The trailer for the new Trek movie just came out in the US (it’s shown before "Quantum of Solace"). Bootleg versions are popping up on You Tube; search for Star Trek 11 to find some (I won’t point to them, seeing as how they’re illegal and all that).
My opinion, as a big Trek fan (I am far more into Trek than, say, Star Wars): the young Kirk part looks like I’d rather nap under a Horta than watch it, but the rest of it looks pretty good. I’m not terribly concerned with "canon" — the official history established by the show and earlier movies — because the episodes were so mutually contradictory that the only way to be a Trek fan and not lose your mind is to be a bit lenient in the self-consistency department. For example, there was that one TNG episode with Wesley Crusher in a clown sweater, and it was never mentioned again. What were they thinking?
Anyway, I will most certainly watch the flick, and I will most certainly review it right here after I do. But that’s not until May, so for now I’ll just try to avoid all the spoilers and catch reruns when they’re on TV.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
The special effects look good… but I have close to zero respect for JJ Abrams in the movie/television directing department. His stuff is all garbage:(. He’s like a more funded version of Uwe Boll.
I wish they’d picked someone else to run this film.
But that CGI… if it looks that good on Youtube I can’t wait to see it on the big screen:). I haven’t gone to a movie in years hehe. Too much gum on the floors, and sticky seats to boot. Ewwwwwwwww. (plus 15 bucks a ticket. Ummmm… guys? I can buy the DVD for 25 you know… right? Like 3 months after it hits theatres?)
November 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
My big concern is that it won’t be a Trek film at all … it looks like an action movie, and having less of the thought behind the (better) Star Trek films. The ones that tried to be action movies were the ones that tended to flop worst (though I think 7 got a bad rap. It was just a long TNG episode …. )
November 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
At least they didn’t get Roland Emmerich to direct it.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Phil:
I agree with you on the consistency not being that big a deal (you know, Warp 13 was possible in TOS, but Warp 10 is the max possible speed). I just hope that the young Kirk bit doesn’t turn into a long, drawn out bit like the podrace sequence in ‘The Phantom Menace’.
Gopher:
A lot of ‘Lost’ and ‘Felicity’ fans would disagree with you methinks.
Tigerhawkkvok:
I gotta’ disagree with you on the action bit. ‘The Wrath of Khan’, ‘The Undiscovered Country’ and ‘First Contact’ are widely regarded as being the best that Trek has done in the movie department, and they’re all basically action movies with a Trek bent (some good ideas, but not overly philosophical). ‘The Motion Picture’ and ‘The Search for Spock’ are more idea-based movies; while I like them, quite a few people don’t. I think that it’s important to market the movie as an action film in order to encourage people who wouldn’t normally see a Trek movie to want to see one, seeing as Trekkers are gonna’ show up in droves one way or another.
On a separate note, I avoided ‘Star Trek: Enterprise’ for years, and I just finished the final season today. I wish I had known how good it was earlier; I think that it may be my favourite of all the series, despite having grown up on ‘TOS’ reruns and ‘TNG’. It does an excellent job of mixing action with ideas and very good characters (particularly later in the series). I still think that, of all the science fiction shows out there (with the possible exceptions of ‘Firefly’ and ‘Battlestar Galactica’), Trek does this better than anyone.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I saw the trailer before QoS last night and my biggest concern is one of production design. The re-imagined Enterprise is meh. But then, how could it not be since the Enterprise has been re-imagined a dozen or more times over the last 30 years. This is just one more reiteration of the original saucer/warp nacelle design.
I think they missed an opportunity to be very faithful to the 1960s ship/set design but to make them look utterly real using CGI and other modern f/x technologies. But I also understand that the film has a production designer and he/she will want to put their own personal stamp on the film. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.
In general I think the casting is pretty inspired with the exception of Kirk, though I’m willing to be disabused of that opinion when I see the film. I predicted Zach Quinto for Spock many months before he was cast and I wish they’d have cast Liev Schreiber as Kirk (my other prediction).
I am cautiously optimistic.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
When Thou Speaketh of Trek Canon, Thou makest it soundeth like a religion… Isn’t that a little irrationaleth and illogicaleth?
Get thyselves a a life and enjoyeth this 11th Treketh for what it is… a M.O.V.I.E… It”s not real! Remember: Science Fiction…
BTW… it looks awesome! Oh, and Enterprise was by far my favorite Trek series. I can’t even stand watching TNG.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
MMmmmmmm, Wesley Crusher in a clown sweater…. Wesley Crusher in ANYTHING! Daymn!!!
Hey Phil, maybe the new Kirk will pull a fast one on all of us, and actually do a really great job! We can only hope! (Cuz Buddy Guy’s GOTTA know what a big deal it is to play Kirk… I’m sure, in every scene, he’ll probably do his damnedest not to piss off the Trekkies. Hell, he’s probably already getting death threats. Lmao.)
November 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“The young Kirk part looks like I’d rather nap under a Horta than watch it …”
So… Dawson’s Trek? Starfleet 90210?
November 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I fail to see how mentioning the clip and then telling everyone how to look for it on Youtube is somehow less wrong than just giving out the URL.
That said, the clip is OK. I just hope the movie lives up to 1/10th the hype.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
If anyone’s concerned about seeing the trailer in shoddy, handheld cam bootleg form, you can just wait about 15 hours and watch it on the official movie site in HD tomorrow…
November 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
At least they didn’t get Roland Emmerich to direct it.
You mean there won’t be slaves building pyramids for alien overlords and a creepy scene with a bunch of little boys wearing very little clothes?
November 16th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Ok, just for the record … in the Original series Warp speed was supposed to represent n^3 times the speed of light. So Warp 1 was the speed of light; Warp 2 was 8 times the speed of light, Warp 3 was 27 times speed of light …
However in Next Generation, the speed was revised to be n^5. So Warp 1 was still the speed of light, but Warp 2 was now 32 times the speed of light. Warp 3 was now 243 times the speed of light…
The point here is that the limitation on “Warp 10 being the maximum speed” in Next Generation was not violated by going Warp 13 in the old series. 100000 =10^5 > 13^3 = 2179.
I apologize for knowing this.
Gopher hit it on the head in the first post. Going to a theater is absurdly expensive for what you get. Especially when you can buy the movie at watch it at home if you just wait a few months. (This is exactly what I’m going to do).
November 16th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
“Wesley in a clown sweater”?! I don’t remember that one…
See what I did there?
It’s called “selective memory.” As Phil wise points out, a Trek fan who cannot easily and readily engage in it will most certainly lose his or her mind.
Fortunately, I lost mine a long time ago…
November 16th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Adrian L: Don’t even JOKE like that!
November 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“The young Kirk part looks like I’d rather nap under a Horta than watch it …”
That looks like Kirk as a boy on Tarsus IV. If that’s true, then that could be a very powerful and tragic part of the film. Remember Governor Kodos?
November 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I have seen every movie and every episode of every series except Enterprise (none of the cartoons as far as I remember) but I really have absolutely no interest in this film. I’ll may wait until it is on cable, if I watch it at all. It just seems wrong somehow, mostly with the casting.
As for Wil Wheaton, they should have had a small role in there for him! ;^)
They do after all recycle ST actors from project to project. That or if a Babylon 5 movie comes out, I’d rather like to see him in that as a scheming Centauri. It would be fun, like Walter Koenig as Bester. I preferred Bester.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Then there was this, on today’s Google News:
I can dream, can’t I?
Rich
November 16th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Actually the trailer is on their website. http://www.startrekmovie.com/ Unless that’s an old trailer that should be a legal way to go here…
November 16th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Oops, i read closer and that is the old one, but the new one will be out in several hours.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“Wesley in the clown sweater.”
C’mon people! Don’t tell me no one but me remembers the episode with the Casual Friday on the Bridge Day!
November 16th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I’ll be watching it just because Simon Pegg is in it.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Saw the trailer…it looks interesting. I used to love Star Trek a LOT, but the whole thing has been done to death—with zero respect for continuity—to where I finally lost all interest. Maybe this will revive my interest, maybe it won’t; the point is my life will go on just fine either way.
I’ll bet yours will, too.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
You know, one question that I’ve yet to see asked but will be absolutely make-or-break for me: Will this movie have Finnegan in it?
November 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Bill Simmons sez:
“I think they missed an opportunity to be very faithful to the 1960s ship/set design but to make them look utterly real using CGI and other modern f/x technologies.”
Sure that could be done, but it overlooks the fact that the original Jefferies design is a /miserable/ object to film. It looks good only from a few perspectives, and that’s not anything any moviemaker likes. I’m anticipating that the çhanges for this model will actually help the girl look better than ever before.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Rumors abound that Paul McGillion (who IS in the picture) plays Finnegan. Just rumors, though.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I see your Wesley in a clown suit and raise you a singing Picard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjNKyoRudOQ
November 16th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The worst thing any movie franchise can do is go back and explore its past (cough..George Lucas..cough). I hope this will not be the same result.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
The geek in me must admit that I saw QoS twice this weekend…. OK – I’m bragging, not admitting… “Geek’em, Dano.”
Anywhooo…. As I’m sitting in my seat Friday PM watching the trailers, trying to not piddle in my seat after the “Watchmen” trailer, the ST trailer comes on. After it ends, a polite silence except for the guy 2 seats down as he gives a quiet “yay!” His girlfriend knew she was surrounded by geeks as I started laughing.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I did cringe while watching the trailer… that Corvette going over the cliff? AAAARRRGGGHH!!!!
November 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I think they should explain Kirk’s tendency to speak in…halting…cadences through some form of childhood trauma. But in all seriousness, if they manage to make the alien villain of this film effective, and not a cheap ripoff of khan as have been most other trek movie villains, I will be most pleased. I hope Spock’s childhood is better handled than Kirk’s appears to be. I always saw Spock as the heart and soul of Star Trek, torn between devotion reason and logic and the deep, very human need to kick some butt.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:39 am
In short, they’re “religious” about it. Ahem.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:22 am
>>>”C’mon people! Don’t tell me no one but me remembers the episode with the Casual Friday on the Bridge Day!”
Which was unfortunately cancelled when Ronny Cox came on board and insisted on proper uniforms for everybody.
Which meant no more Deanna Troi in *that* blue dress.
DAMN HIM!
November 17th, 2008 at 5:58 am
My guess is that the car scene with Kirk-as-a-boy lasts only a few minutes, if that, and might be from a flashback. Racing headlong toward a cliff, after all, isn’t a bad metaphor for Kirk’s style.
I suspect that the character-driven part of this film is going to be a depiction of the bumpy early days of the Kirk-Spock relationship. We will be shown episodes from both of their difficult childhoods in which we are to see parallels.
That said, the older I get, the harder it is for me to watch TOS reruns. I was around when they first aired, but, boy, they do seem cheesy and hammy and cheap today.
I’m sure the new film will have lots of excellent CGI and other Bright Shiny Things That Explode. People seem convinced that the average movie goer is about 6 years old.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Ahhh, Star Trek — that near-perfect Communist society. Only the Ferengi were concerned with money in any meaningful way, and all the resources seemed to be free in the show. Destroy a ship? No problem-o Kirk — we’ll just build you another one! After all, they’re free!
(yes, that’s snarking)
Seriously, Star Trek as science fiction has always bothered me, because not only is a lot of stuff completely implausible (transporter: meet Heisenger) the plots are ridiculous too. Let me summarize:
Captain: Mr. Engineer, I need an answer NOW!
Engineer: Captain, I’m giving you all I got! There’s nothing I can do!
Plot: CRASH! BANG! ZAP! OMIGOAWD EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!
Engineer: Captain, what if we tried some hitherto only completely theoretical completely untried and incomplete physics? That JUST MIGHT WORK!
Captain: Make it so!
Engineer: I can wire it up and get things hooked up in only (tapping keyboard flawlessly as ship reels from side to side) BEEP BEEP BEEP 13.3 seconds! THERE! TRY IT NOW!
Captain: Mr. Helmsman…NOW!
Helmsman: (calm, but with stern concern on his face) BEEP BEEP BEEP!
(special effect porn here, with special sound effect emphasis)
SUCCESS! We live to fight another week!
Engineer: Awww, shucks, it was nuthin’.
SCENE: Happy bridge, frivolity. If it is the Original Star Trek, queue long-legged blond wearing derrierre high mini-skirt with the blinking clipboard that needs Captain’s signature. Don’t drop the pen, Ensign! Dissolve to credits.
Yep, just like real life will work in any century.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:13 am
It should be on the official site later this morning in HD. http://www.startrekmovie.com/
It looks different, which might be better.
Now, the random 2 cents that nobody feels like reading, but I feel like writing:
I’ve been watching the remastered original series (you can find them online at Startrek.com, which isn’t as fun as watching them Sunday mornings the last few years), and I think it has held up pretty well. The franchise lost it for me during the first few seasons of DS9. I hear the later seasons were great, but I couldn’t be bothered. Voyager had Kate Mulgrew, which was bad enough, but I stopped watching it entirely when I realized that they would more or less hit the reset button at the end of each episode. I liked Enterprise, period. It was fun.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Charles, you are a very angry fellow.
Btw, WHAT Communist society? Have you even read the Communist Manifesto?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:19 am
WHAT Communist society? Have you even read the Communist Manifesto?
Given that I have a minor in International Relations, yes, more than a few times Daffy. That and Das Kapital as well more times than I care to remember, coupled with other minor politico-economic tomes as those written by John Maynard Keynes, Max Weber and others.
Moreover, I have actually visited s0-called Communist countries such as the former Soviet Union on business. None have ever been implemented to this date and have yet to progress past the state of ‘Dictatorship by the Proletariat’ stage as described by Marx.
The idea that Star Trek’s description of Utopia as being communistic in its ideals is hardly new, which even a cursory Google search would have shown you. It has been written and discussed ad nauseum since the 1960s.
Jean-Luc Picard:
‘A lot has changed in the last 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the
acquisition of ‘things’. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for
possessions. We’ve grown out of our infancy.’ — ‘The Neutral Zone’
“…in amove which suggested that Roddenberry wasn’t averse to pushing his metaphor to
its logical end, the Ferengi (the evils of capitalism).” –’The New Trek Programme Guide’
November 17th, 2008 at 8:37 am
“Ahhh, Star Trek — that near-perfect Communist society. ”
Uhh… so? Communism is actually a pretty nifty idea, if completely impractical. Funny enough, in that way it has a lot in common with laissez-faire capitalism.
“Seriously, Star Trek as science fiction has always bothered me, because not only is a lot of stuff completely implausible (transporter: meet Heisenger) the plots are ridiculous too. Let me summarize:”
Yup. I agree, there are some ST episodes that are like that, certainly. And then there’s “The City on the Edge of Forever”, or “The Inner Light”.
In short, the various series have had plenty of crap. But there’s an awful lot of greatness in there, too. Unfortunately, you’re apparently too busy crapping all over other people’s interests because they don’t meet your lofty expectations to see that.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Very good…I agree completely that there has never been a Communist society on Earth, and never will be (we aren’t bred for it).
But with all the education, you still think those 2 quotes indicate a Communist society? Non-materialism = Communist? I must have slept through that lecture.
And, what, Capitalism is so sacrosanct that anyone who criticizes any part of it is automatically a Communist? Please…Capitalism DOES have a lot evils…just like any “ism.” The only way it will get better is if we are free to criticize it. Or would you rather outlaw the Free Press as, say Communist societies do?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Michael L: Get thyselves a a life and enjoyeth this 11th Treketh for what it is… a M.O.V.I.E… It’’s not real!
Or even move on completely. The franchise lost me about season 3 of Deep Space 9, and I never looked back. This movie is a wait-for-rental for me.
I put a toe back in the water for Voyager and Enterprise, but the stoopid, it burned.
Paul: I apologize for knowing this.
As well you should,
November 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
@QD
“The franchise lost me about season 3 of Deep Space 9″
That’s a shame, DS9 really took off in seasons 4, and only got better after that, IMHO. Episodes like “Paradise Lost” explored some issues that no other Trek really tackled before (in that case, the use of fear by a rogue faction to try and instigate a military coup on Earth), and transformed the Federation from an idealized paradise into a real, war-torn political entity.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I think it looks cool…
I look at these things as, does on its own does it look like something i’d want to see… hell yeah… If it wasn’t star trek, i’d be excited to see it, and then the fact it’s based on star trek which i’ve watched my whole life which mean’s i’d watch it anyway, adds to the hell yeah for a, double hell yeah i want to see it!
It gets stupid to try and compare it to the original or judge it on anything else but it’s own. it could suck, but to me it won’t suck purely because of its relation to star trek, it’ll suck if it sucks in it’s own right. If it’s cool and un star trek like, i’ll still enjoy it. If it succeeds in both the awesome and the star trek factor, than even better!
November 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Dang, ny neurons are getting calcified, I had to Google it to remember the name of Spock’s pet ( I-Chaya, a sahat) In any case I’ll watch it, of course..
(Advance aploogied if this double posts)
November 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Has anyone checked out the original episodes with the new effects? Not bad, and they stay true to the storylines in all of them
November 17th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Unfortunately, you’re apparently too busy crapping all over other people’s interests because they don’t meet your lofty expectations to see that.
You have the wrong idea. I love Star Trek as much as anyone. I just wish that they could have done a better job with the hard realities of physics and in some episodes the writers not been lazy storytellers and resolved plots by resorting to cheap tricks. All TV shows, sci-fi or not, do it to some degree. Even Harlan Ellison has said as much about Star Trek, and what should he know about the series having written for it?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:36 am
@Charles:
“You have the wrong idea. I love Star Trek as much as anyone.”
Gee, how could I possibly have gotten the wrong idea! I mean, phrases like:
“Star Trek as science fiction has always bothered me, because not only is a lot of stuff completely implausible (transporter: meet Heisenger) the plots are ridiculous too”
couldn’t possibly give the impression that you’re just crapping of ST for the sake of it. Right?
“I just wish that they could have done a better job with the hard realities of physics”
Meh, that was never what Trek was about, so I don’t worry about it. If you want actual, hard sci-fi, go watch BSG.
“in some episodes the writers not been lazy storytellers and resolved plots by resorting to cheap tricks.”
Yup, I wish every episode was perfect, too. But they’re not. So I enjoy the good ones, bitch about the bad ones, and otherwise enjoy the show for what it is.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Brett I think we’re in agreement. Sorry if I seemed like I was slagging something that in reality we all love.
If you want actual, hard sci-fi, go watch BSG.
Well, the two shows do have Ron D. Moore in common.
1/16/09 is a national holiday around our house, because we’ll be gathering around the plasma to find out just what is going to happen to the BSG folks who we last left standing on the smoldering ashes of Earth.
Just as May whatever will see the wife and going to the multiplex (or even better the IMAX) to see the ST movie.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I’m glad the Star Trek genre didn’t sink so low or fade into obscurity that Uwe Boll is directing it. However, just think if someone like Quentin Tarantino, Mel Brooks, Wes Craven or the late Akira Kurosowa directed the film
November 17th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I still think a Star Trek anthology show would be good. You do a story in a different part of the Trek universe each week. If any of the characters particularly resonate with the fans, you could do other stories with them. You have to be careful not to overdo any one set, though, or you wind up with an Erkel Singularity.
But who cares? There’s a new season of Storm Chasers underway on the Discover Channel. Now that’s how to mix science and action, people!
November 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
However, just think if someone like … the late Akira Kurosowa directed the film
So… a Star Trek zombie film? With samurai? And the zombies have phaser rifles. Actually, that’s sounding sort of cool…
November 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
the late Akira Kurosowa directed the film…a Star Trek zombie film? With samurai?
Kurosawa’s “Drunken Angel” (1948) and “Stray Dog” (1949) were superb examples of cinema-noir — something that Trek flirted with a bit in TNG with Picard in the Holodeck.
You could even make a case for some of the aspects of BSG’s having noir elements, and at times the show has certainly used the mood and lighting styles well to reinforce the “grit” that the plot was propelling.
It could be pretty darned interesting to have a dark noir-ish Trek adventure directed by the very much alive Ridley Scott or perhaps by the Cohen Brothers. It might go against the grain of purists, but every universe has its dark places, even Star Trek’s.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
This conversation, gaaaack!
The trailer, gaaaack.
No, I don’t know what gaaaack means in Klingon.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
No, I don’t know what gaaaack means in Klingon.
You sure it is Klingon? Sounds more like Martian (as in Mars Attacks!)
November 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It’s now on-line at startrek.com. It looks way better than the bootlegged copies…
November 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“Gagh”, pronounced more or less like “gaaaak,” I believe, is a Klingon dish consisting of raw serpent worms. It is said the taste is so repellent that it is eaten for the pleasure of feeling the worms die in your mouth. Very Klingon, indeed.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I think it’s hilarious that you’re going to “try to avoid all the spoilers” when you post them for Dr Who right and left…
November 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Paul wrote:
[i]“Ok, just for the record … in the Original series Warp speed was supposed to represent n^3 times the speed of light.”[/i]
This was actually a retcon. As originally scripted, there WAS no mapping between warp factors and real-life speeds, except for Warp 1. Higher warp numbers just meant that the Enterprise was going “faster”, and the actual speed was left as an exercise for the imagination.
Later fans wanted to impose some rules of order on their favorite show, and came up with a formula that would make the maximum cruising Warp Factor of the Enterprise (warp 6) be a reasonable speed for interstellar travel. They settled for the “Warp x = x^3 * c” formula because it was simple and reasonably elegant, and later generations of Trek novel writers took it as canon. However, this formula was never officially sanctioned by Paramount, and arguments among the fans would still occasionally break out.
When ST:TNG rolled around, the writers decided to make an official warp speed formula to settle these arguments once and for all. This time, though, Rodenberry had proclaimed that Warp 10 corresponded with infinite speed, and so their formula had to take that into account. Thus was born the famous “Warp x = x^3.333333… * c, up to warp 9″ formula that made it into the published ST:TNG Technical Manual.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Well, I’m not too impressed with the trailer. Looks very much like “Star Trek 90210″ to me. And Abrams is no fan of technobabble, or good science in science fiction (see “Fringe” — shudder).
I’m still not getting what I want.
A hard R-rated Mirror Universe movie. Directed by Paul Verhoeven. Tits and gore, and a little subtle satire.
Or a Deadwood-style Mirror Universe show on HBO.
Yep, that should do it.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I’d be more interested in buns and abs, but then I got tits. Just leave Verhoeven out of it: I still haven’t forgiven the {expletives deleted} and everybody else connected with the abomination called Starship Troopers. Grok.
I go to burn incense at the altars of Fineline, God of engineers and Zeemoff, God of automation and building contractors.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I think $3.75 for the clown sweater is a bit overpriced. Salvation Army why do you rip people off so? I would like to see Wil Wheaton in more shows. I guess he needs to join Scientology (and maybe a couch jump on Oprah or two) to get more work. But anyway it is a tremendous waste of his talent. Maybe he could host a science show? He’s got the mind for it and the telepresence. I suspect I’ll be disappointed with the new Trek. I’m not going to search for the illegal trailer so I’ll reserve judgement.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Actually it sound more like “Starfleet 90210 – the action movie”.
I don’t know what, but something tell me that I’m gonna hate this movie.
I’ll go to the premiere, none the less.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:46 am
http://www.apple.com/trailers has the trailer in full HD, legally.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
“Space is disease and danger… wrapped in darkness and silence!”
w00t! I spy Vasquez Rocks!
November 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Please please please give this movie a “bad science” review!!!
November 18th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Watch out for Gorns!
November 18th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“…because the episodes were so mutually contradictory that the only way to be a Trek fan and not lose your mind is to be a bit lenient in the self-consistency department.”
The only inconsistency in the classic TV series of which I can think is from the very first episode, where Kirk says to McCoy “Perhaps you should take a lesson from Mr Spock, doctor… stop thinking with your glands!” This from the man who went on to become perhaps the most glandular captain in the history of Star Fleet.
Other than that, I found the show very consistent; red shirted extras always died, Manual Override never worked and Kirk would either romance a hot alien chick or get his shirt off at least once an episode.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:13 am
I never watched much of the origninal series, but is “manual override not working” the equivalent of vital ship functions going “off-line” in next-gen? Shields, weapons, engines, always “off-line” at the vital moment. Don’t know why they didn’t just switch ‘em back on. That’s what I do when my printer is off-line!
November 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
What I have learned reading this comments:
Charles will hold on to his infancy?
They could have done another Next Generation, but did not?
November 19th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I saw the trailers from the DrudgeReport site. Wesley in the clown sweater is no match for Uhuru without hers. This looks like Star Trek Ticky Tacky, or maybe Star Dreck, a mish-mosh cobbed together for teen-age panters. Or maybe a “Beverly Hills 1701″. All of which I can do without.
One of the links on the Official Site is “skip trailer”. I’ll do them one better. I’ll skip the movie.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:01 am
[...] I was glad to see both Scicurious and Dr. Isis sing Star Trek’s praises. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy is a huge Trek fan, even having debates about the show with Wil “Wesley Crusher” Wheaton. [...]