So am I.
I'd note, though, that when they brought the original Cylons back, and had the Razor Flashbacks with its many distinct nods to the look of the original, it was wildly popular, with talk of doing a series in that style.
Star Trek
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
So am I.
I'd note, though, that when they brought the original Cylons back, and had the Razor Flashbacks with its many distinct nods to the look of the original, it was wildly popular, with talk of doing a series in that style.
Nektonic
Veteran
SPOILERS -- DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE TRAILER
Alright. Just watched the trailer again. This time in Quicktime HD. I think that I have gotten over some of the things that bothered me when I viewed the bootleg version. Actually being able to see things much more clearly made the second viewing better.
The Good:
While the designs are not 100% exactly like the old designs, I never expected them to be. Actually, I am surprised that they kept things looking as close to the iconic look of Trek as they did. The space battles look pretty good. Hopefully it will not be all shaky-cam and a blur of incoherent phaser beams and explosions. The uniforms look good. The actor playing Spock looks dead on. I kinda like the new transporter effect where it swirls around the character. The Vulcan city shots looked great. Felt like Vulcan but with more detail than we've seen before.
However, a lot of the reservations I had still persist.
the Bad:
Maybe it was just the quick cutting of the trailer, but this reeks of Michael Bay. While I like Bay's action films sometimes, I feel that his style doesn't fit Star Trek. Come to think of it, I now remember feeling that MI3 had some Bayishness to it as well.
I'm a bit wary due to the fact that this is written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. I've enjoyed some of their work. They were writers on Alias. I really liked The Island despite what others say about it. The film of theirs that I really thought was a squandered opportunity was Transformers. So much potential that was thrown out to make what to me equated to a slick and expensive action comedy. Nothing about Transformers felt real, or dangerous, and the stakes felt phony. The characters were beyond annoying. The dialogue drove me insane. The whole thing felt hollow. Couple this with the fact that the new Trek trailer has a Michael Bay vibe, and color me extremely worried about the script lacking any substance.
Bones and Scotty. Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that they are being played as impersonations of DeForest Kelley and James Doohan? I think that might not be the best way to do it. Also, I bet that Scotty (Simon Pegg) will be played exclusively for laughs. Now Simon Pegg is a good comedic actor and will obviously be good for comic relief. Since this film will obviously focus on Kirk and Spock I fear that with the minimal screen time that his character will get, that he will be used for nothing more than one-liners. Hopefully I am proven wrong.
and the Ugly:
I don't like the classic car chase at the beginning. Hate it actually. Sticks out like a sore thumb that just got hit with a sledgehammer with a thimble being forced over the end of it. The robot-cop with the hovercycle sticks out too. Looks cool, but feels like it belongs in another film. Besides Data, Lore, and Lal, did they really ever have robots/androids in Star Trek? I can't think of any off the top of my head. (the Borg don't count as they are cyborgs)
What I'm trying to figure out is why the heck didn't they just have young James Tiberius Kirk (as if that character reveal wasn't cheesy enough, they had to have him say his full name like that) trying to escape robocop with a hovercar or another hovercycle? Then when he is older and drives up to the Enterprise under construction, why not have him on a damn hovercycle? Just doing those two things would have at least made these two scenes easier to swallow seeing that this takes place more than a century from now.
I've come across a theory online. The reason that it is a classic car is that it is supposed to represent how we are currently stuck on oil (old way of thinking) and that staying on that path is like driving off of a cliff. I fear that Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman are instead making the statement that the old Trek (the classic car) is dead. Maybe young Kirk jumping out, spreading his arms like wings, is supposed to represent rebirth. That could be why he is a young boy in that scene instead of having it be the actor playing him as a young man in the film. I think that the second scenario may be the case due to the placement of the car chase in the trailer and the chances of it being in the first act of the film.
I agree with a lot of the criticism, but I think for the most part this could still be good. The design changes don't bother me so much as the possibility that this could end up becoming a generic action movie that happens to take place in the Star Trek universe. I actually like the overall look of the Enterprise, uniforms, etc... although I have to agree with the bridge looking a bit too much like the Apple store. How many core's do their Macbook Pros have a couple hundred years from now?
Actually, in the Halo universe there are what are called Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, that drop from an orbiting ship to a planetary surface in one-man pods. I immediately thought of them when I saw the scene in the trailer. It looks cool but at the same time, feels a little too balls out action film heroey for what I'm used to with Trek. Maybe that attitude will work for this new Trek since the characters are younger than in the previous incarnations.
That's pretty much how I'm feeling too. I can't say that it looks altogether bad, but I won't judge the whole thing until I see it in full in the theater. I'm excited with a helping of cynicism and worry, as well as very wary because of Indy 4 being such a letdown. I went into that with way too much optimism.
Alright. Just watched the trailer again. This time in Quicktime HD. I think that I have gotten over some of the things that bothered me when I viewed the bootleg version. Actually being able to see things much more clearly made the second viewing better.
The Good:
While the designs are not 100% exactly like the old designs, I never expected them to be. Actually, I am surprised that they kept things looking as close to the iconic look of Trek as they did. The space battles look pretty good. Hopefully it will not be all shaky-cam and a blur of incoherent phaser beams and explosions. The uniforms look good. The actor playing Spock looks dead on. I kinda like the new transporter effect where it swirls around the character. The Vulcan city shots looked great. Felt like Vulcan but with more detail than we've seen before.
However, a lot of the reservations I had still persist.
the Bad:
Maybe it was just the quick cutting of the trailer, but this reeks of Michael Bay. While I like Bay's action films sometimes, I feel that his style doesn't fit Star Trek. Come to think of it, I now remember feeling that MI3 had some Bayishness to it as well.
I'm a bit wary due to the fact that this is written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. I've enjoyed some of their work. They were writers on Alias. I really liked The Island despite what others say about it. The film of theirs that I really thought was a squandered opportunity was Transformers. So much potential that was thrown out to make what to me equated to a slick and expensive action comedy. Nothing about Transformers felt real, or dangerous, and the stakes felt phony. The characters were beyond annoying. The dialogue drove me insane. The whole thing felt hollow. Couple this with the fact that the new Trek trailer has a Michael Bay vibe, and color me extremely worried about the script lacking any substance.
Bones and Scotty. Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that they are being played as impersonations of DeForest Kelley and James Doohan? I think that might not be the best way to do it. Also, I bet that Scotty (Simon Pegg) will be played exclusively for laughs. Now Simon Pegg is a good comedic actor and will obviously be good for comic relief. Since this film will obviously focus on Kirk and Spock I fear that with the minimal screen time that his character will get, that he will be used for nothing more than one-liners. Hopefully I am proven wrong.
and the Ugly:
I don't like the classic car chase at the beginning. Hate it actually. Sticks out like a sore thumb that just got hit with a sledgehammer with a thimble being forced over the end of it. The robot-cop with the hovercycle sticks out too. Looks cool, but feels like it belongs in another film. Besides Data, Lore, and Lal, did they really ever have robots/androids in Star Trek? I can't think of any off the top of my head. (the Borg don't count as they are cyborgs)
What I'm trying to figure out is why the heck didn't they just have young James Tiberius Kirk (as if that character reveal wasn't cheesy enough, they had to have him say his full name like that) trying to escape robocop with a hovercar or another hovercycle? Then when he is older and drives up to the Enterprise under construction, why not have him on a damn hovercycle? Just doing those two things would have at least made these two scenes easier to swallow seeing that this takes place more than a century from now.
I've come across a theory online. The reason that it is a classic car is that it is supposed to represent how we are currently stuck on oil (old way of thinking) and that staying on that path is like driving off of a cliff. I fear that Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman are instead making the statement that the old Trek (the classic car) is dead. Maybe young Kirk jumping out, spreading his arms like wings, is supposed to represent rebirth. That could be why he is a young boy in that scene instead of having it be the actor playing him as a young man in the film. I think that the second scenario may be the case due to the placement of the car chase in the trailer and the chances of it being in the first act of the film.
I agree with a lot of the criticism, but I think for the most part this could still be good. The design changes don't bother me so much as the possibility that this could end up becoming a generic action movie that happens to take place in the Star Trek universe. I actually like the overall look of the Enterprise, uniforms, etc... although I have to agree with the bridge looking a bit too much like the Apple store. How many core's do their Macbook Pros have a couple hundred years from now?
We get a 23rd-century HALO drop (nothing to do with the game, Xboxer's, it's a paratrooper term for High Altitude, Low Opening; and when you're "jumping" from a high enough altitude that you need space suit, pretty much anything would be consider "low" opening), possibly in spacesuits that match the uniform tunic color code.
Actually, in the Halo universe there are what are called Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, that drop from an orbiting ship to a planetary surface in one-man pods. I immediately thought of them when I saw the scene in the trailer. It looks cool but at the same time, feels a little too balls out action film heroey for what I'm used to with Trek. Maybe that attitude will work for this new Trek since the characters are younger than in the previous incarnations.
That's pretty much how I'm feeling too. I can't say that it looks altogether bad, but I won't judge the whole thing until I see it in full in the theater. I'm excited with a helping of cynicism and worry, as well as very wary because of Indy 4 being such a letdown. I went into that with way too much optimism.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
I don't understand why he was driving down a road that ends in CANYON. I mean, wouldn't someone have posted a sign or something?
Unless of course that road led to Arizona. Are there canyons like that in Iowa?
This looks many many miles past retarded.
Unless of course that road led to Arizona. Are there canyons like that in Iowa?
This looks many many miles past retarded.
Looked like a quarry, with regular-shaped cleaving. He DID drive through a gate to get there.
MikeGunter
Well-known member
Hi all,
Full disclosure... I'm a fanboy...
Hey, who's to say that there wasn't a 'history' between the characters before we saw them appear on the tube the 60's? They sure seemed to have a short hand between each other.
As for the ship itself, I would like to think that if new technologies are developed, it would be refitted like today's seafaring ships.
IOW, I want to let my imagination fill in some of the blanks... Sometimes less is more.
Full disclosure... I'm a fanboy...
Hey, who's to say that there wasn't a 'history' between the characters before we saw them appear on the tube the 60's? They sure seemed to have a short hand between each other.
As for the ship itself, I would like to think that if new technologies are developed, it would be refitted like today's seafaring ships.
IOW, I want to let my imagination fill in some of the blanks... Sometimes less is more.
AevnsGrandpa
Active member
After finally seeing the trailer I think it wil prove to be a good movie.
In the last post there was a comment about the possiblility of Kirk and Spock knowing each other before the time on the enterprise. There is a real good SF book that came out this summer that was just about that, how Kirk and Spock first came to know each other and get into the Academy. Right off the top of my head I can not remember the title, If I do I will post. It was a real good read and I thought it in itself would have made a good movie.
Jeff
In the last post there was a comment about the possiblility of Kirk and Spock knowing each other before the time on the enterprise. There is a real good SF book that came out this summer that was just about that, how Kirk and Spock first came to know each other and get into the Academy. Right off the top of my head I can not remember the title, If I do I will post. It was a real good read and I thought it in itself would have made a good movie.
Jeff
Nektonic
Veteran
That's exactly what I thought about the whole beginning of the trailer. Why is there an old car, why does this look like Michael Bay directed this, and why the heck do we need to see Kirk as a twelve-year-old boy? It's bad enough that it's not Shat reprising the role, although for this story he couldn't because its about the Enterprise crew when they were young.
I hate to be a party pooper, because I really want this to be a great Star Trek movie and a lot of the stuff I see in this trailer makes me feel that it could be good. The main concern I have is that I don't think that you can replace Shatner. Kirk is Shatner, Shatner is Kirk. He is too iconic. Kinda like Indiana Jones being played by someone other than Harrison Ford. No offense to the actor playing Kirk in the new film, but I can't see it working. Hopefully I am wrong.
A new Spock could work because a major part of the character is the haircut, the ears, the eyebrows, and the "live-long-and-prosper" Vulcan greeting. Now, before anyone gets their undies in a bundle, let me say that the previous statement is not meant to discredit or downplay Leonard Nimoy's contribution. Nimoy created the character. He will always be the original Spock. The thing of it is that Spock is, maybe because of the character's Vulcan emotional suppression, a sum of the parts of the look and the characterization created by Nimoy. While on the other hand, Kirk is the way he is because he is infused with Shatner's personality more than Spock is infused with Nimoy's personality. Doesn't mean that Shatner is a lesser actor, but merely a difference in the way that the two characters are approached and played by the two actors.
Captain Pierce
Veteran
Here's a couple of articles dealing with four scenes from the movie that have been screened by Abrams:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=62312
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startreknews.php?id=50627
What's interesting is that the second article says this:
Yet the sequence they describe is filled with stuff that completely contradicts regular "Trek" continuity (and there's more in the other three). Although, admittedly, it seems the reviewer there is not much of a Trek fan and so may just be describing some things poorly.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=62312
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startreknews.php?id=50627
What's interesting is that the second article says this:
comingsoon.net said:
Yet the sequence they describe is filled with stuff that completely contradicts regular "Trek" continuity (and there's more in the other three). Although, admittedly, it seems the reviewer there is not much of a Trek fan and so may just be describing some things poorly.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I hope this turns out to be as big as it looks...
Do you remember the first Superman? That film was so inspirational and FUN at the time... and when I saw this trailer I thought it could have the same potential... but it'll be interesting to see if they reach it... or if it's just dumbed down explosions and crashes for the masses.
I concur that showing crap like speeding towards a canyon directly, instead of portraying a plan to get the hover-cop to go over... is... um... poor storytelling. I like all that rebirth stuff you guys were on about... although I kind of doubt there was that much thought in it.
Do you remember the first Superman? That film was so inspirational and FUN at the time... and when I saw this trailer I thought it could have the same potential... but it'll be interesting to see if they reach it... or if it's just dumbed down explosions and crashes for the masses.
I concur that showing crap like speeding towards a canyon directly, instead of portraying a plan to get the hover-cop to go over... is... um... poor storytelling. I like all that rebirth stuff you guys were on about... although I kind of doubt there was that much thought in it.
Now THAT is a man who knows his JTK. Excellent point.
Captain Pierce
Veteran
OK, I'll admit to not knowing exactly what y'all are getting at here, but... a plan by a "tween" JTK to dump a cop into the Death Star Trench seems a little... um... not really like him. To me, that's kind of like him telling Scotty to program the Excelsior to self-destruct when they try to go transwarp in TSFS to chase Enterprise, instead of programming the drive to shut down. I just find it hard to believe that the same guy who actually tried to save Kruge later on in the same film, even after Kruge had killed his son, would plot to kill anybody in cold blood.
That said, I had this odd scene playing out in my head where it was sort of Looney Tunes... when Kirk slammed on the brakes and skidded sideways, it created a dust cloud, and the cop chased on through, and when the dust cleared, Kirk was at the edge of the canyon in the 'Vette, and the cop was hovering above the middle of the trench, and then gravity took over and the cop plummetted like Wile E. Coyote... :beer:
The cop is a robot. Kirk has a storied history of talking computers/robots into self-destructing.
(It's PICARD who blows stuff up.
)
(It's PICARD who blows stuff up.
)
Nektonic
Veteran
Well, my solution to the whole car chase in the fields of Iowa is to just not have it in the first place. It is like a mood killer. For example, you've got a date over. You've cooked her dinner. Romantic lighting is dimmed to an amber glow. You're dressed nicely. Jazz plays on the stereo. Then suddenly, you pull your pants down, stick your bum near your date's face and blow a thunderous fart. The car chase is something from another movie. Most of the stuff in the trailer after that looks good.
I think that they could easily start with Kirk when he is in Starfleet or at least when he is a young man. We didn't need to see Luke as a tot in Ep. IV: A New Hope.
I think that they could easily start with Kirk when he is in Starfleet or at least when he is a young man. We didn't need to see Luke as a tot in Ep. IV: A New Hope.
The cop is a robot. Kirk has a storied history of talking computers/robots into self-destructing.
(It's PICARD who blows stuff up.
Oh man,
Please don't say that.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Actually, Kirk self destructed the Enterprise with Klingons aboard it. And Piccard doesn't blow stuff up, Riker crashes it into planets.The cop is a robot. Kirk has a storied history of talking computers/robots into self-destructing.
(It's PICARD who blows stuff up.
DarkElastic
Well-known member
If you think about it, it was Diana Troy who crashes ships. She crashed the Enterprise D in Generations into the planet and she crashed the Enterprise E into the Remus ship in Nemesis. This happens everytime she takes the helm - do you think they were trying to say something about woman drivers? ;-)
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
I prefer to think they're saying something about psychologists in space.
Well, Picard doesn't always blow something up, but he is pretty bloodthirsty if you think about it.
There were those crab creatures who took over Starfleet; he burned the mother, though it had no visible means of self-defense. He blew up the Borg cube approaching Earth, even though it had gone dormant. He dissolved the skin off the Borg Queen and then, holding her helpless but living head and spine in his hands, he killed her. Actually, every time Earth itself was directly in danger, he blew something up/burned someone to save it. Kirk didn't; every time he saved Earth itself, he did it by other means.