ 6:45am

    So according to the few above comments re: casting, Simon Pegg shouldn;t be playing Scotty because he’s English (not Scottish), and Karl Urban shouldn’t be playing Bones because he’s a New Zealander (not American). Or is it okay because they’re white? You can’t have it both ways.

29. Brad 11/19/2008 @ 4:06pm

    Nope.

    That does not work.
    First and foremost, Korean’s and Japanese do not look the same.
    Sure, ya know, Asian but the buck stops there, especially with an actor so very Korean looking like Cho.
    I love me some Cho, his work on [dammit, sitcom name lost! from American Pie producers…] was just but gustingly good and I always look forward to his flicks.

    I’m a New Zealander, so we have an extremely hearty mix of Korean’s and Chinese in my country and early on in life, you notice the huge differences in facial features, body build…even fashion.
    I now live in Japan, so, again..big difference.
    Look at Memoirs of a Geisha.
    Mocked, shunned and hated here in Japan…and why not?
    Americans once again don’t seem to care or understand about this.

    Karl, he’s a Kiwi, who speaks the english language and is a westerner.
    Same with Pegg, heck, his wife’s scottish, so it’s no slant there.

    Btw, I’m not saying that Bonnequin can’t pick Asian people apart or other Twitch readers…hell…we all love Asian cinema, so I’m sure we’re in the same boat.
    Wow…how many idioms can I cram into a posting?

30. dispophoto 11/20/2008 @ 9:30am

    George Takei himself said that Roddenberry wanted Sulu to represent “all of asia”, not just japan. last i checked, korea is in asia.
    Takei had good things to say about Cho, and gave him his blessing.

31. flyboy 11/20/2008 @ 5:03pm

    “Everyone knows the Enterprise was build in geosynchronous orbit over San Fransisco.”

    That’s disgusting! But very very funny!

32. cib3k 11/20/2008 @ 5:47pm

    It seems to me that people who don’t know much about Star Trek will probably enjoy the movie, while others who know more will find it mediocre. Considering that it’s coming from JJ Abrams and the writers of Transformers, it will probably be a decent movie seasoned with several plot holes and stuff that won’t make much sense. Enterprise being built on Earth is a good example - most people won’t even notice that it’s not supposed to ever be near the surface of a planet. Spock is also way too emotional in the trailer.

    I’m a moderate Trek fan. I don’t like the reboot idea. Trek was never about blowing ships and interstellar battles. It was always a geeky, brainy series that some people always considered boring. Spicing it up like this doesn’t work - it turns it into something else. If you’re a SciFi fan ask yourself this: what made Trek special? What differentiated it from the other series, like Babylon 5, Andromeda, Farscape and so on? And ss that special something still in JJ’s movie? I say it’s not.

    The problem with Hollywood is that once something doesn’t work anymore, they reimagine it. Instead of getting talented people and making them create something in a known universe, they hurry to change everything.

33. Random Man 11/23/2008 @ 8:44am

    Realizing that previews and rumors can be misleading, and that my gut feelings can be wrong, I will nonetheless state that I don’t have an enormous amount of confidence in this flick. I have little doubt that Abrams can do glossy, expensive looking entertainment well enough (I was modestly entertained by his show ‘Alias’ and, yes, even by ‘MI:3,’ as long as I didn’t think too hard), but his brand isn’t really synonymous with substance or depth. I’m pleased that ‘Star Trek’ finally gets a budget, and that audiences may be interested again (I too remember an empty theatre for ‘Nemesis’), but I am not overly thrilled by the concept of “reimagining” the franchise, or recasting the characters.

    Part of me feels that the franchise should be left alone. I’ve heard Abrams talk about how ‘iconic’ the characters are, and how he felt it was important to focus on the interplay between Kirk and Spock (and McCoy). And I don’t know… I’ve always felt that the success of the original show (and films) had more to do with the actors involved than with their characters. Call them hammy or cornball, but the original actors had chemistry – and that is something that I think Abrams (and his movie) will find difficult to replicate.

34. Swarez 11/25/2008 @ 6:39am

    This is pretty funny.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fu656gGkhI

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry