Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Star Trek XI, the trailer.
November 16, 2008 11:44 AM   Subscribe

Star Trek XI, the trailer. (previously)

Via Nikki Finke, who says the studio has been showing 25 minutes of the film overseas "to extraordinary response."
posted by CunningLinguist (247 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
Really not sure what to think about this. I want to like it, and it looks like it could be a decent action flick.
posted by brundlefly at 11:53 AM on November 16, 2008


Better resolution bootleg here. I've seen the rebooted NCC-1701 design and am not pleased.
posted by brownpau at 11:55 AM on November 16, 2008


All I can say is this BETTER kick ass.

The blight of Scott Bakula and dull contradictory PC preachy-ness of TNG must be erased.

I want Kirk back. I want a captain who grabs space chicks shoulders while he kisses them and apologetically blows shit up. I want Klingons that aren't pathetic mopey ridge headed Samurai wannabe's but rather are relentlessly devious goatee sport'n Space Mongols.
posted by tkchrist at 12:00 PM on November 16, 2008 [11 favorites]


Previously link had matt Damon playing Kirk. Glad someone came to their senses, thought he could have done as good of a job as Shatner.

What weirds me out about the preview is that somehow I got the same feeling I did with the Star Wars prequels. "So Darth Vadar is just a petulant child?" Just replace Darth Vadar with Kirk, and I think it's the same movie.

BSG has ruined these types of movies for me. Of course I'll go, and probably even like it, but for once I'd like to see something that's not just episode 43 of a franchise.

Give me Blade Runner. You know, another 42 times.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:01 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


@brundlefly That's the thing. Going by just the trailer this looks like it'll be a decent sci-fi action film with characters who just happen to be named Kirk and Spock on a ship that happens to be named Enterprise. I'm not keeping my hopes up for fidelity to canon, and that doesn't seem to be the aim here at all.

Got to give kudos to J.J. for the trailer's trick-opening. What with the Vette and the kid, for a moment I thought this was some new Grindhouse-style Tarantino flick. [spoilers] It's like the first few minutes of LOST season 2 when you realize OMG THAT GUY IS IN THE HATCH.
posted by brownpau at 12:02 PM on November 16, 2008


I saw nothing wrong with the reboot of the ship. brownpau, What's the fanboy damage?
posted by cjorgensen at 12:03 PM on November 16, 2008


I'm not keeping my hopes up for fidelity to canon, and that doesn't seem to be the aim here at all.

Funny thing about reboots, is they sort of get to start over with a new canon.

What with the Vette and the kid, for a moment I thought this was some new Grindhouse-style Tarantino flick.

I thought it was a new Terminator movie for some reason.

I've seen the rebooted NCC-1701 design and am not pleased.

Um... care to elaborate on why?

I want a captain who grabs space chicks shoulders while he kisses them and apologetically blows shit up. I want Klingons that aren't pathetic mopey ridge headed Samurai wannabe's but rather are relentlessly devious goatee sport'n Space Mongols.

I want to see a fist fight with an alien at least once an hour.
posted by Caduceus at 12:07 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


What with the Vette and the kid, for a moment I thought this was some new Grindhouse-style Tarantino flick.

I actually thought I was watching an ad.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:07 PM on November 16, 2008 [9 favorites]


I saw nothing wrong with the reboot of the ship. brownpau, What's the fanboy damage?

As a matter of personal taste - It just doesn't look good. Especially the way they flattened the back end of the body like they were trying to get the last of the toothpaste.
posted by jfrancis at 12:10 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey, it can't be any worse than X, right? And I agree with cjorgensen, in this post-BSG world my expectations are so high that they actually loop back around to being nothing - I already know it's not going to be Exodus, Part 2. So if it fails, who cares?

That having been said, if they're going to have SEX in it, why the prissy white bra? Are we to believe that in 200 years textile science won't have advanced enough to render those undergarments unnecessary? My hope is that he's going for a 60s-era visual theme with the costumes, which could be cool but probably won't.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:12 PM on November 16, 2008


Yeah, I too thought it was a commercial... I was guessing Coke for some reason. My girlfriend guessed Nissan. Woops.

It looks ridiculous, frankly, what with Spocklar lashing out at whiny Kirk. WRAPPED IN SILENCE. Fuck off.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 12:12 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I want Kirk back. I want a captain who grabs space chicks shoulders while he kisses them and apologetically blows shit up.
I prefer the Kirk who is unapologetic when he blows shit up. :)

I also prefer the Kirk who kisses women, not baby space chickens.
posted by docjohn at 12:13 PM on November 16, 2008


Well, to start: Greatly shortened secondary hull, saucer dorsal and engine pylons moved waaay back so the whole ship is pretty rear-heavy and the dorsal is practically in the middle over Engineering OH GOD IT IS ALL WRONG WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, ABRAMS
posted by brownpau at 12:13 PM on November 16, 2008 [4 favorites]


Oh great. We get to see the main character, who we've only known until now as an adult, and we get to see an angry Vulcan.

Have these twits learned nothing from the abomination that was The Phantom Menace and the train wreck that was Enterprise?
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:13 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I, too, am upset that the new ship doesn't like like a corny piece of low-budget art-department shit.
posted by cortex at 12:14 PM on November 16, 2008 [43 favorites]


So anyone want to guess who the respirator vader-sounding dude was?

Some kind of future national-park-ranger or a plot device to introduce the story that Kirk et al. were picked at a young age for their midichlorian levels?
posted by phyrewerx at 12:14 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Still, who am I kidding. Despite my extremely low expectations from this trailer, I just know I'm gonna end up seeing it.
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:14 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


My understanding is that this is NOT a reboot, reset, reimagining, but rather supposed to be somewhat canonical. And I don't think it's a spoiler, since his name is in that trailer, to point out that Nimoy will be playing (old) Spock in it.
posted by evilcolonel at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2008


I'm excited about the Spock character development--I'm guessing that's Sarek narrating, and the idea that we'll get a Spock who's learning to be in control would be both in keeping with canon and good fun.

The rest of it, including the Uhura strip, elicited a big "eh." Wasn't Enterprise supposed to be an attempt to make Star Trek sexier? Look at how that turned out . . .
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:18 PM on November 16, 2008


There had better fucking be Tribbles.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:19 PM on November 16, 2008 [23 favorites]


So anyone want to guess who the respirator vader-sounding dude was?

"Mudd, kid. Harry Mudd. Don't forget it."
posted by cortex at 12:19 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


Yes, it looked like an ad.

Given Kirk's attitude in TOS, he doesn't seem like the mopey renegade type, but more like the ex-high school football hero, still thinking every girl thinks he's hot shit and hoping he can pull another hail mary win out of his hat by some wild-ass trick.

An angry Spock (half-breed with human hormones going full bore) does make some sense.

They can't make me watch it.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:20 PM on November 16, 2008


I tend to agree with cortex. The new ship looks like a more modern, less cheesy version of the old ship. If your blood gets all riled up over that picture it might be best if you just skipped over the movie entirely.

"NO! IT'S ALL WRONG! It was clearly established in the third scene of episode 32 that James Kirk's first girlfriend's brother's name was Michael, not Matthew. HERESY."
posted by Justinian at 12:20 PM on November 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


My my my, there sure is a lot of ...shouting.

WHy did they pick two impossibly dreamy, dewy boys to play Kirk and Spock? Other than wanting to stuff the theaters with eternally sighing women, of course.
posted by The Whelk at 12:20 PM on November 16, 2008


And then I go and read the Wikipedia article: "It follows James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) enrolling at Starfleet Academy, his first meeting with Spock (Zachary Quinto), and their battles with Romulans from the future, who are interfering with history" and I think GOD DAMMIT STOP WITH THE FUCKING TIME TRAVEL PLOTLINES THEY ARE NOT GOOD.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:21 PM on November 16, 2008 [17 favorites]


Well I'm glad they're wearing the old uniforms anyway. And did I see that Skylar guy from Heroes paying Spock?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:21 PM on November 16, 2008


There had better fucking be Tribbles.

Your wish appears to be granted.
posted by evilcolonel at 12:21 PM on November 16, 2008


NCC-1701 minus one makes no sense. What is the contract number, 1701-subprime-negative-one?

None of the one-per-film-cycle ship redesigns EVER made any sense. The fact that they have inflicted that ghastly design on this flick signals that the film is being run as a vehicle for selling toys to fanboys. I will call it here and now: this film will suck, based solely on the redesign of the ship.

The idea for the film came from fan-produced and semi-pro ST episodes, which I still maintain will be the future of the franchise. As this film went into production, it closed down some of the fan-based production possibilities. I look forward to those possibilities opening up again.

And the space squid is the One True Ending!

My doom-saying is best taken with a grain of salt, may I add.
posted by mwhybark at 12:21 PM on November 16, 2008


They can't make me watch it.

But if there are green-skinned alien dancing girls, I might have a go.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:22 PM on November 16, 2008


Oh, no, fuckin time travel. GROAAAAN.
posted by mwhybark at 12:22 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


I saw the trailer at the Bond flick last night. Looks like a lot of fun. The ship design is a little off--I would prefer, in a word, "simpler." But it's no kind of deal-breaker. What I really like is the iPod-white interior styling. It does actually give the sense of the plain-white corridors of the original series. And I like Quinto as Spock--but, honestly, who the heck is the guy playing Kirk? He seems utterly unremarkable.
posted by kjh at 12:24 PM on November 16, 2008


And did I see that Skylar guy from Heroes paying Spock?

/obmatthaugheyreference
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on November 16, 2008


> And did I see that Skylar guy from Heroes paying Spock?

It has Shaun of the Dead playing Scotty. That works for me.
posted by mrzarquon at 12:25 PM on November 16, 2008


There had better fucking be Tribbles.

And blue chicks.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:27 PM on November 16, 2008


My reaction to trailers rarely correlates to what I think of the actual film. That said I see promise here. This could be quite good. I don't care what they do to the ship. The characters and the story just need to be good. I'm hoping they've made choices that make a good film and also resonate with the basic canon most people know. Also that Kirk is the glorious asshole we all know and love.

The time travel thing is a really bad move though. It's killing scifi. I wish some future screenwriter would travel to the recent past and put a stop to it.
posted by Tehanu at 12:27 PM on November 16, 2008 [5 favorites]


5000 quatloos that the newcomers will have to be destroyed.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:28 PM on November 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


Howsabout blue chicks in tribble bikinis!
posted by mwhybark at 12:29 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I've been in Trek fandom in one way or another since 1972, and hell, I'm going to be there opening day - well, opening midnight show - and give it a go.
Loved TOS, Liked TNG, hated everything else.
And the movies are more hit and miss than your nearsighted grandmother at the pistol range.
posted by willmize at 12:30 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am getting the same nasty feeling I had after waiting almost 10 years for the 3rd Terminator and that was a disaster. I have been watching Star Trek since I was 6 years old and I feel like this is just going to become a huge fuck up crammed with lost of action but no real story and what the fuck is up with the angsty Spock?. It is very pretty and I feel like it may be nice to look at but there will be a huge lack in substance...I will still be going to see it. I have to see it for my self before I shut is down completely.
posted by SheMulp AKA Plus 1 at 12:30 PM on November 16, 2008


Didn't John Titor warn us against the use of time travel plot devices in our scientifiction literature?
posted by mwhybark at 12:30 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


The fanboy damage is huge in ship design because it's not the same ship.
posted by ZaneJ. at 12:31 PM on November 16, 2008


Oh, no, fuckin time travel. GROAAAAN.

Tachyons! Is there nothing they can't do?
posted by The Whelk at 12:31 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


I still don't understand what's wrong with the ship design. I'm clearly not a hardcore enough Trekkie. I am not, however, encouraged to learn that time travel plays a role in the plot.
posted by Caduceus at 12:32 PM on November 16, 2008


It's hard to tell from the trailer, but I think the risk here is that the movie's creators might forget that what made Spock tick was his excellent sense of humour. This is exactly the mistake that George Lucas made: how could a dark lord who made such excellent wisecracks while force-choking underlings possibly have emerged from a dull Anakin?

So if this is all pissy Spock scowling at pissy Kirk, then we're in trouble. I'd call it a hidden threat. An invisible danger. A ghostly peril. Oh, what's the term I'm looking for here?
posted by bicyclefish at 12:32 PM on November 16, 2008 [7 favorites]


James Kirk = Al Bundy (in space)
posted by blue_beetle at 12:33 PM on November 16, 2008


But if there are green-skinned alien dancing girls, I might have a go.

Ahhh nothing like Orion slave girls to lighten the mood
posted by SheMulp AKA Plus 1 at 12:33 PM on November 16, 2008



And the space squid is the One True Ending!


New Trailer full of scary organ music, actual dialog
posted by The Whelk at 12:34 PM on November 16, 2008


This is exactly the mistake that George Lucas made: how could a dark lord who made such excellent wisecracks while force-choking underlings possibly have emerged from a dull Anakin?

To be fair, in the list of mistakes Lucas made, I've run out of caring before I get to that one.
posted by Tehanu at 12:34 PM on November 16, 2008 [8 favorites]


The new NCC-1701 looks like it was designed by a committee that couldn't agree on an overarching aesthetic--the saucer section looks nearly identical to the one in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, while the other parts look new-ish.

Ship designs in the original series-era Star Trek universe (at least for the Federation) always tended to look workmanlike--the emphasis seemed to be on function, with form as an afterthought. The result was that Enterprise looked heavy, and difficult to propel forward. The visual effects in the first three ST movies are remarkable because they're so good at conveying a sense of the ship's weight, as well as its clunky steering.

The lines of the new NCC-1701 don't convey that same sense of function and weight to me. (The curved rows of blue lights on the warp nacelles are the biggest offender here.) It is a reboot of a kind, though, so maybe in this reboot the Enterprise can flit stylishly all over the place.
posted by Prospero at 12:35 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:36 PM on November 16, 2008


I still don't understand what's wrong with the ship design.

...

it's not the same ship. -- ZaneJ.

In a nutshell, that is it. Redesigns are just marketing opportunities, and they telegraph the production objectives of the film.
posted by mwhybark at 12:38 PM on November 16, 2008


The planet Vulcan seems to look a lot like Vasquez Rocks
posted by jfrancis at 12:39 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


In the future, all alien worlds look suspiciously like Griffith park.
posted by The Whelk at 12:40 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Eh, it looks good, but did my ex before she pulled out the "Buck Rogers" videotapes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:42 PM on November 16, 2008


WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
STAR TREK?
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 12:43 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


The new NCC-1701

Can't we please come up with a mocking nickname?

NCC-Minus One

NCC-Less than 1701

NCC-1700 (I know, I know)

NCC-1624

NCC-1492

Tarderprise

Consolationprise

Exitprise


NC-17 Uh-oh
posted by mwhybark at 12:44 PM on November 16, 2008


The blight of Scott Bakula and dull contradictory PC preachy-ness of TNG must be erased.

Uh, "PC Preachyness" was part of why the original startrek was created. The idea was to show a future world where everyone got along regardless of race, etc, which was probably not too obvious from the vantage point of the 1960s.

Also, Scott Bakula was on 'Enterprise' which was set before TOS, and way before TNG. /nerd
posted by delmoi at 12:46 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


There just have better be that bit where the ship gets hit and everyone leans one way and they tip the camera in the other. They they go the other way. And the consoles blow up.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2008 [9 favorites]


WhOA. Watched the trailer. Got goosebumps. Yes, yes, I know that it isn't TOS or TNG - but it also doesn't appear to be Voyager, DS9, or Enterprise.

Maybe - MAYBE - they will get it right. Rebooting worked for Batman, despite my absolute initial skepticism.

I'll be there. And you will, too.
posted by davidmsc at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


New Trailer full of scary organ music, actual dialog

Watchmen is looking increasingly cheesy. Zack, do some directing of people as opposed to perfecting all those slow mo scenes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2008


A fan production.

This is one of the oddest things I have ever had the pleasure of examining. Fascinating.
posted by mwhybark at 12:54 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


But if there are green-skinned alien dancing girls, I might have a go.

hubba
hubba!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:56 PM on November 16, 2008


Dorkotrons need to take a chill pill. It's 2008 not 1970. What exactly were you expecting. That looks hype. Of course, it's just a trailer. Who knows what the actually movie will be like.
posted by chunking express at 12:56 PM on November 16, 2008


I'm outraged that Spock is played by a goy. He is a goy, right? Spock's essential conflict is most obviously a metaphor for the Jewish immigrant experience - I can't stand to see them take that away!
posted by serazin at 12:58 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


The crew of NCC-1700 Constitution.

Oh man, I love this stuff! Somebody get the Achewood guy to write a couple scripts!
posted by mwhybark at 12:58 PM on November 16, 2008


Could someone please explain to me what was wrong with Enterprise? Save for the opening theme song, I thought it was a pretty good series.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:59 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Spock's essential conflict is most obviously a metaphor for the Jewish immigrant experience

And here I thought I was reading too much into my anime.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:01 PM on November 16, 2008


In a nutshell, that is it. Redesigns are just marketing opportunities, and they telegraph the production objectives of the film.

Yeah, because if they'd kept the ship design exactly the same, no one would buy the marketing merchandise.

Right.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:03 PM on November 16, 2008


I'm not too fond of the direction the franchise seems to be going. Why not move on, instead of using characters and a universe we already know everything about? The failure that was Enterprise for most of its episodes should have tought them a lesson, fitting something new and unknown into lore that is basically already written just doesn't work without introducing major macguffins. Star Trek needs a major reboot, something entirely new. Let R.D. Moore make a new show, set after TNG / DS9 / VOY. Let it be dark, gloomy, go to places of the character's psyche where DS9 only dared to go on the surface and I'll be on board. And yes, do all that without making a 2nd BSG 2004.
posted by starzero at 1:05 PM on November 16, 2008


KokuRyu, I have thought about Enterprise a bit and never could put my finger on why I lost interest. With Voyager, I grew increasingly irritated with lack-of-consequences plot points until I felt an active antipathy toward the show. With Enterprise, it seemed as if they were really trying not to make that kind of scripting error, and the end result was a show that felt as if it were being written by people who were holding back.

Essentially, I got bored with the show.
posted by mwhybark at 1:07 PM on November 16, 2008


funny, I kinda thought that was Matt Damon.
posted by captainsohler at 1:09 PM on November 16, 2008


Starzero, I bet Moore would love to take Trek apart and put it together again. I'm not sure he would have it him him after BSG, though - that show seems to me to be direct response to Moore's Trek experience, and he seems to have done a pretty good job marching out his demons and themes.
posted by mwhybark at 1:10 PM on November 16, 2008


I actually thought I was watching an ad.

um. you were.

also...the .01 seconds of the new transporter effect looks mighty wicked

new Uhura looks pretty damn hot, too...hope she gets to keep the giant chrome bluetooth headset

tribble cameo? boo. at some point i want to see bad guys transported to tribble planet NOM NOM NOM!
posted by sexyrobot at 1:11 PM on November 16, 2008


When I saw the dyed blond hair at the very beginning, I thought, "WTF is this? Dawson's Treek?"

Zachary Quinto as Spock looks awesome, though.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:11 PM on November 16, 2008


Spock's essential conflict is most obviously a metaphor for the Jewish immigrant experience

And here I thought I was reading too much into my anime.
Actually, he's right- the vulcan salute is identical to a blessing gesture by the kohanim...

This sort of thing is surprisingly common in Sci-Fi- the original battlestar galactica borrowed heavily from mormon theology.
posted by jenkinsEar at 1:12 PM on November 16, 2008


I'm not too fond of the direction the franchise seems to be going. Why not move on, instead of using characters and a universe we already know everything about? The failure that was Enterprise for most of its episodes should have tought them a lesson, fitting something new and unknown into lore that is basically already written just doesn't work without introducing major macguffins. Star Trek needs a major reboot, something entirely new. Let R.D. Moore make a new show, set after TNG / DS9 / VOY. Let it be dark, gloomy, go to places of the character's psyche where DS9 only dared to go on the surface and I'll be on board. And yes, do all that without making a 2nd BSG 2004.

I like this suggestion, but then, I'm a 9er. Nicole de Boer has expressed a desire to sign on as Ezri Dax again sometime in the future, as a captain, so that'd be a nice continuity link. I'm pretty curious to see the future of the future. The past of the future, notsomuch.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:14 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Actually, he's right- the vulcan salute is identical to a blessing gesture by the kohanim...

I knew about the origins of the salute, after seeing Leonard Nimoy in an interview talk about seeing this as a child, and being fascinated with the gesture. But the idea that Spock's life and characterization was purposefully written to be a metaphor for the immigrant Jewish experience, as intriguing as that sounds, I'm going to need a source before I believe it, as much as I would love to think it's true.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:15 PM on November 16, 2008


Am I the only one interested in seeing Harold play Sulu?
posted by shoebox at 1:15 PM on November 16, 2008


Actually, he's right- the vulcan salute is identical to a blessing gesture by the kohanim...

That's because Nimoy's Jewish. He's the one who made it up, after all.

I think the Vulcans are a good metaphor for any model minority, but saying that they're Jews, specifically, seems to be stretching it a bit. And I'm Jewish and a big Vulcan fan.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:16 PM on November 16, 2008


Oh crap. Odd number.
posted by sourwookie at 1:17 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


not at all, shoebox! I think the three casting choices cited above - Sulu, Scotty, and Spock - are all very promising based on the performaces we've seen the actors deliver in other venues.
posted by mwhybark at 1:17 PM on November 16, 2008


Because if they kept the design the same, everyone could buy the much cheaper, original models of the Enterprise, you know, instead of having to throw them out and buy the newer, more expensive just released merchandise.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:18 PM on November 16, 2008


And unlike DS9, the racial metaphors on the OG Star Trek served a progressive goal.
posted by serazin at 1:18 PM on November 16, 2008


Someone needs to ask secret Trekkie Barack Obama about this.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:18 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


if they're going to have SEX in it, why the prissy white bra? Are we to believe that in 200 years textile science won't have advanced enough to render those undergarments unnecessary?

Sex is rarely about what is necessary.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:24 PM on November 16, 2008 [4 favorites]


External reference re: Vulcan/Judaism connection:
Ever since Classic Trek, Leonard Nimoy’s Spock has been taken as a metaphor for racial Otherness, specifically for Jewishness in patriarchal white male, Christian culture.
posted by serazin at 1:24 PM on November 16, 2008


I would simply like to point out that the second 'hubba' is TV's Batgirl, Yvonne Craig.

Hubba, indeed.
posted by device55 at 1:25 PM on November 16, 2008


There had better fucking be Tribbles.

Hope not. Tribbles are trouble.
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 1:26 PM on November 16, 2008


just look at the plethora of opinions and knowledge on display. Star Trek is - according to Dan Neil, writing in the Los Angeles Times Magazine in an 800 Words column - the deepest, longest, linked work of fiction in the history of mankind. I'm old enough to remember when Star Trek was first removed from network television, and the intense anticipation I felt prior to the release of the first film. the internet was far off in the future, and I had no idea how badly the first Star Trek movie would suck. thank god for Khan and the second movie. but the first one made a boat-load of money, which lead to the second one. so even if this one sucks, which I fully expect it will, perhaps it will make enough money to provide someone else the opportunity to do something worthwhile. enough with the back story of Kirk and Shatner. how about the building of Deep Space Nine? the people running NASA need a little help with how to envision the next few years, and an orbiting platform in the wrong orbit and useless lunar colonies aren't cutting it.
posted by TMezz at 1:27 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why did they pick two impossibly dreamy, dewy boys to play Kirk and Spock?

Uh, you do know where slash fiction originated, right?
posted by The Bellman at 1:32 PM on November 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


Mysterious Stranger: "What... is your name?"

Mini-Kirk: "My name is James Tiberius Kirk!"

Mysterious Stranger: "What... is your quest?"

Mini-Kirk: "To seek a Canon Fail!"

Mysterious Stranger: "What... is your favorite color?"

Mini-Kirk: "Green!"

[SUDDENLY, A TREKKIE EMERGES FROM BEHIND A SHRUBBERY]

Trekkie: "'Canon Fail', indeed! Actually, Captain James T. Kirk's favorite color is never made explicit in the Original Series. But in a March 2008 interview, William Shatner stated that his favorite colors were earth tones -- specifically brown and bronze! Additionally, I find this base appeal to another fandom -- Monty Python, to be precise -- to be quite shallow and condescending."

Mysterious Stranger: "Oh, well in that case..."

[HE FLINGS THE TREKKIE INTO THE CANYON BECAUSE MAINSTREAM HOLLYWOOD DEMANDS AN ENTERTAINING BLOCKBUSTER NOT MEMORY ALPHA DOT ORG THE MOVIE FOR CHRISSAKES]

[THEN THE HOVERBIKE EXPLODES FOR NO APPARENT REASON BECAUSE HEY, AWESOME]
posted by Rhaomi at 1:37 PM on November 16, 2008 [19 favorites]


DS9 would be a great movie. The Star Trek movies have their moment, but as a whole, they leave a lot to be desired. Those so lucky to get the green light to make these films should watch ALL of the series made by Filmation. They're great. Filmation is just great in general.
posted by Flex1970 at 1:44 PM on November 16, 2008


External reference re: Vulcan/Judaism connection

Again, this is fan speculation. The one reference made is that "Indeed, Nimoy himself has made the connection between his Jewish identity and his portrayal as Spock," the source cited for which is Daniel Leonard Bernardi's Star Trek and History: Race-ing Toward a White Future. I haven't read Bernardi's study, but I'm guessing it's another reference to the salute.

I can certainly see a connection, and I think it's great to speculate on Spock's role as the symbol of Otherness. I always thought of Spock more as an underliner for what makes us human - our ability (perhaps weakness?) to let emotions rule our reason.

Take for example the classic episode where Spock and Kirk are forced to fight each other to the death, or be both executed. Spock approaches the situation logically - two deaths are worse than one, and he naturally doesn't want to die himself, so he's prepared to fight Kirk to the death. Kirk doesn't try to reason with Spock; he knows Spock is "right" - but Kirk won't except the logic in the argument.

That, I think, was what Spock was all about - both praise and criticism for our all-too-human quality of putting emotion above logic.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:44 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's hard to tell from the trailer, but I think the risk here is that the movie's creators might forget that what made Spock tick was his excellent sense of humour. This is exactly the mistake that George Lucas made: how could a dark lord who made such excellent wisecracks while force-choking underlings possibly have emerged from a dull Anakin?

The key to the success of the original Star Trek was character and dialogue. A lot of the dialogue between the characters was the same you'd find in a decent spaghetti western or crime drama. There was a lot of melodrama that's lost from the newer series. Of course, we laugh at Kirk because he's such a lecherous swashbuckler, so unashamed of his pot-bellied virility, but that's also what makes him great. He's utterly unashamed, and somehow his force of personality outshines his many flaws. The animosity between the colleagues Spock and McCoy is so overdone and silly, but it's one of the most endearing character conflicts, and it's what continually draws out the humanity in Spock.

One very common criticism of Star Wars is how terrible the original would be without Han Solo, the only interesting character in the whole film (besides the androids). He's silly and overdone, but it's melodrama and dialog that provides the interest in him, and I think sometimes you need broad brush characters like that to get past the scenery in many science fiction-type settings. At least you need to acknowledge the origins in the American western, and not make it too much like modern prime-time television drama, with characters more suited for office boardrooms than at the helm of a ship.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:45 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


Oh good lord I meant accept of course. Going to slam my hand in a car door now as punishment.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:45 PM on November 16, 2008


Again, this is fan speculation. The one reference made is that "Indeed, Nimoy himself has made the connection between his Jewish identity and his portrayal as Spock," the source cited for which is Daniel Leonard Bernardi's Star Trek and History: Race-ing Toward a White Future. I haven't read Bernardi's study, but I'm guessing it's another reference to the salute.

I've read it, and that's exactly what it refers to. Nimoy seems to consider Spock Jewish, but there's no particular indication that the other actors or writers behind the characters do.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:47 PM on November 16, 2008


As long as it isn't as bad as the third season of the Original Series, I'll be okay with it. There is only so much hand-wringing I can muster for a show that, as much as I love it, was capable of being as bad in its original run as anything that has come afterwards.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:48 PM on November 16, 2008


As a fan from Day 1 of the original series, who has seen all the movies and really enjoyed Next Generation,

1. I don't really care what the ship looks like.
2. William Shatner was an utterly unremarkable casting pick for Kirk, and I never cared for him much. He's much better in "Boston Legal" than he ever was as Kirk.
3. The current casting for Kirk and Spock appeals to this long-in-the-tooth broad. Did I mention I freaking invented slash? Didn't know anyone else had thought of it until TNG debuted.
4. They've messed with canon ad infinitum in all the various series, films, novels, and comic books, and most of it has been good fun.
posted by Peach at 1:51 PM on November 16, 2008


I still think that the only workable reboot of the Star Trek franchise is a Wire-style hyper-realism treatment. It isn't that radical of a move really. The optimistic view of the future had grown quite a thick layer of hypocrisy by the end of Next Generation. For instance, the constant contradiction between Picard and crew's constant praising of the Federation while every episode centering on the procedures, protocols and bureaucrats of Starfleet, they are consistently revealed to be corrupt, hypocritical and duplicitous. Or, the episodes celebrating the Prime Directive, while half way through the same episode sneaking around it with some loophole because there was circumstantial evidence that leads the crew to believe Federation interests are at risk. The multiculty neoliberal preachiness rang hollow by the end of DS9, so much so that the show started observing the hypocrisy within the franchise's own logic. Though even as early as the first few seasons of TNG, Picard mopes out his window about how close at times the Federation is to sliding back into barbarism, and how little progress has actually occurred. A rose tinted glasses absolutist Star Trek has certainly proven itself a dead end with Enterprise, and without a new political ethos the franchise is doomed to a future of shallow action movies and NCC-90210. So, failing some great new political message and a new formulation of what the ideal future is, there is a lot more potential in a cynical take on Star Trek. Though long time fans hiss at the thought of a morally complicated Star Trek, it has always lurked under the surface, after all just look at Kirk.
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:59 PM on November 16, 2008 [12 favorites]


Give me Blade Runner. You know, another 42 times.

Well, in case you haven't heard, Ridley Scott is working on a new film in a Blade Runner-like world. Yes, I give you Monopoly, the movie. (Yeah, from the board game.)
posted by Manhasset at 2:01 PM on November 16, 2008


I'm probably coming off as more serious about this than I intend to. I don't think that Spock was explicitly written to embody Jewish attributes and I don't imagine Rodenberry coaching Nimoy to act more Jewish or writers commenting to each other that this or that episode would symbolize the founding of the Israeli state or whatnot. My first comment was basically a joke but I said it because I'd read consistent speculation (and Nimoy's own statements) that Spock's character did speak to this conflict. I don't know if Nimoy is solely responsible for bringing this to the character or if the writers thought of that too, but from a lot of folks' point of view, this is the most obvious metaphor. So I was (semi-jokingly) annoyed that the new film uses a non-Jew to play this chacter.

/speculative overanalysis of second-rate entertainment franchise
posted by serazin at 2:02 PM on November 16, 2008


As long as it isn't as bad as the third season of the Original Series, I'll be okay with it. There is only so much hand-wringing I can muster for a show that, as much as I love it, was capable of being as bad in its original run as anything that has come afterwards.

I love that season for its b-movie qualities. But, yeah, episodes like "The Savage Curtain" were just awful.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:05 PM on November 16, 2008


My hopes sank a bit after seeing this trailer.

I find it really hard to believe that two centuries from now, there will still be internal combustion engines still available for viewing anywhere outside of a museum, and none functioning; it may have been a cute "fooled-ya" from Abrams but for me it was so nonsensical as to prevent "suspension of disbelief" immediately right off the bat, which is not the way you want to start a trailer, and it doesn't inspire any confidence in Abrams' storytelling abilities. Also, Spock attacking Kirk is so utterly fucking cliche, even in TOS episodes: he's a Vulcan, so let's have him acting counter-to-type and expressing violent anger.

There were aspects that don't look bad. The effects look amazing, of course, Pegg sounds as if he'll provide a good Scotty, and seeing a woman peel off a Star Trek uniform top is not an unwelcome event for any red-blooded American male. I also admit that I liked seeing a Romulan with stubble. It just felt somewhat right. It was one of the few things that did.

We knew about the bridge before, but I have to admit that someone calling it "the Apple Store Bridge" really sunk it for me. How practical is it to be working in an environment where everything's lit so flourescently?

I'll most likely see the movie, but it feels to me as if it's going to have the same relationship to its source material as the modern Star Wars trilogy had to its predecessor. In both cases, there's a set of qualities, maxims, or philosophies that are utterly important to giving something the right feel for its subgenre, even one as specialized as a "Star Wars film" or a "Star Trek film". Part of what made Lucas so ridiculous was that he got it so completely and utterly wrong for I-III, and yet he was the creator of IV-VI — how could a creator not know what made his own groundbreaking films good? Here, we can't blame Roddenberry; it's just a case of a popular Hollywood/television director who is purportedly a fan of the series helming a project of what his vision of Trek was. My guess — and I'd be utterly thrilled to be proven completely wrong here — is that Abrams is a Trek fan but more of its space opera qualities, and will not have done a great job reproducing Trek's heart and brain. Again, I'd be utterly thrilled to be proven wrong.

(Those boulders brought back memories of the rock beast in "Galaxy Quest." This association amused me.)
posted by WCityMike at 2:07 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


They should make a version of Waiting for Godot with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy and call it Star Trek 12
posted by dng at 2:08 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


Ah, Peach, don't be bad-mouthing William Shatner. I love me some William Shatner. I loved all his other stuff in the 60's ( Westerns, spy shows, detectives shows and the Twilight Zone), Star Trek, T.J. Hooker, and Boston Legal. He's all good all the time. He's not great, but if Shatner is in it, I'm probably going to enjoy it.

Plus Shatner in TOS, made Patrick Stewart double plus good in TNG because it was such a contrast that really highlighted the maturation of the Federation. No more cowboys need apply. Now captains needed to be smooth, slow to anger, etc., etc. and Shatner provides a blazing yellow highlighter circle of contrast to the embarrassment that was Scott Bakula in Enterprise. (Shame though, because Bakula was very good in Quantum Leap and Lord of Illusions.)

That aside, I agree with you wholeheartedly and I am looking forward to this, yes I am.
posted by BeReasonable at 2:09 PM on November 16, 2008


2. William Shatner was an utterly unremarkable casting pick for Kirk, and I never cared for him much.

I always thought that Captain Pike was pretty freakin' awesome in the first pilot, and "The Menagerie".
posted by willmize at 2:10 PM on November 16, 2008


Also, my prediction is that the suited character that stops kid-Kirk is either (a) no one important, just a 23rd century traffic cop, or ...

... don't look at unless you've been sticking your head in the sand and don't yet know about any potential stunt casting ...

(b) the Nimoy-Spock which will be a mid- or late film reveal.

posted by WCityMike at 2:12 PM on November 16, 2008


WHy did they pick two impossibly dreamy, dewy boys to play Kirk and Spock?

So I can fap.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:13 PM on November 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


And then I go and read the Wikipedia article: "It follows James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) enrolling at Starfleet Academy, his first meeting with Spock (Zachary Quinto), and their battles with Romulans from the future, who are interfering with history" and I think GOD DAMMIT STOP WITH THE FUCKING TIME TRAVEL PLOTLINES THEY ARE NOT GOOD.

Favorited a million times. Maybe in other SF universes time travel works, but in Trek it has always signaled the laziest of plot writing (well along with the mirror universe crap).
posted by DiscourseMarker at 2:16 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


.
posted by Binliner at 2:22 PM on November 16, 2008


MAINSTREAM HOLLYWOOD DEMANDS AN ENTERTAINING BLOCKBUSTER

This is the only thing they realized once they start a new Star Trek project. The shows started with a somewhat complex story line with built in character arcs, and then they figured out they just need to blow shit up for people to watch. This is also true for each of the movie series.

Damon is to old to play Kirk! OH SNAP!
posted by P.o.B. at 2:23 PM on November 16, 2008


Let R.D. Moore make a new show, set after TNG / DS9 / VOY. Let it be dark, gloomy, go to places of the character's psyche where DS9 only dared to go on the surface and I'll be on board.

Yes, please. To me DS9 has always been the best series, because it had, like actual character development and stuff. please don't hurt me.

I like this suggestion, but then, I'm a 9er. Nicole de Boer has expressed a desire to sign on as Ezri Dax again sometime in the future, as a captain, so that'd be a nice continuity link.

Oh good god, no, please no. I'd be willing to forgo adherence to the canon if it meant we could just pretend that the last season of DS9 never happened, and Jadzia Dax is alive and well and never got killed by a stupid pah-wraith possessed Dukat. Please?
posted by DiscourseMarker at 2:24 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Of course Jadzia never died. The last two or three seasons of DS9 were a mass hallucination. The series actually ended was shot, strangled, burned, and pulverised with a jackhammer once they started the whole bloody stupid Dominion thing.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:28 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


serazin: "I'm outraged that Spock is played by a goy. He is a goy, right?"

Zack Quinto is Irish-Italian Catholic. So yea.
posted by octothorpe at 2:31 PM on November 16, 2008


I find it really hard to believe that two centuries from now, there will still be internal combustion engines still available for viewing anywhere outside of a museum, and none functioning;

They have matter replication technology... they can make anything
(... and even thinking that makes me feel such a nerd)

the mirror universe crap


bah, goatee-beard sword-fighting RULZ!!1!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:31 PM on November 16, 2008


Though, in reflection, aren't the Romulans and the time travel plot really from the past? I expect them to be the only group that isn't re-tooled all that much, so that they may play the symbolic role of being the Star Trek of Christmases Past visiting Apple Store Star Trek of Christmas Present. Their inevitable defeat at the end of the movie marking the transition, much as Generations, for whatever reason, needed to have Kirk and Picard in the same movie So, it is much worse than a simple lazy time travel plot, it is also going to be a cheesy torch passing metaphor at the franchise level.
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:31 PM on November 16, 2008


I think my favorite Roddenberry line came from the introduction to one of the books detailing all the technology of Star Trek, in which he talked about all the half-assed ways that certain idioms came about, before wrapping up to, "The Enterprise is just a plot device for getting the characters from story to story."

So basically fuck canon.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:33 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


The first movie I ever saw was "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"

My dad took me. I was way to young to understand what was going on, and I remember curling up in the seat beside my dad and taking a little nap.

I remember seeing the ship zoom off screen leaving streams of colored light in it's wake and understanding what "warp speed" meant on some fundamental level (fundamentally fast)

After we left, and I was groggy from my nap and blinded by the afternoon sun, I remember asking my dad how the ship could possibly land. I mean it looked cool, but it had no landing gear. My dad told me that it could never land. It was built in space and would only ever be in space.

That blew my mind. Then I got a Star Trek lunch box.

I will go see this movie, munch popcorn, go 'wow' at the special effects, and do this thing we humans call "having fun"
posted by device55 at 2:33 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]



And then I go and read the Wikipedia article: "It follows James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) enrolling at Starfleet Academy, his first meeting with Spock (Zachary Quinto), and their battles with Romulans from the future, who are interfering with history" and I think GOD DAMMIT STOP WITH THE FUCKING TIME TRAVEL PLOTLINES THEY ARE NOT GOOD.

posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 3:21 PM on November 16
[5 favorites +]

[!]


So the premise of the movie has you alarmed?
posted by empath at 2:36 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


device55:

Ah, I was waiting for someone to dismiss all of this pointless media criticism with an appeal to that good, old canard of having fun. Why bother with trying to figure out if a movie is good or entertaining if it can just be fun?

So, for you I have a recommendation. Forget about all this pointless media criticism, this discussion of what makes a film entertaining or good - what a distraction!

Instead, go out to your nearest video rental place and pick up a copy of Out for a Kill, a lovely film I had the pleasure to watch this past weekend. It stars Steven Seagal.

Here's an excerpt from the back cover: "Renowned archeologist [sic] Robert Burns (Seagal) has unearthed precious artifacts in the ancient ruins of eastern China... [b]ut the Chinese Mafia, the Tong, have plans of their own. When Burns accidentally discovers the Tong are using the artifacts as containers for smuggling drugs overseas, he becomes marked for death. Framed for the murder of his assistant, Burns is thrown into a Chinese prison, but is released and used in an American/Chinese government plot as bait to attract the Tong. The trap is set and Burns takes on the Tong one man at a time in a blistering martial arts assault, leading up to the final confrontation with the Emperor of the Tong, who must face the wrath of a man out for a kill."

O! if only all movies could just be fun!
posted by Sangermaine at 2:51 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


All I can say is that there had better be the right fight music and no less then one double-hand chop per fight scene...

BAH BAH BAH BAH BAH BAH BAH bah bah bah bah....

DOO Doo doo doo...
posted by Samizdata at 2:54 PM on November 16, 2008


Sangermaine -

My father and I have had a long running argument about the role of cinema in society. For years, he believed that cinema had an obligation to examine the human condition. I, on the other hand, espoused the idea that the occasional dose of boobies and explosions were perfectly acceptable. Finally we agreed that there were films and there were movies, and never the twain shall meet.
posted by Samizdata at 2:56 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Sangermaine: Ah, I was waiting for someone to dismiss all of this pointless media criticism with an appeal to that good, old canard of having fun. Why bother with trying to figure out if a movie is good or entertaining if it can just be fun?

Asking a bunch of fanboys for their opinions about what makes a good and entertaining movie, is rather like asking your dog for an opinion about the quality of food.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:00 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


"The last two or three seasons of DS9 were a mass hallucination. The series actually ended was shot, strangled, burned, and pulverised with a jackhammer once they started the whole bloody stupid Dominion thing."
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:28 AM on November 17

I believe this is where we duel.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:03 PM on November 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


All I can say is that there had better be the right fight music and no less then one double-hand chop per fight scene...

I'm going to add a 'and at least one drop-kick' stipulation to that, if I may
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:03 PM on November 16, 2008


Oh goody, they are going to be blowing stuff up.
posted by buzzman at 3:12 PM on November 16, 2008


(The curved rows of blue lights on the warp nacelles are the biggest offender here.)

Slap on some Type-R and Flowmax decals and it's good to go.
posted by zippy at 3:12 PM on November 16, 2008


Trying to figure out if a movie or film is good or bad in advance of its existence is a bit difficult to do. If you have this mystic tea-leaf reading ability, please save us all the time and trouble, will you, and review all future films in advance. I'd like to plan my summer film schedule for 2012.

I think it's perfectly fair to decry the pointless, nerdy, nitpicking of a film to death, especially when no one has seen it. Predicting that an entire film will fail because a single frame photo of a fake space ship shows the support pylons to be a bit too swooshy is just silly.

I am trying to express a bit of sentiment for the franchise, a bit of hopefulness that the new flick will be at least enjoyable, and the positive value an open mind can have on your aesthetic experience.

So, did you like "Out for a kill" or what?
posted by device55 at 3:17 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Needs more Khan.
posted by homunculus at 3:28 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Out for a Kill is about 90 minutes long and manages about six boss fights in that length, meaning it never drags in pace. In fact, the plot is rather expedited - Seagal's character discovers the drug smuggling operation and escapes from the Chinese mafia by means of a car chase to the Chinese/Kazakhstan border within about ten minutes of the opening credits. It takes another twenty minutes for his wife to die, but after that, the rest of the movie is him hunting down the killers in all sorts of exotic locals.

But you really have to watch it to get an appreciation for the subtle difference between a fun movie and a good movie, and why it's possible to have one and not the other.

A more discerning Seagal fan, by the way, may enjoy Executive Decision, which within its genre, could actually be called both a fun and a decent (if not good) movie.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:36 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm still waiting for the Seaquest DSV prequel. So many unanswered questions.
posted by drezdn at 3:43 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sounds like a fun way to kill an hour and a half.

Please note, though, the distinction between having fun and whether a film is 'fun' or 'good'.

I have fun - I enjoy myself thoroughly - when I stay up late and watch 2001 again for the umpteenth time with the lights off and the sound turned up.

2001 is not a "fun" movie. From a conventional perspective, it's kinda dull. There's not even any 'splosions.

Will the new Trek film be a 'fun' movie? - maybe. It looks like it from the trailer. It might be 'good' too. I'm willing to try it and see.
posted by device55 at 3:49 PM on November 16, 2008


Plus Shatner in TOS, made Patrick Stewart double plus good in TNG because it was such a contrast that really highlighted the maturation of the Federation. No more cowboys need apply. Now captains needed to be smooth, slow to anger, etc., etc.

And Picard made us appreciate Sisko, who didn't live in the shiny happy world of the Federation (or at least only in its periphery), and had to Take Care of Business.

Then Janeway and Archer came along and made us all appreciate time away from the TV.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:01 PM on November 16, 2008 [4 favorites]


Speaking of "2001" and the subject of dads' taking their kids to sci-fi movies.....

My dad, for all his '50s-derived stodginess and conservative political worldview, was a huge fan of "2001" and took me and my brother to a revival at some dinky movie theater in eastern Washington in 1981. This completely blew my early-teens expectations of him.

So yeah, back to "Star Trek." That trailer is "whatever," but count me as one of those gals who will pay 12 bucks to watch Sylar in pointy ear makeup.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 4:11 PM on November 16, 2008


Lucas should remake the Christmas Special. It's time.
posted by homunculus at 4:12 PM on November 16, 2008


I love Star Trek.

I love Bad Robot.

I [really like] J.J. Abrams.

And I love good special effects.

[doesn't think about it for even a second]

Okay, I'm sold.
posted by humannaire at 4:18 PM on November 16, 2008


Compu, I think science fiction does that to people. It appeals to the forward looking side of us. (and pyew pyew lasers!)
posted by device55 at 4:22 PM on November 16, 2008


I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and then were silent.
posted by briank at 4:33 PM on November 16, 2008


I still think that the only workable reboot of the Star Trek franchise is a Wire-style hyper-realism treatment.

I really enjoy that, but it's called Battlestar Galactica, and it already exists. Aside from a somewhat wonky third season, you may like it, too -- check it out!

Judging from this trailer, this movie looks like fun. Mind you, I have no emotional investment in the Star Trek franchise whatsoever, so trampling on canon, etc., is kinda meaningless to me. On the other hand, I may just be in a mysteriously awesome mood (this has been happening to me for no apparent reason off and on for the last two weeks; can't imagine why), because the longer Watchmen trailer linked above looked pretty good to me, too. And that's something I've been actively dreading for over a year. Mind you, in BOTH cases, I can see there are things in the trailers that may bode very badly if they dominate too much of the actual movies (shitty, stupid slo-mo and cheeseball CGI effects in Watchmen; that whole weird car commercial at the beginning of Star Trek).
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:53 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


And I like Quinto as Spock--but, honestly, who the heck is the guy playing Kirk? He seems utterly unremarkable.

Ditto. Spock looks to be perfectly cast. But Kirk feels wrong. He doesn't have nearly enough Shatner, sorry to say.

The ship doesn't bug me. You're allowed to update the fucking models, christ. Are people going to get pissed when the blaster effects aren't as shitty as the 60s technology could make them? How about the transporter? Don't know about you, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the "rebooted" version of warp drive.

But if you accept that these other elements can be changed, why not the ship design? It's not like there's anything in the stories themselves that require the ship to look as crappy as TOS. Yeah, you've got to have the saucer section and the separating parts and the warp nacelles. Fine. But what difference does the shape of the nacelle pylons have to do with anything in the stories? None at all.

And shit, they got Simon-Motherfucking-Pegg to play Scotty? Well done, lads!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:14 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Homunculus, I clicked over to that holiday-special poll, and currently, the "Star Wars Holiday Special" is leading "Charlie Brown" by over 40 percentage points. Keep votin', people! I would love to go see this on a big screen!

(Question is, if it does stay in the top five, will Evilgeorgelucas pull some strings to make sure it's not available for screening?)
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:17 PM on November 16, 2008


And shit, they got Simon-Motherfucking-Pegg to play Scotty? Well done, lads!

Exactly. Give him enough screen time, and that could make up for the rest of the movie.

Homunculus, I clicked over to that holiday-special poll, and currently, the "Star Wars Holiday Special" is leading "Charlie Brown" by over 40 percentage points. Keep votin', people! I would love to go see this on a big screen!

GOTV, people! Think of how much poor little Lumpy needs Chewbacca home for Christmas! Direct link is here. [Although it was hard for me not to check the "Year Without a Santa Claus" box. I have a thing for the Heat Miser.]
posted by Dr. Zira at 5:27 PM on November 16, 2008


I still think that the only workable reboot of the Star Trek franchise is a Wire-style hyper-realism treatment.

I really enjoy that, but it's called Battlestar Galactica

Are you drunk sir? I enjoy BG, but to call it even remotely realistic is equivalent to calling Star Trek epic. BG is 50% fantasy 50% sci fi and 50% soap opera.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:36 PM on November 16, 2008


What, no T'Pau?
posted by bwg at 5:58 PM on November 16, 2008


Why is everyone so concerned about time travel? Without time travel we never would have had Star Trek IV!
posted by you're a kitty! at 6:00 PM on November 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


> Homunculus, I clicked over to that holiday-special poll, and currently, the "Star Wars Holiday Special" is leading "Charlie Brown" by over 40 percentage points. Keep votin', people! I would love to go see this on a big screen!

Star Wars Holiday Special (CBS, November 17, 1978; Beatrice Arthur and Wookiees)

Beatrice Arthur and Wookiees
posted by mrzarquon at 6:06 PM on November 16, 2008


you're a kitty! - Shh. They're fanboys. Don't confuse them.

Put me in the "must see this" camp. It looks like everything the last few Trek iterations weren't: INTERESTING.
posted by SansPoint at 6:06 PM on November 16, 2008


I'm not sure about my opinion on the new design of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 no bloody a, b, c or d, (I understand a redesign concept, and it's not horribly ugly, but some parts of it I'm not sure about, like that weirdness by the deflector dish,) but this:

I, too, am upset that the new ship doesn't like like a corny piece of low-budget art-department shit.

is bullshit. You insult Matt Jeffries, you insult me. Just cause the original Enterprise isn't all chrome and swoopy lines and lens flare and busy busy design doesn't make it bad, it makes it a classic.
posted by Snyder at 6:07 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm outraged that Spock is played by a goy. He is a goy, right? Spock's essential conflict is most obviously a metaphor for the Jewish immigrant experience - I can't stand to see them take that away!

To be fair, Zachary Quinto is teh gay, and gayish assimilation/hiding in sight/outsider themes overlap Jewish ones.

Oh wait, you're not serious, right?

I've got all night
posted by The Whelk at 6:08 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


My expectations are low for a Star Wars fan taking the franchise in a new direction. While not the biggest fan, I do have a tender spot for the ST world and consider myself a fan. However this film was not made with fans in mind.
posted by TomSophieIvy at 6:14 PM on November 16, 2008


Dammit, Leonard, this is a D7 Klingon ship, not a D6! The D6 has four doors over here and the D7 only has two!
posted by Herodios at 6:25 PM on November 16, 2008


Also, I want a random bunch of chompy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway.


(why isn't that scene on youtube so I could link properly???)
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:33 PM on November 16, 2008


GOTV, people! Think of how much poor little Lumpy needs Chewbacca home for Christmas!

That's fine, but WHY WHY WHY is there no option to force Fox to actually for real make "KISS Saves Santa"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:34 PM on November 16, 2008


A more discerning Seagal fan, by the way, may enjoy Executive Decision, which within its genre, could actually be called both a fun and a decent (if not good) movie.

Executive Decision can't be a proper Seagal movie -- there's no preposition in the title!
posted by Herodios at 6:37 PM on November 16, 2008


In other news, latest iteration of the Franchise comes out; Trekkies howl in outrage over minor changes to props. Me, I got over it after The Motionless Picture came out.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:51 PM on November 16, 2008


Good of you to deign to weigh in, O Superior One.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:56 PM on November 16, 2008


Anyone else thing Kirk is Cyclon? He looks like a male version of Six, but not as smart.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:56 PM on November 16, 2008


WHy did they pick two impossibly dreamy, dewy boys to play Kirk and Spock?

For me, clearly. But of course, I had to stop watching Smallville when it became clear that despite all deep, longing looks between them, Clark and Lex were never going to do what they so clearly wanted to. So sad.
posted by emjaybee at 7:02 PM on November 16, 2008


To be fair, Zachary Quinto is teh gay

\o/
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:03 PM on November 16, 2008 [4 favorites]


Are you drunk sir? I enjoy BG, but to call it even remotely realistic is equivalent to calling Star Trek epic. BG is 50% fantasy 50% sci fi and 50% soap opera.

Well, it's more "realistic" than realistic, but I'm talking more about tone and atmosphere than anything else here, which is what I think the above poster was aiming at. It feels more like a gritty premium cable show than it does like any other science fiction series I'm aware of.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:04 PM on November 16, 2008


When they remake the Star Wars Holiday Special, they need to add the Space Squid. Only then will balance be restored to the Force.
posted by homunculus at 7:10 PM on November 16, 2008


When they remake the Star Wars Holiday Special, they need to add the Space Squid. Only then will balance be restored to the Force.

Apostasy. The SWHS can only be viewed in its native context, as the coke-fueled variety-skit show abortion that it was, bracketed by 1970s ads for Battle of the Network Stars and Underalls. You can take the SWHS out of the seventies, but not the other way round.

But why are we discussing this on Trek thread anyway???
posted by emjaybee at 7:25 PM on November 16, 2008


Just cause the original Enterprise isn't all chrome and swoopy lines and lens flare and busy busy design doesn't make it bad, it makes it a classic.

Just because the original Enterprise is classic—and don't mistake me for a hater here, I'm a member in good standing of the TOS Is Fucking Awesome And I Love It Association—doesn't make it not a clunky, dated product of a specific time and context. I'm not saying the design work in the development of TOS wasn't clever or brilliant or what have you; I'm saying that it's not sacrosanct, and it's sure as hell not up to snuff under modern production standards.

For god's sake, the engines are propped up on the next better thing than popsicle sticks. If you want to stage a huffy defense of classic scifi ship design, talk Kubrick's 2001. The Enterprise is classic but the Enterprise model is cheese.
posted by cortex at 7:28 PM on November 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


The planet Vulcan seems to look a lot like Vasquez Rocks
posted by jfrancis


The longer I spend wandering the Mojave desert, the more I realize nearly every dramatic chunk of geology within a half day's drive of Los Angeles has been used in a Star Trek teevee show or movie.

As for this movie, it looks terrible. Then again, I haven't liked a movie in 10 or 15 years. Yelling and CGI = loud & boring.
posted by kenlayne at 7:29 PM on November 16, 2008


In other news, latest iteration of the Franchise comes out; Trekkies howl in outrage over minor changes to props. Me, I got over it after The Motionless Picture came out.

For me, Trek just wasn't the same after they changed Uhura's uniform color -- in episode three. I prefer the classic episodes one and two.
posted by Herodios at 7:36 PM on November 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


Reading some of the comments in this thread really drives home for me wisdom of Abrams not wanting to make the movie for the fans.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:12 PM on November 16, 2008


Reading some of the comments in this thread really drives home for me wisdom of Abrams not wanting to make the movie for the fans.

Yeah, we nerds are awful.

Unfortunately, you invite this kind of nerdage when you have a franchise that lasts forty years.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:19 PM on November 16, 2008


Uhura and Spock are doin' it in reel two - that's my guess. She's gonna do it with someone, so that everyone can later reconcider every other single scene she's in in the entire TOS and see if somehow it sheds new light. And, in a sense, it's a freebie for the scriptwriter, because after Spock gets all Vulcan-amatized and logical, and he becomes superior to her in rank, they both never speak of it again.
posted by newdaddy at 8:19 PM on November 16, 2008


Yeah, we nerds are awful.

Oh, come on, that's not at all what I meant.

Maybe the movie will suck, odds are it will, but there are some serious garment-rending comments in here over a few seconds of a trailer, most notably (as cortex pointed out so pithily above) over the absolute horror that the Enterprise doesn't look like a cheap prop from a 1960s sci-fi TV show. I understand both nerdishness and fandom quite fine, and as such I also understand when it needs to dial itself down a bit and seek perspective.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:26 PM on November 16, 2008


ObFark
posted by RavinDave at 8:26 PM on November 16, 2008


Maybe the movie will suck, odds are it will, but there are some serious garment-rending comments in here over a few seconds of a trailer, most notably (as cortex pointed out so pithily above) over the absolute horror that the Enterprise doesn't look like a cheap prop from a 1960s sci-fi TV show. I understand both nerdishness and fandom quite fine, and as such I also understand when it needs to dial itself down a bit and seek perspective.

Oh, I was being happily self-deprecating. Despite the fact that I own two different editions of the Star Trek encyclopedia, I think Trek fandom could always use a few choruses of the MST3k mantra.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:30 PM on November 16, 2008


Ah, sorry, misread tone there.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:32 PM on November 16, 2008


Personally, I'm reserving judgment until I can see the HD trailer tomorrow. In fact, I might even reserve judgment until I watch the damn movie. Star Trek, more than any other fantasy franchise, has been held back by its more vocal fans. Among the nerdcore, there is none worse than a Trekkie when it comes to nitpicking and canon-spotting all the fun out of a story.

And I say this as a guy who never missed a new episode of TNG back in the day. I think the Trek mythos has thousands and thousands of rad stories in it if only the fans would shut the fuck up and let the creators try a few things. The franchise atrophied because these whiny bastards had the creative teams too spooked to try anything challenging for fear of defying their expectations. The result is grindingly formulaic stories with absolutely zero at stake and thus absolutely zero tension.

I stopped watching Trek TV because I couldn't unsee the formula once it was clear to me: Headshot, effects shot, headshot, effects shot, headshot, set shot, headshot, catchphrase, effects shot, character trope that will never, ever get cracked open, headshot, effects shot, set shot, conflict climaxes at the 45 minute mark, resolution that leaves time for a cute little denouement that may or may not continue teasing those partially explored character tropes, roll credits, wash, rinse, repeat for decades.

So I hope I don't see a damn thing coming from this flick. I hope nothing works out like I expect. I hope the fights are whip-ass and I hope I'm not sitting anywhere near any Trekkies too busy correcting the movie to enjoy all the spaceships, phaser fights and green dancing girls.

Now, if Abrams leaves out the green dancing girls, then I retract all of them above and hope that he gets a hernia.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:36 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


CunningLinguist: That would be this scene. Enjoy!

P.S. At 8:25, you can see where they redubbed the audio to get a PG rating :)
posted by teraflop at 8:57 PM on November 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Kenlayne: Then again, I haven't liked a movie in 10 or 15 years. Yelling and CGI = loud & boring.

10-15 years? I would suggest that it's just kind of maybe possible that you're going to see the wrong movies. Maybe try some of the hundreds of movies that have come out in the last 10-15 years that don't have yelling and CGI in them.

That said: Star Trek woo!
posted by tzikeh at 9:38 PM on November 16, 2008


I guess in order to satisfy everyone, to produce a Star Trek movie that both satisfies the hard-core and the casual watcher, you'd have to get at the heart of what ST is and what we want it to be.

You have the original plan, what the creators wanted to do. "Wagon Train to the stars", I belive was the quote. The idea of a harmonious, multi-national crew working to go ...boldly go. To unite the world behind the idea of peaceful exploration and get Americans worked up about the space program. The idea being that space progress represents the highest achievement of human thought, and should be paired with the highest principles of fairness and equality ..despite the miniskirts and Orion Slave Girls. It was quite groundbreaking for the time and further cemented the connection between Sci-Fi and Progressivism. But, still, it was a semi- serial space adventure with limited writing and only 3 seasons and a devoted following. Yet, it completely dominated how the average U.Sisan saw Sci-Fi, which leads me to the other half of the problem.

What Star Trek means to people. Not the actual show or the actual actors or sets or whatever. What Star Trek has become in our minds and hearts. What we talk about when we talk about Star Trek. Star Trek and it's 40-odd years of extrapolation, have become to symbolize a bunch of very basic and very powerful ideas. There wouldn't be the fanbase if it didn't. What does Star Trek mean? Well it presents a perfect meritocracy, beyond the need of money, furthering Noble Truths of Discovery. It represents a better world of harmony and technocratic success, where the only problems are out in the borders and can be solved with merit, cleverness, or appeals to humanity. A universe with both a dangerous and tantalizing hinterland and unknown wonders and comfort, security, and peace. Who wouldn't want to join the Federation?

Thats the thing, I think, that everyone is holding on too. What makes the idea of Star Trek so powerful that I, someone who only watched a few episodes of TNG, feels compelled to defend it. Star Trek has become a symbol of our better technocratic angels. Of enlightened liberal democracy spreading everywhere and where being smart and fair makes you a hero, not a pussy. When most U. Sisans think of space travel, the future, or science fiction, they're thinking about Star Trek. When people get devoted and misty about ST, it's not the actual show, but the idea of the show, they're getting worked up about. Even the coverage of Trekkies or Trekkers, mostly spares the vitriol and spite other hard-core fandoms get. Who wouldn't want to be a part of something as grand and noble as exploration? Why not band together and do something great?

So ..good help the person who tries to reconcile that.
posted by The Whelk at 10:20 PM on November 16, 2008 [4 favorites]


The franchise atrophied because these whiny bastards had the creative teams too spooked to try anything challenging for fear of defying their expectations.

Oh that's bullshit. Sure there are plenty of fanboys eager to canon-shit each other to death over miscues and continuity slip ups. But the "spooked" teams you describe were spooked by a bureaucracy afraid to experiment and kill the goose, not by fucking fanboys, and you know it.

As I posted upthread, the beast is loose: fanfiction is being created in a plethora of media using Trek chracters and situations, this movie was directly inspired by that activity, it is not designed to appeal to the extant fanbase but to expand the fanbase to new adolescent males, and it will therefore SUCK.

I will certainly attend and might even enjoy it. But the future of the franchise is, was, and shall remain off the reservation, and godspeed you doll-painting fumetti-shooting nerd freaks.
posted by mwhybark at 10:23 PM on November 16, 2008


..god help.

damnit!
posted by The Whelk at 10:29 PM on November 16, 2008


Total fanboy here, with the Technical Manuals to prove it. I think the trailer looks good and it's probably going to be a decent movie with a decent feel for actual Trek -- the whole New Frontier 60s aspects that tended to get lost in the later TV shows.

I'm over reboots since both TMP and TNG were reboots in their own ways (literally beginning as reimaginings of the original material, later evolving into what they became).

That said, I do wonder if Pine has more than a name and a face here. Kirk isn't a disaffected rebel, he's an "overgrown boy scout" as one Carol Marcus once aptly put it. If Abrams misses that aspect it could be a problem.

Having him bonk Uhura, though, is interesting in that Nichols was on the show because she had been Gene's girlfriend. And of course there was that kiss.

One thing that I've seen brought up is that having them all together as a same-age ensemble really doesn't fit with the character ages for the five year mission. In all the shows I've kind of wished there could be more turnover instead of people rejecting promotions to stay with their pals, which just comes off icky. Only DS9 really had a couple of major characters turn over. Poor Riker, getting fat and bloated as he brown-noses Picard for another TDY.

Anyway. Nothing screamed "wrong" in this trailer for me. This, Watchmen, and Quantum of Solace will get me through the next six months without suicide.
posted by dhartung at 10:58 PM on November 16, 2008


It just ain't a Trek thread without Leonard Nimoy singing along to Bad Brains (yt).
posted by bardic at 1:52 AM on November 17, 2008


J.J. Abrams? Felicity's J.J. Abrams? And he's on board for the Dark Tower film, too? Mission Impossible: III? Where the hell have I been?

And not a single odd numbered vs. even numbered trek joke in the whole thread?

Now... Put Kari Russell in one of those mini-skirt uniforms as the histrionic, but heartfelt Starfleet Academy Resident Advisor and the world starts making sense again. Yes. Yes, I do think I would watch that movie.
posted by Skwirl at 4:09 AM on November 17, 2008


I still think my favorite part of Star Trek was a DS9 episode where the crew, along with the shady yet loveable former Cardassian spy, tried to falsify evidence that the Dominion was going to attack the Romulans in spite of their non-agression pact. Then when they failed and the Romulan Senator they were trying to lobby discovered it was a fake, the spy assassinated the Romulan Senator by destroying his ship and everyone else on it.
posted by Pseudology at 4:24 AM on November 17, 2008


Star Trek XI, the trailer.

Whoa! mathowie as Spock!
posted by XMLicious at 5:05 AM on November 17, 2008


This looks ten times better than anything since III, I can't believe the whining in here
posted by poppo at 5:21 AM on November 17, 2008


@TMezz: "Star Trek is - according to Dan Neil, writing in the Los Angeles Times Magazine in an 800 Words column - the deepest, longest, linked work of fiction in the history of mankind."

erm... no. Star Trek started in 1967. The BBC's Doctor Who started in 1963, the day after JFK's assassination. Forget your Enterprise and multiple crew, we've got one lone guy travelling through time and space in a police box.
posted by almostwitty at 5:23 AM on November 17, 2008


starzero - Let it be dark, gloomy, go to places of the character's psyche where DS9 only dared to go on the surface and I'll be on board. And yes, do all that without making a 2nd BSG 2004.

That would be Babylon 5.

Skwirl - And not a single odd numbered vs. even numbered trek joke in the whole thread?

I think you'll find there was one.

I think Im-won Hee would cut a fine gib as Kirk, having just seen Dachimawa Lee 2008. A bit more self aware than our corset wearing TOS Kirk, and sooo handsome!
posted by asok at 5:29 AM on November 17, 2008


Let it be dark, gloomy, go to places of the character's psyche where DS9 only dared to go on the surface and I'll be on board.

Farscape FTW!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:53 AM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


What we talk about when we talk about Star Trek.

Also known as "the lost Ray Carver episode."
posted by octobersurprise at 6:40 AM on November 17, 2008


There had better fucking be Tribbles.

There had better be Tribbles fucking.
posted by Wet Spot at 6:52 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Where is this University of Sisans of which you speak? A planet circling the far left star in Orion's belt, perhaps?
posted by Herodios at 7:13 AM on November 17, 2008


This looks as good of a place to introduce y'all to my favourite new analogy.

Star Trek is like coffee. A heck of a lot of people like it, some people hate it, but everyone knows what it is.

You can have plain ordinary coffee, a real cup o' joe like they had in the 60s (TOS). You can still get them now, but the quality varies. Sometimes they're damn fine cups of coffee (The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country), and sometimes they're a bit...off (The Motion Picture, The Search For Spock, The Final Frontier).

You can have a decaf double-soy macchicaramelatto (TNG). It does have a lovely flavour, but sometimes it feels just a bit...artificial.

You can have a single-estate organic fairtrade fresh-ground coffee (DS9), with hints of those deep dark places that coffee should come from. Sometimes it's not great, but all good coffee requires a good barista.

You can even have a cheapo iced coffee drink thing from the local shop (VOY). You know that's not great, and it always tastes funny, but it's got caffeine, and it's not that bad...

And if all else fails, you can have the super-cheap utterly nasty instant coffee powder (ENT). If you can stomach it.



Now this movie, this is Starbucks coffee. You know it's coffee, but it's not just a cup of coffee, it's a venti americano or some other bollocks. It might be good, it might be horrible, all we know is that it's different.


(Also: Espresso)
posted by Katemonkey at 7:21 AM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


Hmm, which is deeper, Star Trek or Doctor Who?

This is one of those one-hand-clapping things, isn't it?

I keed, I keed
posted by ook at 7:27 AM on November 17, 2008


And not a single odd numbered vs. even numbered trek joke in the whole thread?

Incredible, innit?
posted by cortex at 7:33 AM on November 17, 2008


cortex: "And not a single odd numbered vs. even numbered trek joke in the whole thread?

Incredible, innit?
"

Nemesis killed the odd/even cycle anyway.
posted by octothorpe at 7:44 AM on November 17, 2008


Just to piss people off I am going to say I liked Enterprise. It's also the truth. I loved the overarching plot lines. Beats rebooting the show at the end of every episode.

"No, you see Worf has two spines. It's redundant."

But then I was a sucker for the Blaylock character.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:48 AM on November 17, 2008


teraflop: That's fantastic. I had no idea one could link to a time stamp in a youtube video!

(And the "WELL FUCK THAT" she so clearly says always makes that scene even better. I mean, they didn't even try to hide it.)
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:48 AM on November 17, 2008


itym overarchering
posted by cortex at 7:54 AM on November 17, 2008


Star Trek is like coffee. A heck of a lot of people like it, some people hate it, but everyone knows what it is.

This would make Farscape some kind of herbal thing we were told was the local booze, and it tasted kinda gross at first but was nice after awhile, and there were lots of colors, and hot aliens. And then we woke up in jail without our wallets.
posted by Tehanu at 8:11 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Shatner's Jewish, too.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:21 AM on November 17, 2008


This would make Farscape some kind of herbal thing we were told was the local booze, and it tasted kinda gross at first but was nice after awhile, and there were lots of colors, and hot aliens. And then we woke up in jail without our wallets.

And muppets!
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:32 AM on November 17, 2008


I was excited to hear that Zachary Quinto would be in it (because bobtroy and I want to marry him when gay polygamous marriage is legalized in California), but he looks cartoony. Guess it was too much to expect that he could keep his hairy faceshadow.
posted by troybob at 9:23 AM on November 17, 2008


While I'm sure that I'll enjoy this, I'm also kind of anticipating The Italian Job1 effect; where the background characters are so much fun, that I'm paying more attention to them that what's going on in the foreground.

I mean, with Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Karl Urban you just know that so many scenes are going to be stolen that it's not going to be sci-fi anymore, it's going to be a god damned heist film.

Also, I fucking love that they are using the original logo.

1: While the remake was undeniably flawed, in my mind, the scenes with Jason Statham, Seth Green, and Mos Def absolutely made up for any other shortcomings.
posted by quin at 10:05 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


You can have a single-estate organic fairtrade fresh-ground coffee (DS9), with hints of those deep dark places that coffee should come from.

Garak: "I'd like to get my hands on that fellow Earl Gray and tell him a thing or two about tea leaves."

Not sure whether this goes to your thesis or not.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:16 AM on November 17, 2008


DS9 was the only Star Trek anything I occasionally liked, other than Montalban.

Then again, DS9 was pretty much unlike any other Star Trek, I think.
posted by rokusan at 11:18 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Trailer in HiDef Quicktime is finally up. It looks cool except for one very glaring problem. They build starships on the ground???!! How stupid is that?
posted by octothorpe at 11:49 AM on November 17, 2008


How stupid is that?

As they get more sophisticated with their building process and technology they'll likely take the building process into orbit. Excited shipworkers will often be seen doing flips and waving at passing by shuttles while they finish up the work.
posted by cavalier at 12:15 PM on November 17, 2008


How stupid is that?

Very stupid.
posted by mwhybark at 12:20 PM on November 17, 2008


And muppets!

Muppets who fart helium and steal, yes.
posted by Tehanu at 12:35 PM on November 17, 2008


Although, the visual itself is pretty neat - it seemed to derive from the Oceanic Air wreck set, thematically, and also SF illustrations of the 1970s. Can't recall the gent offhand but one of the well-known space-theme artists of that era had some striking scenes of large space-bound vessels under construction on surface yards.

Of course, the images were just that, disconnected images, and thus retain the simple power of 'woah!' Fabbing anything that on the ground to haul up the gravity well is, well, you know.
posted by mwhybark at 12:37 PM on November 17, 2008


anything that big, i mean

And sure, I bet if a fan-production used the same trope I'd probably like it.
posted by mwhybark at 12:38 PM on November 17, 2008


Why has it been so difficult to re-create the spirit and feeling of the original Star Trek series?
posted by Auden at 1:00 PM on November 17, 2008


Why has it been so difficult to re-create the spirit and feeling of the original Star Trek series?

1. Trek is a victim of it's own success, most particularly due to overexposure.

2. It isn't 1966 anymore. The future ain't what it used to be.
posted by Herodios at 1:23 PM on November 17, 2008


Pay no attention to the apostrophe behind the curtain.
posted by Herodios at 1:24 PM on November 17, 2008


'Cause the 60's are over?

Because we already boldly went?
posted by cavalier at 1:32 PM on November 17, 2008


Trailer in HiDef Quicktime is finally up.

Urm. Someone should tell them that the HD versions point to the first trailer and the trailer for Cloverfield.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:37 PM on November 17, 2008


They build starships on the ground???!! How stupid is that?

Incredibly fucking stupid, as canon (yeah yeah, reboot, naff off) is really really really really clear that Starfleet ships are built in space.

At the Utopia Planitia shipyards orbiting Mars, if memory serves.

Yes, nerd. I know.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:07 PM on November 17, 2008


I love the fact that in the hi-def trailer you can clearly see a roll of duct tape on the bridge... duct tape - still in use in the future!
posted by jettloe at 3:13 PM on November 17, 2008


> I love the fact that in the hi-def trailer you can clearly see a roll of duct tape on the bridge... duct tape - still in use in the future!

I didn't believe you, until I saw it with my own eyes.
posted by mrzarquon at 4:36 PM on November 17, 2008


I just want you to know that when the remake of Citizen Kane comes along (and you all know it's coming), I'll be selecting each of you anti-canon herberts for special treatment. All your tears are done now.

I think the idea, the concept and the plot is great. But boy did they fuck up bigtime with the Enterprise.

It's a classic design. It's so good that even DS9 (aka Crossroads in Space) didn't fuck with it. If you are a designer worth your salt then you can work within your restrictions - and still make it work.

But then again this week I've realised that Zack Snyder can't grasp the phrase "Watchmen" as a philosophical idea, so what do I know.
posted by panboi at 4:43 PM on November 17, 2008


you know, panboi, I was just thinking how the original design of Rosebud simply CRIES OUT for a modernized design treatment, and how excellent it would be to add slogan tees and wraparound sunglasses to the young CF Kane's wardrobe.
posted by mwhybark at 5:23 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Zack Snyder can't grasp the phrase "Watchmen" as a philosophical idea

Actually, he grasps it perfectly well, but he didn't think it was worth fighting the studio about. I suspect it'll be over-dubbed 'minutemen' or 'crimebusters' in the Director's Cut.
posted by empath at 5:50 PM on November 17, 2008


What, no T'Pau?

T'Pau.
posted by evilcolonel at 6:09 PM on November 17, 2008


But then again this week I've realised that Zack Snyder can't grasp the phrase "Watchmen" as a philosophical idea, so what do I know.

What happened?
posted by Bookhouse at 6:26 PM on November 17, 2008


Direct links to the HD (1080p) trailers:
Trailer 1 (93MB)
Trailer 2 (159 MB)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:43 PM on November 17, 2008


"Nemesis killed the odd/even cycle anyway."
posted by octothorpe at 1:44 AM on November 18

When I first saw it, I thought Nemesis was awful as well. But on repeated viewings I've grown to like it. It's really not that bad. Certainly not the best of the Trek franchise but it's no Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
posted by Effigy2000 at 8:06 PM on November 17, 2008


Re: Star Trek V - gosh, I remember walking out of the theatre on opening day trying to convince people lining up around the block for the next showing not to see it.

Looking at it now - it might be the best of the series - in the sense that it's the most heartfelt - there's real human drama there - and oddly, (did Shatner ever direct theatre?), it's shot like a stage play - a far more interesting film then given credit.

+ mrzarquon, I too framegrabbed it! Perhaps duct tape is in the script! ;)
posted by jettloe at 8:25 PM on November 17, 2008


I'd actually bet that it was a set mistake, and the editor for the trailer (who sometimes has access to unreviewed / final cut footage) grabbed it without paying attention, before they were able to fix it in post.

That or, it is a crucial plot device, or something that is not actually duct tape.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:46 PM on November 17, 2008


Nemesis killed the odd/even cycle anyway.

No one move a muscle as the dead come home.
posted by homunculus at 9:44 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ah, Pseudology, you have good taste in episodes. That one is rightly famous.

So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would. Garak was right about one thing, a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it. I can live with it...

Computer, erase that entire personal log.

posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:55 PM on November 17, 2008


How to write an entire newspaper story based on a movie trailer.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:02 AM on November 18, 2008


http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/j-j-abrams-reveals-his-star-trek-movie/
posted by mwhybark at 10:05 AM on November 18, 2008


FWIW, I noticed from looking at screengrabs of the first two sequences in the trailer that L'il Jim and Biker Jim are clearly driving recklessly on the same road. Also, in the reverse angle over Biker Jim to the Enterprise construction site the letters IA appear on the 'authorized personell only' sign. Taken together, this strongly implies that the JJprise is built not only on the ground but in Iowa.
posted by mwhybark at 10:57 AM on November 18, 2008


Although one does wonder how the Valles Marineris ended up with the corn-fed dames.
posted by mwhybark at 10:58 AM on November 18, 2008


If you look at the license plate of the car l'il Kirk is driving in the begining in the HD trailer, you can also see it's an Iowa plate.
posted by Snyder at 11:12 AM on November 18, 2008


Frame by Frame breakdown on IO9
posted by octothorpe at 11:59 AM on November 18, 2008


oh, that is some sweet, sweet beanplating over there
posted by mwhybark at 12:14 PM on November 18, 2008


Frame by Frame breakdown on IO9

I'm now starting to fear that when the actual film comes out the internets will implode or something
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:15 PM on November 18, 2008


hah, the ground hangar with the redsuits is clearly one of the surviving US Navy dirigible and blimp hangars - the ones at Moffat in California were used in the X Files several times. Nice to see Starfleet has kept these enormous wooden structures safe for 300 more years.
posted by mwhybark at 12:21 PM on November 18, 2008


"On Vulcan again, Sulu displays his awesome fencing skills."

Sold.

"If you go through the 1080p trailer frame-by-frame you see that the girl Kirk is in bed with has GREEN SKIN!"

Double sold.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:25 PM on November 18, 2008


GREEN SKIN GIRL FANBOYS WIN!
posted by mwhybark at 12:28 PM on November 18, 2008


wait, that scene is clearly Uhura's pad. Hm, roomie?
posted by mwhybark at 12:29 PM on November 18, 2008


Here's the set of caps I looked at yesterday:

http://screenrant.com/official-hd-new-star-trek-trailer-vic-4243/

Note the building on the horizon in the longshot of Li'l Jim's Vette on the road, the second cap. It's very faint; at first I thought it was some sort of reflection within the shot intended to signify that teh POV is from within a vehicle.

Now look at the establishing low-angle shot of Biker Jim as he speeds by a fencerow. On the left of this cap, the 12th in this series, we see the same builgings, much closer, but in the same relationship to one another as in the first shot.

The next shot is the over-the-shoulder mid-to-long showing the landlubberly JJprise, with the sign I noted earlier. the two largest letters on the sign are in the lower left hand corner, IA.

We know how much Abrams delights in building these little puzzles, right? This one seems pretty easy by comparison to some of the single-frame silliness that has been stuffed into Lost.
posted by mwhybark at 12:51 PM on November 18, 2008


Frame by Frame breakdown on IO9

Wow. io9 has impressed me. I... don't know how to process that.
posted by Tehanu at 1:23 PM on November 18, 2008


Star Trek 90210
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:42 PM on November 18, 2008


Wow, I may have figured the ground-built thing out without realizing it. I jocularly referred to the canyon in 'Iowa' as the Valles Marineris. It surely did appear to be a canyon of greater depth than any known on Earth, thus my tiny jape.

In canon, the main Solar system shipyards are the Utopia Planitia yards... ON MARS (map).

1701-D and Voyager were built there, apparently. Reconciling that locale with San Francisco is beyond me, I assure you. And why on Mars someone would transship a '67 convertible Corvette is well beyond be, although I am now also amused to note that the car is red. That is, it's a redshirt.

The geography of Mars doesn't really support the yards being both next to the canyons and on the plains of utopia, but who knows, maybe there's a seekrit canyon right up next to the plains.

Also this is a trickier puzzle, more in line with Lost easter eggs.

Wendell, call 'em and find out!
posted by mwhybark at 5:24 PM on November 18, 2008


...and I got some more for ya, kinda. When Kirk was 13, he survived a genocidal massacre under Kodos on some planet or other, after which he went to live with family, his brother, I wanna say. In that NYT roundup of the press screenings, Pike tells Biker Jim that he knew his dad and "Your father was the captain of a starship for 12 minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother’s. Including yours."

I bet the Corvette sequence reflects the unmoored L'il Jim seeking death on Mars after arriving there in the aftermath of the massacre, and provides the psychological underpinning for the Biker Jim character's apparent volatility and brashness.

Not, of course, that I care. ;)
posted by mwhybark at 5:43 PM on November 18, 2008


he survived a genocidal massacre under Kodos on some planet or other

I've always regretted voting for Kodos.
posted by Tubes at 4:19 PM on November 19, 2008


« Older The Kneale Tapes (1, 2, 3, 4) documentary about Br...  |  John Prine Live in 1980 on you... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments