Ska.
Wheee!
A new Trek trailer has been released or leaked, or something. Whatever, it’s cool.
I can’t wait!
About Bad Astronomy
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. Subscribe to BA using an RSS Feed
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"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 UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- How to Become a Backyard Galileo (Minus the Church Trouble)
- Discover Interview: Space Is Getting Bigger, and It's Getting Bigger Faster
- Visual Science: The New View From Space
- Top 100 Stories of 2009: #50: Magnetic Mysteries of Sunspots Decoded
- Top 100 Stories of 2009: #2: NASA Braces for Course Correction
- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
February 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I tend to be skeptical about trailers — they always cherry-pick the best bits. I’ll wait until I’ve seen the entire movie before passing judgement.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
It looks great, but as Ivan says, be skeptical, the trailer for Star Trek V looked pretty cool and we know how well that turned out.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
That’s the problem with modern times; people start looking back on the ludicrous propositions and hilarious casts of yesteryear through rose tinted glasses replete with nose clips so the stench of failure and/or cheesiness doesn’t deflect them from reverently trying to squeeze a few more votes or bucks out of it. Star Trek.. prime time’s answer to The Frog Chorus…
February 1st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hmmm…. It’s a good trailer, for sure. Hope the movie is good.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I’m not buying this actor as a young Captain Kirk.
He… doesn’t… talk…. like… this…
February 1st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Yeah, and he also has a lot of work to do on his “I am SO awesome” look.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Amazing what they can cram in to 30 seconds. And echoing earlier commenters, I remember the awesome trailer for Phantom Menace and the crushing disappointment that followed.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
No, it’s not cool. >_>
February 1st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
No, “cool” is the wrong word. Oh, what’s the word I’m looking for? I swear it’s on the tip of my tongue…
Oh, yeah!
Terrible.
That’s the right word.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
It doesnt look like Paramount Pictures Corp wants free advertising of their product. (the trailer has been taken down)
February 1st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I think I was the last one to see it. After it ended, I clicked it again and it’s been taken down by Paramount.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I guess that makes me the first to not see it? Oh well, I guess I still have the Superbowl.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
As much as he is joked about, Shatner “is” Kirk, (and the same applies to all the characters) so I have no great desire to see this movie.
The “powers that be” just ran out of ideas, so it’s, “lets make a ‘young Kirk’ movie” not understanding that one of the reasons that ST endured all those years was due in no small part to the actors who played those characters.
Forgive me for saying so, but I’m surprised at you, Phil, that you would be this excited about it. Perhaps it’s an age “thing”.
Oh, I’m sure it will make money…just like the Star Wars “prequels”, but I won’t be in the viewing audience…I’d rather watch reruns.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Tell me RAF, did you stop watching James Bond movies when Sean Connery was replaced?
February 1st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I’ve never gotten how Trek fans get so rabid when sequel shows don’t follow the “canon” of the original series. Obsessing over the minutae and ripping apart plots cause they don’t agree with one that happened over 40 years ago is just a bit too…well…obsessive.
Just enjoy it for what it is. Entertainment.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
drksky, some of the best fiction ever written is great precisely because it doesn’t take liberties, and ask the audience to suppress disbelief again and again. CJ Cherryh’s Merchanter series, extending to the Compact, is an example.
I’m sure sailors all know what goes on on a ship, and that’s what these things are supposed to be. You simply don’t have to ignore big, huge factors constantly to be entertained.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Rats. Taken down already.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Here’s a replacement that’s still up (as of 22:12 GMT)
February 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Yep, the trailer has been removed.
However, I can say that I am not as geeked about the film as our esteemed Dr. Plait is. I have more than a healthy dose of skepticism (actually bordering on cynical negativism) about this film.
Phil, are you taking the trailers as a sign the film will be good? On “faith” as it were?
Where is your data sir!!! (small “d”, not big “D” – I don’t want Brent Spiner gunning for me)
Berman/Braga ruined the Trek franchise for me. Now, before you all say “wait, see what JJ Abrams does” I will tell you that I’m not going to squeal like a fanboy because of him. I will wait and see. And I say this from someone who is a Trek fan from way back, and is old enough to have seen TOS in its initial airings on television.
@IVAN3MAN is correct. Trailers are made from the best bits available. It’s possible that some of the stuff seen in the trailers might not even make it into the final film (I’ve got a few friends that make these movie trailers… boy the stories they have).
February 1st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Phil,
Any chance you’ll give ST XI the old-school “Bad Astronomy” treatment? I’d love to see some hard core science based shredding. (You can even give them a pass on warp drives, since it postulates new laws of physics.)
February 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Taken down due to copyright claim.
That’s short-sighted and ridiculous on Paramount’s part- first of all, who-ever submitted it to YouTube was clearly not making money on it and second it was free advertising for them when someone like Phil embedded it into their blog.
And lawyers wondered why we are promising them the wall on the second day of the revolution.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I saw the previous Star Trek trailer when a friend and I went to see Quantum of Solace (spoiler: no actual quantum physics involved). It did a remarkably poor job of making me want to see the movie. At first, I thought it was an athletic shoe ad.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Considering how fast it was taken down… I guess it’s Leak.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
io9 has a copy, at least for the moment.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Someone should find out if Paramount is using YouTube for anything and sue the bajeezus out of them.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Ifyou can get it outside the uk, try youtube for Willain Shatner and Jonathon Ross, from 2 days ago. I thought he was hilarious, and he has a bit to say about this film.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Folks, the trailer was shown at about 7:14 as a Super Bowl ad. It might be back on YouTube, or at the Apple trailer link, later.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:11 pm
It’s already gone.
You’ve just got to do a search for “Trek Trailer” and it’ll show up on Youtube.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:29 pm
More specifically, search youtube for “Star Trek Super Bowl Spot”.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
BTW, the “super bowl” tag also helps with youtube searches for genuine GI Joe & Transformers teasers.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:45 pm
It’s up at the movie’s website:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/
J/P=?
February 1st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
The Transformers 2 teaser from the Superbowl is already available on Apple, so ST shouldn’t be too far behind.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Looks and sounds like The O.C. in Space too me. I’ll pass.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Maybe it is just me being an old guy, remembering the original series when it originally aired, but I am thinking this movie will be cool.
Cool–as in meaning not-so-hot, or less than tepid.
Ever since I first heard of this project I could not help thinking how lame it will be. I keep thinking about “Muppet Babies.” “Star Trek Babies” just does not appeal even if the the CG is spectacular.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Seeing them building the Enterprise on the ground pretty much ruined any ability I had to suspend disbelief. I already had problems with the bridge of the Enterprise. it looks like some kind of new wave coffee shop, but I’m pretty sure this pushed me over the edge.
I don’t understand why they want to take a movie that everyone likes, and then change everything about it. Why not just make a different movie. start a new franchise.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Meh… I’ll probably see it, but I just can’t get excited about Trek anymore. Not since Season 2 of DS9, actually.
Seeing them building the Enterprise on the ground pretty much ruined any ability I had to suspend disbelief.
*shrug* Anti-grav is pretty canon on the ST-verse. Given that, you can build ships anywhere. Maybe it’s cheaper to build it on the ground. For example, you don’t have to equip/train thousands of employees for hard vacuum/microgravity work. Or you could take a cue from MST3K and just relax. Allow for artistic license if you must.
I don’t understand why they want to take a movie that everyone likes, and then change everything about it. Why not just make a different movie. start a new franchise.
Because not everyone really likes it anymore. IMHO, ST got old and tired at the end of DS9’s run. Voyager and Enterprise, and films made during their runs, didn’t help. A reboot turned BSG from a farce into a near classic SF series.
I’m going to be a total contrarian radical here, and not judge the movie until I’ve seen it. Can you imagine? I guess my falling out with the original inoculates me against the WFS (Whining Fanboy Syndrome).
February 1st, 2009 at 9:59 pm
The Transformers 2 teaser…
Finally got around to seeing the first one. Meh… The bots were nicely done, but I couldn’t care a gnat’s poot for any of the human characters. Sadly, it will now forever be the first Blu-Ray I ever watched.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Does every post with a link in it have to go into moderation purgatory? This is the ONLY site I know of that does that.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Well, it’s nice to know the boneheads at Paramount still don’t understand viral marketing. Sigh.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I’m amused by the haters. And perplexed.
You like the original series and hope to protect it? Keep it sacred? And summarily dismiss any exploration of the backstory as “Star Trek Babies?” Really?
Nothing interesting could have happened before the timepoint of the original series pilot? Really?
You can’t tell a story without the specific actors who inhabited the characters? Really?
And you’re so sure of your position that you can pass judgment on a film (directed by JJ Abrams and based on Star Trek) not yet released? Really?
Wow.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:29 pm
You like the original series and hope to protect it? Keep it sacred? And summarily dismiss any exploration of the backstory as “Star Trek Babies?” Really?
It’s fanboyism. You might as well command the tide to not come in.
Well, it’s nice to know the boneheads at Paramount still don’t understand viral marketing. Sigh.
It’s the lawyers. To them, “viral marketing” is a new way to sell vaccines.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Quiet Desperation:
If people were required to register/log-in before posting a comment, like on RichardDawkins.net, then there would be no need for “moderation” — regular commenters’ are given a free pass for links, provided they don’t abuse their privilege. It would save you the trouble, Phil, of having to moderate every single comment with a link(s).
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
http://www.redferret.net/?p=12734
Fekkin’ brilliant!
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 am
Sadly, it will now forever be the first Blu-Ray I ever watched.
My first rock concert was The Romantics in 1981. They played too loud (but I figured that was just the volume of a rock show–I was a total n00b). My ears rang for three days and I was put off enough not to see the next concert that came to town. Some upstart Irish band named after an old spy plane. Try carrying THAT around for the rest of your days.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 am
Ooh, Golden Gate! Looks like it’s from the Presidio with CGI’d buildings added near it – the REAL Presidio is mostly parkland and all the skyscrapers are in downtown around Market St, which from this vantage point would be well behind them. If I’m not mistaken, it’s the Northeast part of the park. When I was there, I didn’t QUITE make it in to the Presidio proper, but at least I got to go to the Exploratorium. This looks like it’d be… nearish? Palace of Fine Arts would have been between it and me. God, I love San Francisco.
*has, once again, missed the point entirely ^_^*
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 am
@Quiet Desperation: The Transformers movie was nice… I thought it was hilarious. Now I’m not sure if that’s a good thing, but I still found it really funny.
The bots… They ARE nicely done, but when they fight it looks like metal vomit. I can’t figure out what is going on. There’s a reason why they had less details in the original cartoons you know, so you won’t wonder “hey, who’s exhaust pipe is THAT?”
PS: My first rock concert was The Darkness. I’m still trying to wash my eyes from the pain.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 am
One Eyed Jack,
Maybe the movie will explain the older Kirk’s stilted delivery. Perhaps a head injury or mini-stroke was responsible.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 am
I’m up for the movie, but I still don’t know why they had to recycle the characters. Why not just create new characters rather than try to shoehorn new actors into old characters. We already know that Kirk and Spock will be BFF, so why try to fool us by writing conflict into the movie?
Would it have killed them to be a little more creative?
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
I’m up for the movie, but I still don’t know why they had to recycle the characters. Why not just create new characters rather than try to shoehorn new actors into old characters.
If I knew who to talk to, I’ve always wanted to pitch a Trek anthology series. Different stories in different parts of the Trek universe each week. If one set of characters resonated particularly well with the fans, they could come back in subsequent episodes, but it would generally be something different every week. There’s lots of books that could be adapted. It’s a rich enough fictional universe for such a thing.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 am
AFAICT, the movie could be good or bad; most likely, it’ll be a mixed bag, with some virtues and some parts which make anyone who gives a good gorram ask, “Why did they have to do it like that?” What bothers me more is that all the advertising which the studio has deigned to release portrays the film as mindless spectacle with hackneyed conflict and the most trite of character development. So, I’m hoping that these trailers have just been a biased sampling of a better movie.
I try to take a laid-back attitude about canon and such — after all, they’re just stories people have made up, and some of the ones with official numbers attached to them have been, ahem, really bad. (I’m in the camp which denies that Star Trek V ever really happened, for example.)
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Shame the trailers gone
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Quiet Desperation Says:
“You like the original series and hope to protect it? Keep it sacred? And summarily dismiss any exploration of the back story as “Star Trek Babies?” Really?
It’s fanboyism. You might as well command the tide to not come in.”
At my age, I doubt it is “fanboyism” whateverinthehell that means. It is more like grumpy old curmudgeon bitchin’ bout the no-brained idiots who have to rehash the old stuff and manages to make a right dog’s dinner of it. BTW, I like the complement “boy” at my age.
I wouldn’t mind a back story movie, but they might consider some connection to the source material beyond the characters’ names.
In the original series, McCoy was older than most of the crew. Scotty probably came with the ship. Kirk and Spock were about the same age (career wise if not chronologically) Sulu and Chekov were punk kids almost fresh out of the academy. These individual back stories guided much of the interplay between the characters throughout the series.
So now they are all classmates? Make them all ensigns and put them under the command of someone else. The problem with reimagining or rebooting is that most of the powers that be lack any imagination.
Suppose I will see it whan it comes out. I’m not so old I won’t accept change. I should just be glad it wasn’t directed by Roland Emmerich, James Cameron or M. Knight Shamalamadingdong.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
GAHHH!!! Paramount had the clip REMOVED! GAHHH!!!
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
RAF,
“Get a Life.”
William Shatner
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
I should just be glad it wasn’t directed by Roland Emmerich, James Cameron or M. Knight Shamalamadingdong.
Now you know why Avatar and Foundation fans have trouble sleeping at night. . . .
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
I’m a bit of a continuity nerd myself, though my poor memory helps keep it in check (can’t get irritated if I forgot what’s happened elsewhere), but this is obviously a reboot, so continuity doesn’t come into it. Star Trek has established alternate universes anyway, if the fans *must* have a mechanism to explain the differences.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Personally, I think Star Trek has already paraded out so many inconsistencies that talking about “canon” is about like talking about the Titanic as though it’s still afloat. Enjoy the movie already.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
How stupid are the nimrods at Paramont?
Taking an advertisement down due to copyrights? Isn’t the purpose of an advertisement to be played lots of times? It is supposed to generate interest in the product?
I think I read about that in a marketing book.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Kid Cool,
The point is that YouTube isn’t paying for it. Stupid, yes, but many people would say the studios are as well.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
Um, if you scroll up slightly, you’ll see that Paramount made their ad available on the official movie site not long after it aired during the Superbowl. Not sure why you’d want to watch it postage stamp size and compressed on Youtube, when you can see in HD quality: http://www.startrekmovie.com/
Here’s the HD sizes for download:
http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/sb2009/ST_TVSpot_Dare30_480p.mov
http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/sb2009/ST_TVSpot_Dare30_720p.mov
http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/sb2009/ST_TVSpot_Dare30_1080p.mov