I figured that if the Trek teaser was being shown before Cloverfield, it would hit the web pretty quickly. It’s on YouTube now.
I don’t condone using your cell phone to steal a trailer, but, on the other hand,
1) It’s Trek,
2) It’ll be on apple.com and all those other sites in a matter of nanoseconds, and finally,
3) It’s Trek.
Hawesome.
BTW I saw it here as well earlier, but they don’t have video embedding, so I was waiting for YouTube.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
January 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Very cool.
There is something in the style of the trailer similar to NASA’s Back to the Moon video.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Maybe I haven’t followed the proposed story closely enough, but I am confused; I have heard that this is the beginning of the saga, as it were. Our old friends Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, et al are featured.
But in the video, NCC-1701 is under construction, and I was under the impression that during her initial five year tour of duty, she was captained by Christopher Pike, and only Mr. Spock was a part of the original crew.
So is Hollywood changing Trek history AGAIN?
January 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
…That’s quite a tease. It teases so much it barely shows anything.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Yes. They are changeing Trek again and again it won’t be fore the better. The Enterprise was in service for 20 years before Kirk was captain. It was built in orbit, not on the ground. And why is their lettering on the hull before major fabrication has been completed? Oh, yeah, because they don’t actually care about doing anything with the franchise but making money. This movie will be awful. Only a teaser and they are already blatently ignoring cannon. Yes, this is a sad, nerdy post. But not nearly as sad as all the trek fans who are going to bend over and see this moving knowing full well it means nothing to paramount other than a paycheck. It is being made to make money. Not because they have an exciting new story to tell, not because they care about the franchise, but because they know all the fans will come out to see whatever garbage they release.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Of course given Paramount’s handling of the Trek franchise J.J. Abrams might be the perfect director to relaunch Trek. Just look at his previous television shows. They start with a strong story and cast and then devolve into convoluted unwatchable junk with constant plot twists and revisions introduced for no reason other than the studio can avoid cancelling the show and keep making money off of something that should have been allowed to end gracefully. Sounds like just the guy for Trek. God forbid they actually bring in someone who actually cares about the franchise or *gasp* a new idea. Lets just rewrite the past and have new actors try to be Kirk and Spock even though everyone secretly knows no one is going to buy it and the whole thing is going to be a giant mess.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Rav Winston wrote: “But in the video, NCC-1701 is under construction, and I was under the impression that during her initial five year tour of duty, she was captained by Christopher Pike, and only Mr. Spock was a part of the original crew.”
Well, there’s a few differences between Pike’s Enterprise and Kirk’s. I suppose it’s possible what we are seeing here is just a refit, rather than the actual construction of the ship. Seeing as some reports state that Pike will actually appear in the movie, it doesn’t look like they are totally abandoning continuity.
Mind you, I’d much rather watch a good movie that totally ignores continuity, than a bad one that slavishly copies it. I’m hoping for good movie + good continuity, but that may be unrealistic!
January 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Before we get too carried away, remember that this is a teaser. It may not even be in the movie; in fact, it doesn’t look like it will be. It’s just meant to be rawkin’.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
…they are already blatently ignoring cannon…
Watch out for the cannons!!!
January 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I stopped caring about Trek movies after First Contact. Generations had a decent movie feel, even if it wasn’t the greatest plot. However, after that the producers utterly failed to transition TNG into a good movie franchise, and instead started pumping out mediocre extended episodes on film. The only “film” that was half decent after Generations was First Contact, but it still felt like an episode on the big screen.
Sadly, this new movie will destroy what was a decent send off for the original crew. The Undiscovered Country (TUC) was by no means perfect, but it:
a.) Felt like a movie
b.) Had a decent plot that for once wasn’t tired and rehashed “Save the Earth from some big nasty!”.
c.) Included each of the characters in a meaningful way (one of the greatest failings of the TNG movies is that they focused almost entirely on Picard and Data).
I, for one, won’t be throwing my money away on what will certainly be garbage. I love trek too much to let my experience of it be drug further through the gutter. The only way I will ever watch a new Trek film is if:
a.) They bring in a REAL PRODUCTION CREW. I want my movies to feel like a movie, not an episode on film. Don’t get me wrong, the episode production crews did a good job at what they do (product TV episodes) but they failed miserably on the TNG movies in making MOVIES.
b.) They drop the “save earth from alien baddie” plot line. It’s old and tired, and always bring about a shallow, meaningless plot. Again, see TUC, it was not about saving the earth, but about vengeance and forgiveness, etc that brought the audience in by relating itself to a current world event (The Cold War/Fall of the U.S.S.R.).
c.) The execute, on sight, anyone who suggests involving Berman or Braga.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Actually, Pike was the second captain; he followed Robert April. (TAS: “The Counter-Clock Incident”)
But they don’t have to be ignoring canon here. Isn’t this supposed to be a story about the academy days of Kirk, et al.? Why shouldn’t the Big E be under construction at that same time?
And, given the tagline of the trailer, why should we assume that /any/ of this is “real” in the movie?
January 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I can’t believe any fan who suffered through the last four Star Trek spinoffs and the last 6 Trek movies could complain about a teaser trailer ignoring Trek canon.
How do I post an eye-rolling smiley here?
Hollywood should hire JJ Abrams to do all their teasers. He would seem to be the current master of that genre.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hey! I actually liked very few of the spin off movies, thankyouverymuch. The First Contact movie was terrible, I thought, because it went against the cannon that the first extraterrestrials the humans met were the Andorrians. And that they, along with the Tellarites and the Vulcans, formed the Federation.
What was wrong with the original story line, I asks yese?
January 18th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I’m personnally excited just because Simon Pegg has been cast as Scottie; it’ll be interesting to see what he brings to the roll. Plus I’m a huge Simon Pegg fan.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Even with the crummy quality of a cell phone camera, this still looks cool.
I hope that Abrams and company can pull off the feat of making this a successful movie.
I now care little about canon. Canon is for religon.
“Trek” is its own mythology. It’s grown larger than life. It’s a story about US making our way out THERE.
That isn’t too dreamy a response, is it?
January 18th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
YEs. Yes, it is. But I won’t tell anyone.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
If you really think any of that was going to be in the movie you are childishly lame. The reason for a trailer, especailly a short vage one like that, is to get people talking about it. Ofcourse die hard Trek fans are going to notice all the little details of the trailer. The production companies know this. What else would sell tickets but to release a trailer A year before a movie comes out. It might not even be in the can yet. Don’t get so worked up, it’s not like you know all the details yet. Hell we’re all going to go to the movie anyways. Just like every fan of everything from comics to Star Trek to Star War will always complain that the movie wasn’t good enough for them. It a movie! It cost about ten dollars to watch! Big deal! If you don’t like it go buy the series on dvd!
January 18th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Scenes in trailers don’t always show up in the final cut. For example, I saw Cloverfield earlier, and people are up on the roof talking when the first hint of trouble surfaces. But in the trailer, they’re all downstairs in the party.
As to those of you arguing about Trek timelines: You’re making the same mistake that the aliens in Galaxy Quest made: Star Trek is NOT a historical document. It’s fiction! Arguing about which captain came first, and whether the Enterprise was constructed in orbit or on the ground is like arguing about Dumbledore’s sexuality. It’s just plain silly.
Just sit back and enjoy the movie when it comes out.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Hmm I don’t know why everyone thinks that just because there’s a man welding the dry dock has to be on earth. Why can’t it be an enclosed dry dock in space?
January 18th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
David said “Hell we’re all going to go to the movie anyways.”
I am not.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Oh, and the teaser? Meh. Sorry, but though it tries hard, I can’t get past the fact that it’s just another Trek cash cow. Not inspiring in the slightest.
I still like Star Trek to some degree, but not enough to see the new stuff. Or should I say old stuff? New old stuff… darned retconning!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Wut? This ISN’T a historical document? Where have I been!
Relax everybody…. it IS just a movie. I’ll go see it. It can’t be any worse than the Next Generation crap, can it?
January 19th, 2008 at 2:32 am
— And why is their lettering on the hull before major fabrication has been completed?
So you got a degree in starship construction, buddy? Who says they can’t paint the panels before assembly? Huh? Huh? Seem to me it would even be easier that way.
[petergriffin]Yeeeeah.[/petergriffin]
January 19th, 2008 at 2:50 am
A re-envisioning….now that would be fracking sweet. And isn’t BSG winding up? They could take it and make it what ST:Enterprise SHOULD have been (minus all the stupid time travel crap). Ah well not likely, but it doesn’t hurt to dream does it?
January 19th, 2008 at 3:03 am
One word: meh.
The Star Trek franchise is entirely creatively bankrupt at this point. I don’t care to see another single product associated with it. Ever.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
This may be of interest: it’s the proposed ‘re-boot’ of Trek J.M.Straczynski put forward a few years ago:
http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf
Hmmm, a mission to discover ancient races amongst the stars? Where have I heard that before?
BTW, Rav, where was it stated that Andorians were the first aliens humanity met? I’ve never heard that before.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:32 am
This may be of interest: it’s the proposed ‘re-boot’ of Trek J.M.Straczynski put forward a few years ago:
http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf
Hmmm, a mission to discover ancient races amongst the stars? Where have I heard that before?
BTW, Rav, where was it stated that Andorians were the first aliens humanity met? I’ve never heard that one.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Gosh, it was years ago in the early seventies. When they were coming out with all those (by now) ancient manuals and tech books. I do recall that the core members of the Federation were the Terrans, Tellarites, Andorians, and Vulcans. And it stated clearly that the Andorians were the first people that the humans met. I wish now (over thirty years later) I could point you to a specific text.
I think it may have been in the Starfleet Medical text. But it’s been so long, now.
I really haven’t had so much interest in Trek since the original series and its first three movies. And a couple of seasons (probably three through five) of TNG. So I haven’t really kept up much.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
I never liked the habitable planets of stars which can’t have them, but think about this for a minute: The galaxy is eleven billion years old. If intelligence can arise in a planet four billion years old, there could have been intelligent species in the galaxy for the last seven billion years, and their mean age might be 3.5 billion years.
So can we treat civilizations like that as being just exotic foreign countries, that we can have trade, wars, espionage with? Doesn’t seem likely to me.
Then there’s the idea of eating alien food (billions of years of separate evolution on separate planets), and worse, interbreeding with aliens. Spock is half human, half Vulcan. Apparently Vulcans and humans have the same chromosome number, both use DNA and have the same genetic code, etc., etc. Guys, we can’t even interbreed with chimpanzees, and we have 95% the same genes.
So, look not for science in Star Trek. Just turn your mind off and have a good time. I speak as a former Trekkie who still treasures his George Takei autograph.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
— Consumers of fiction have a right to expect internal consistency even across a large body of connected fiction.
Really? Which Amendment is that?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Scenes in trailers don’t always show up in the final cut. For example, I saw Cloverfield earlier, and people are up on the roof talking when the first hint of trouble surfaces. But in the trailer, they’re all downstairs in the party.
Completely off topic, but that is not correct. They are downstairs at the party when the first sign of trouble happens. They turn on the TV and see news of a capsized tanker in the harbor which they think may be close enough to see from the roof of the building. So they all head up their just in time for the fun and destruction to begin.
But the overall point remains the same. Trailers aren’t necessarily comprised of film that actually ends up in the movie (for one, trailers are frequently made before all of the editing is done). This is even more true of teasers where what you see is rarely actually in the movie. Sometimes teasers are created before or while principal photography is still ongoing.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
True enough. Have a look at the original trailer for ‘Back to the Future’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdajRnisx5U
I don’t think any of that (apart from Huey Lewis) featured in the film.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Anyone get the sense of dread that this is going to be almost the exact same plot as Star Trek: The Motion Picture?
Seems like an upgrade transition from one caption to another, the ship is in a very unfinished state, and there is certainly going to be some evil alien attacking the Earth directly.
Only hope I can see is that they don’t completely rewrite canon by making the evil invaders the Borg.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:53 am
“— Consumers of fiction have a right to expect internal consistency even across a large body of connected fiction.
Really? Which Amendment is that?”
I don’t believe I used the word “constitutional” anywhere. Nope. So clearly your question is nonsense.
I also didn’t use the word “legal” or suggest that purveyors of drek had no right to engage in their craft. However, drek is drek.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:30 am
For anyone worried about what’s going through the writers’ heads about the movie, there’s an interview with one of the producers here:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/19/interview-orci-answers-questions-about-new-trek-trailer/
It includes a Q/A session in the comments.
January 20th, 2008 at 7:35 am
The people complaining are the same ones who griped about the “new Captain Kirk” being bald, a Klingon on the bridge, Starbuck being a female, and the darker format of the new Battlestar Galactica.
Wendy and Richard Pini (of ElfQuest fame) had a term for these guys — WETRATS. These are the ones who Want Everything To Remain Always The Same.
I was thrilled by the opening sequence of Voyager, too. I just hope that this movie lives up to its trailer more than that series did its opening.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
“do recall that the core members of the Federation were the Terrans, Tellarites, Andorians, and Vulcans. And it stated clearly that the Andorians were the first people that the humans met. I wish now (over thirty years later) I could point you to a specific text.”
I don’t particularly recall that being mentioned in the original series. If that information was taken from anything written by Franz Joseph Designs (like the Starfleet Technical Manual) then it is considered non-canon.
Star Trek is something I consider to be light entertainment nowadays, since it has been overdone to death by Paramount. I’m not expecting anything amazing with this film, but as long as it’s entertaining, I’ll probably be happy. But if anyone don’t like it, might I suggest the fan-made ‘New Voyages’?
January 20th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Actually, I’m thinking this is little more than a big-screen version of “New Voyages.”
So, as I said earlier, meh.
I will lighten up a bit and say that I don’t want things to remain the same and never change, but I do have to remain firm on my disdain for retroactive continuity.
Want to re-imagine ST? Fine, then do so, and make it clear that that’s what’s being done. But stop doing spin-offs that don’t fit in to existing continuity… just make something new.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Oh, as long as we’ve mentioned fan-made stuff, check out “Starship Exeter,” set during the TOS-era, but on a different starship. (The USS Exeter, duh.)
January 21st, 2008 at 1:34 am
All the people complaining absolutely astound me.
YOU. KNOW. NOTHING. You don’t know ANYTHING concrete about what this movie is going to be about. All you know is the cast, the characters, the film crew, and some vague idea of “it’s set in multiple time periods and has Romulans in it”. And judging by Mr “OMGZtheEnterpriseisbeingbuiltintheteaserthatmeanstheyrethrowingoutTEHCANNON!!!11″ up the top of the comments, it looks like a lot of you don’t even know THAT. (Captain Pike will be in the movie, played by Bruce Greenwood.)
The way that absolutely ANY new development will invariably set off a couple of dozen people wailing “OH NOES, the sky is falling!!!” absolutely sickens me. No wonder Star Trek has such a bad reputation. With fans like these, who needs antis?
January 21st, 2008 at 1:35 am
For the record, I loved the teaser.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I haven’t read through all the posts yet, but how about this: They make any old movie they want to, and then at the end, after the credits, the screen lights up, and the camera pans around to reveal a movie theater with Shatner, Nimoy, and whoever else is still around (and a bunch of red shirts), sitting in the front row. As they get up and file out, one of them says “Was there *anything* in that movie that was historically accurate?” Another of the group replies “No, but it was fun.”
January 21st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
So funny that fans could possibly be worried about some kind of stable “canon” being maintained across 40 or so years of Star Trek shows, movies and spinoff TV shows.
The original series didn’t even have a “canon” since the people at NBC probably reasoned that the individual episodes of this late night campy scifi TV series would never be seen again comparatively, never mind go into endless syndicated repeats.
For what it’s worth, as a fan I don’t consider anything beyond the fourth Trek movie to be “canon”, especially Next Gen, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Sure I watched many episodes of those mostly-awful series, but they haven’t aged well and sure as heck don’t hold a candle to the goofy fun of the original series that inspired them. On the other hand, I don’t get my panties in a bunch that Paramount slapped the name “Star Trek” on those awful series, any more than I’m upset about all the crappy licensed Trek “novels” cramming science fiction bookshelves…
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
720 and 1080p HD trailers are available on the official Paramount website, now.
http://www.paramount.com/startrek/
December is too far away. Will make a nice Birthday/Christmas gift, though.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am
I don’t get it. Ever. I am not one of you pathetic loser, queer, geek, nerds who gives a rat’s ass about anything related to Star trek, which only has a mediocre cult following and is quickly losing that, too. I have always loved astronomy, but I get laid. Poor you. All of you. Pathetic.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Sorry, um, what was your name again?
:p