As the title says, the new trailer for the upcoming Star Trek movie is now up, http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/ . We get to see more of the characters, more of the bridge and more of the new Enterprise. Overall it looks to be an exciting but I still have my doubts, I especially don't like the idea of the Enterprise being built on Earth, instead of in orbit, around Earth.

I just watched it earlier today and it looks awesome!
The police officer in the beginning of the trailer looks pretty
cool. That's true I did get to see a little bit of the bridge
and one deck of the ship. The Enterprise being built on Earth
isn't such a bad idea. Their uniforms look very similar towards
the original series but I've noticed that their patches are a little
smaller than the original ones. There's a good cast to play the role
of the characters.

I think it's just great. i never have seen a ST fil neither series, so, I'm impatient to watch this film, the very begin of the adventure as I've heard.

It's a horrible and stupid idea. Why would you build something the size of the Enterprise that's meant to be used in space on a planet inside a gravitational well? It makes much more sense to build it in space where weight doesn't matter because something the size of the Enterprise is going to get awful heavy and add to that the effort and energy needed to get the thing into space once it's done. Building a starship on planet with 1G or more gravity is like building a super carrier in the middle of the Great Plains in the US.

It strikes me as very odd that a culture that's capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, and can break people and objects down into an energy stream and reassemble them/it miles away wouldn't see the logic in and have the capability of building a starship in orbit. Hell, I think that even the NX-01 and its sister ships were built in orbit so why is the Enterprise (NCC-1701) being built on Earth decades later?

I saw the trailer for the new Star Trek movie (it was part of the previews for "Quantum of Solace") this weekend

it does seem a bit strange that the Enterprise would be built on earth....but if this is the FIRST Enterprise (of that particular class, at least), it may not be that strange that it be built on earth - remember Capt. Kirk was NOT the first captain of the Enterprise (NCC-1701) but Captain Pike, who is seen in the new movie...

It could be that by the time other ships of the same class are built, they moved the construction into space - also, I think for effect, it's more dramatic for Kirk to see the ships being built planetside - it's a bit harder to see construction in space unless you have some means to get OUT into space in order to see it...

for example, right now all of our space shuttles were built on Earth, even though they help bring supplies to build the International Space Station - I believe the next ship that replaces the space shuttle will still be built on Earth, not in space just yet...

I just put the trailer on my iPhone and watched it. MUCH better than the crappy youtube camera vid that I saw. Not sure how this film will rank up there with some of my fav Trek flicks, but I'll go see it all the same.

I don't think a movie trailer has excited me more in my life (Star Wars Episode III tying that) !

Riceball, I totally here what you are saying, but I agree with foxspirit, I think they are doing it this way mostly or suspense. Plus it i kind of cool seeing it there instead of being in space. It almost makes it more real. Anywho.

I as well put the trailer on my iPod, Shifty and I also downloaded the 1080p version as well which is just stunning!

Suspense or drama it still makes no sense to me as to why anyone would want to build a starship, especially one not designed for transatmospheric travel, inside a gravity well instead of planetary orbit. At most I can see components being constructed Earth side and then lifted into orbit for final assembly but even then I see limits as to how large of a component that you'd want to construct due to the amount of energy that would be required to lift it into orbit.

Well, the Enterprise's dedication plaque does state that it was built at the San Francisco Yards.

Also, in the DS9 novel, "Antimatter", an Ambassador class (Ent-C) ship was built on the surface of Bajor, then pushed up with tractor beams until it was high enough for the ship's thrusters and antigravs to take over.

Actually, The First Captain of the Enterprise - NCC-1701 Was not Christopher Pike, it was Captain Robert April. (there are pictures of Gene Roddenberry in a Captains Tunic that have been credited as Captain April) so if The movie has Pike as Captain right off the bat, they are changing contunity right there. Something we were told was not going to happen early on in the project.

Antimatter also stated that planetary building of starships was not as efficient as orbital building. It was for the sake of the Bajorans that The contracted ships were being built on the planet.

Yes, I'm a trek guy too

...It's not real...not to get snotty, but common "transatmospheric", is that even a real word!? I think another point to the building of the Enterprise on Earth is the fact that they are trying to steer away from the over the top science fiction . It is a little more realistic (in out times) to build a ship (may it be the Enterprise, an Aircraft carrier or a freaking airplane) on Earth then it is to do so in space. It means we can almost touch it, like it's not so far away...




Now getting back to the over the top science fiction that we all love, TRACTOR BEAMS!!! YES!!! POINT! Even if this isn't the way they end up doing it in the movie, it's a quick fix to something that has been extremely over thunk! So point to DJT!



I always have thought and still do to this day, despite whatever the ST Encyclopedia may say, that the Captain April bit could always be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sorry, but the fact that he isn't captain in this movie takes nothing away from continuity...

And I just have to add this, it's just awesome!

Transatmospheric is a word, maybe not a proper word but a word none the less; it means that it's capable of either entering and leaving or a gravity well under its own power basically like the Space Shuttle except that it can do more than just glide inside a gravity well and is capable of getting back out to space under its own power.

As for realism/over the top science fiction, I find it to be much more believable and realistic for a starship to be built either in planetary orbit or in a low G environment like the Moon or Mars where the weight of something as massive as Constitution class starship isn't a big issue and it requires little to no energy to lift it into space once it's complete. Like I said before, you have no problem believing that the Federation/Earth in Trek is capable of traveling at speeds faster than the speed of light (warp), has directed energy weapons (phasers), has mastered and harnessed the power of a matter/anti-matter reaction, convert people and objects into energy and reassemble miles away from their original location yet find it hard to believe that they could build a spaceship in planetary orbit or on a low G world? As I said previously, building a starship on a 1G or higher planet and launching it into space is about the same as building a Nimitz class carrier in the middle of the Great Plains in the US and then transport it over land to either coast. Could it be done? Sure, if you build large enough and powerful enough tractors and trailers like those used to move the Space Shuttle from its hangar to the launch platform but would it be practical? Not when you can simply build it next to the water in a dry dock.

You can't change Canon to fit you're likes of this movie. Just cause you don't think he doesn't fit, and shold be taken with a gain of salt doesn't mean it's not Canon. YOu can defend the movie all you want, but it does break canon.

I'd have to watch the 2 parter Original Series Ep (the one that used footage fromt he original Pilot) to be sure, but I'm fairly sure Kirk never met Pike until that moment, AFTER Pike's accident.

Then you have the age difference between Kirk and Chekov in the Original Series (at LEAST 10 years) how is it that Chekov is in the movie? he should be in his early teens, if that. But then again, if you don't follow Canon, you can forget about these things.

But that's the whole point...

The franchise is tired and doesn't even appeal to the fanbase in the way it did. To quote a fellow airsofter from another forum...



That's why it HAS to be diferent, whether we as fans like it or not. New minds, fresh ideas...

Now I've loved TOS since I first saw it 35+ years ago, don't doubt that for a minute, but this looks good. Let's face it, we can NEVER go back. Yes, there will be some things that are hard to accept for die-hard fans, but you have to let it go. I think it looks great so far. I'll reserve final judgement until I'm out of the cinema, laughing with joy or shaking my head in despondency.

However, I'd much rather have this than another version of The Next Deep Space Voyagerprise.


I stand by the red shirts in my wardrobe. One of which I wore when I was 8, the other when I was 38... I expect another to be there when I'm 48. Cos I'm damn sure I won't fit in either of the others...

S

This is exactly what I am trying to say. This movie isn't mainly for the die harders. It's more for a new era of trek fans. That is why it's a called a reboot. There are going to be changes and people should know this going into the movie. If die hard fans don not want to watch, then don't go see the movie. This is not going to be your ST of old.

Absolutely.

I agree. My daughter may even like it!



Roll on May 8th...

(I think I confused you with The Reaper when I pulled out that quote - sorry)

See, that's the problem, it is supposed to be in line with Trek of old, that's why Nemoy is making an appearence, he's telling the story of the first voyage of the Crew. It's not a reboot, in that you are not starting over, and redoing everything. This is the Oldcrew of the old series/movies, telling a story.

If you wanted to change everything, then be honest and ignore everything that has come before, and as mentioned on another forum, Make Gary Mitchell a woman named Starbuck (greated comment I've seen about this new movie yet) And tell everyone from the start that continuity will not exist.

But that is now what Abrams has said up until this point.

So it won't have a perfect continuity to what we've been familiar with, but seriously how can it possibly be worse than what the franchise has given us for the past 15+ years? I mean once you start having episodes about Ferengis getting married, you know you've hit rock bottom, and the only possible direction at this point is up. Quite frankly this franchise was dead, and forgotten by the casual Trek fan. Now here's an opportunity to revive it, and hopefully it will be good. It is obviously recognizable to the TOS, but it seems it won't perfectly adhere to it. I have no issue with that as again, we've already hit rock bottom, some minor continuity changes will not necessarily translate into a bad movie. Some rules may be changed but not all of them, how JJ Abrams strictly defines continuity or reboot may just be a matter of degree. I had just always thought this thing was a reboot, and having thoroughly enjoyed the reboot of BSG, and knowing the buzz around JJ Abrams creative style, and also hearing Kevin Smith's glowing review of what he's seen so far, I am optimistic about it.

Paramount synopsis: From director J.J. Abrams ("Mission: Impossible III," "Lost" and "Alias") and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci ("TRANSFORMERS," "MI: III") comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, "Star Trek," featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before.


Ed I love you, but it says it right there: NEW VISION (AKA reboot, reimagining, etc.). Also, Nimoy said it himself, he would not have done the film if he did not like the script. This is very much a reboot.

I guess you can say this about the new trek; the names are the same, but some of the details have been changed to fit the times. It is not 1968 transplanted into 2008, it's 1968 UPDATED FOR 2008 and the audience that Trek will need to attract to be viable for the future.

Some old trekies will not be happy with it, but I suspect that that won't keep this movie from being a success.

Absolutely. I honestly believe that if this movie bombs (which J.J. Abrams does not have a track record of doing), then Trek will die...I really believe this. It does need some sort of new Audience.

Really? Because it seems to me that the series that have failed so far have stuck to the 'it HAS to be different' idea.

The episodes that had the highest ratings were the 'return to the TOS' episodes in DS9 and Enterprise.

Seems to me the mistake is in ignoring the established fact that peple want the things that made TOS charming and successful in the first place. Stat Trek doesn't need to be 'reinvented'. it needs to be done by someone who understands how it worked in 1967....and why.

One thing that should have been made clear by now: people doen't want more' reinvented Trek': they want good old TOS, but with new stories. That's what will lead to success.

For a frame by frame break-down of the trailer, go here;

Star Trek Trailer Discussion

And hopefully, that's what we'll get. New stories, but as I stated before we can't go back and we can't have true TOS. It's gone. Love it for what it is. (And we have to be brutally honest, some of it is complete pants...) it HAS TO BE BETTER! If it is, we're more likely to get more. (I'm not going down the New Voyages/Phase II path here - that lives in it's own universe - it's marvellous. It has filled a void with great gusto. Long may they continue.)

We're not living in 1967. I know that's harsh, but it's true. The world, along with audience expectations and values are incalculably different. However, a good story is still a good story, good acting is still good acting. We haven't seen enough to judge anything. (There are touches in the trailer that make me feel warm and fuzzy. I so hope it's going to live up to expectations.)



Surely that should be 'trek fans'? This isn't just for us. It can't be 'just for us'. If it tries, it will fail.

It needs to expand the audience. The audience that this needs to grab onto and haul along for the ride, with us, don't care about TOS - yet! It has to work on it's own merits, despite the emotional and canonical baggage that it may carry for some of us. TOS itself is riddled with inconsistency. - TNG, DS9, VOY and E compound all of that, but they tried very hard to capture the lightning in the bottle again. - If it takes itself too seriously, it'll disappear up it's own backside at warp speed. If I may make a poor comparison, George Lucas did what HE wanted with the SW saga. Sod what the fans thought should happen, it's his baby. He may have upset a few people along the way, but did he produce blockbuster movies? Oh yes. This needs to be a blockbuster. It might not be what we truly wanted to see. (Let's face it, we were never going to get a return to TOS in all it's flawed glory.) Let's be happy we're getting something close to it. (Hopefully).

Far too much use of parentheses there. (I think)

I'll be sitting in the cinema spitting at some of it, I know. I hope to rise above it and be able to forgive the differences, appreciate the similarities and love the whole.

You can tell how much I want this to work, can't you?!? It might fail, but I'll be damned if I try to rip it to shreds before it's even out of the starting gates.

S

hmm. A little terse, perhaps. A week ith a family having 'flu will do that... However, what has irked me really is that there's so much negative feedback already (not picking on anyone in particular here). Give the guys a break... In the grand scheme of things - it's only a movie. BUT IT'S A TOS MOVIE!!!!!!! or technically should that be an OS MOVIE!?!)

It does? I think the fact that is still a classic more than 40 years later and has become a cash cow speaks for itself.

No, it is and was quite good enough.




You left out 'starship exeter'....which did it first and better.




'incalculably different?' That means you don't know. Well, I DO know: we already know what doesnt' work: reinventing star trek. We already know what DOES work: more old trek. The ratings have spoken.

It was great in 1967, it's great today.

Star trek TOS doesn't live in 1967, it lives in coolsville, man.




Sure we have: we've seen enough to know that the ship and the sets are silly looking. Don't know much about the plot, or the acting.




According to polls . over 50% of americans say they are 'trek fans' . That's a plenty big audience.

Yes, it can be 'just for us', and that is the path of success.

What I am worried here is that this will be another failed effort to reinvent trek, like all the others...and that it will drive a stake through the heart of trek and kill it at last, never to return.

I hope the acting and the writing is good enough to make it survive...and that it makes enough money for an encore. Then I hope they fire the tech designer and hire my buddy andy probert like they should have done in the first place.

What ratings are you referring too?

A two minute trailer and a few dozen stills and you've made up your mind?

Again, what polls are you referring too?

It's very clear that you won't be seeing this film, and that's OK. Many, many others will go and cheer on the future of Trek. For the old trekkies there is alway those VHS tapes and the fan films.

It WAS a cash cow. And the cash was slowly dwindling year after year. It was good enough for the time, but classic or not, it's not like the huge audience that was once there is still there.



What ratings? The franchise completely fizzled out, there are no ratings going on today we can talk about.

Reinventing Star Trek the way they did with every incarnation after TOS and the movies obviously doesn't work. Wimpy characters and pedestrian storytelling is what ruined the Trek franchise. Like I said before, once you watch some god awful DS9 episode with Ferengi screaming "Moogi", you know you've hit rock bottom. Reinventing can work just fine if the reinvention is entertaining. My evidence to support this claim? BSG.

What worked in 1967 may not work in 2008. It's a different culture today, the competition is a lot more fierce, let's face it there wasn't a whole of good sci-fi on TV or in the movies in the late 60's.

When the 'new trek' shows were on, the ratings were highest when they did a 'back in time' that took them to TOS (happened 2 times).
Suddenly the numbers skyrocketed. Why? Because that's what the TV viewers wanted to see: Old trek.

Really, doesn't take a warp drive scientist.





Well, yeah: that was my point. I don't think it had anything to do with the characters: it had to do with the stories being told, and how they told them. The producers ddidn't understand what STAR TREK is supposed to be ABOUT, and what made it a classic.




Maybe, but I want to see them try it for once and then we can see.

Neilson rating. As in 'TV VIEWERS TUNING IN'.




Nah, I just hope the story is better than the production design. That's what it all boils down to anyhow. You could have them fly through space in a model T and people will buy it if the story is good enough.

Nope, I'll be there, getting in for free and shatnerning up a storm. You wanna come, we got a deal at the Jack London set up.

Well obviously "old trek" nostalgia episodes did well for the next generation Trek shows. It was a good gimmick, and since those shows were just all around so terrible to begin with, people wanted to see some good Trek and tuned in for something they recognized. Hence in 2009 they are doing just that, giving us the original characters in a new movie. But you can't sustain a franchise on the nostalgia gimmick alone, and you need something with more substance. I'm not convinced this new Trek movie is so far off the mark from what we recognize as TOS. I mean so far I've heard they didn't get the original captain right, or that the age difference between Kirk and Chekov are off, or where the ship is being built, honestly this is just outright nitpicking and is not at all representative of what made TOS a good show. I mean really? Did people tune in to old Star Trek because they knew the ship was built in space and Chekov was a young guy compared to Kirk? These details were not essential to the characterization and plots that originally made the franchise so appealing.

Well, said.

The essence of TOS is what is important here. Gene Roddenberry talked about trying to capture lightning in a bottle for a second time with TNG (IIRC), that's the hard part. If that magic is there, then the minutae (or the universe, if you want to paraphrase The Doctor (Who, that is) will look after themselves. The universe will find a way to restore equilibrium.

Personally, I think the slightly Galaxy Quest style of the bridge looks rather spiffy, and not a million miles away from some of Mike Minor's illustrations for Phase II/TMP. It makes a nice contrast to the vibrant uniform colours.

But that's just my opinion.

S

For those of you who are interested, there is an updated trailer with Nimoy Spock at then end instead of Niro. Check it out here: Updated trailer