More 'Star Trek XI' Preview Reports

TrekToday · November 19 2008, 10:29 PM

Some liked, it, some found elements unbelievable or just plain wrong, but everyone had an opinion after viewing the four-scene preview of Star Trek XI introduced by J.J. Abrams.

As reported by the New York Times, to justify its estimated $150 million budget, Star Trek XI needs to reach beyond the "die-hard fans of Vulcans, Tribbles and dilithium crystals." The four clips were explained and the reviewer asks, "Will the new 'Star Trek' erase our bitter memories of the last five sequels? (Not including 'First Contact,' which I now concede was a pretty good entry in the series.)"

Meanwhile, ComingSoon.net, after a detailed description of the four preview scenes, gave the thumbs up to Star Trek XI, saying, "Without being a diehard 'Star Trek' fan, it's hard to determine whether Trekkers will accept what Abrams is doing with this prequel, because that's really what this is, a prequel to the original television show. He certainly has kept most of the characters and traditions of the original Trek series and movies intact, using that history to establish the characters, their relationships and the technology. Frankly, I was amazed by how much footage Abrams showed at this presentation, because it really sets up the entire story of what the movie is about, clearly a new beginning for the franchise similar to 'Batman Begins' or 'Casino Royale,' which may be exactly what the "Trek" series needs right now."

UGO.com had mixed emotions (and harsh words) about the trailer and Abrams. "I saw four scenes. Two were terrific. One was holy crap I don’t believe life can get so good "effing" fantastic. And another was a thorough and malicious ass-raping of my childhood. As an aside, J.J. Abrams did nothing to dispel the myth that he is a turd."

Some of the comments from the UGO reviewer:

"I wanted to shout out that it was idiotic of the studio to have the trailer attached to 'Quantum of Solace' on a Friday but not release a quality version to the Web until Monday. All that accomplished was to ensure that anyone who cared enough to check in on the appointed time was going to get his first glimpse of the trailer on a shaky and lame YouTube version. "
"J.J. Abrams struts up like the smartest kid in Hebrew school. The first thing out of his mouth, the very motherloving first thing out of his mouth, is 'I've never been a fan of Star Trek.' WTF? Not only is this insulting and lame, it is rehearsed. He's said this in interviews fifteen times already. Maybe he thinks it is cute, but I just find it rude."
The bar scene: "I just am having a hard time seeing Kirk as a whiny loser trying to pick up Uhura in a bar. I can't accept it. I just can't."
The Spock/Kirk/Scotty scene: "If you are a true Trekkie, you know haw fantastic it is to see Nimoy as Spock one more time. I don't know if any closure is given to the TNG episode 'Unification II' (I kinda doubt it) but the decision to include Leonard Nimoy in this project is without question the smartest decision anyone on the team made."

To read more, head to the articles located here, here, and here.

Python Trek · November 20 2008, 01:10 AM

So the movie will both dazzle me AND ass-rape my childhood. Sounds like....um...fun?

IvosevicJ · November 20 2008, 01:39 AM

Thats exactly what it is.... a batman, a james bond and possibly a BSG style beginning. And I think it's very interesting.

Temis the Vorta · November 20 2008, 05:01 AM

The bar scene: "I just am having a hard time seeing Kirk as a whiny loser trying to pick up Uhura in a bar. I can't accept it. I just can't."

He was a dour, too-serious type when younger - if that's him being a "whiny loser," it's just following canon. It was only when he was older that he started to loosen up and gain the self-confidence not to be so stiff.

And I've always thought there was a nice sibling-like relationship between Kirk and Uhura. He was a bit like her big brother, always looking out for her and encouraging her when she needed it. For them to have some awkward but funny-in-retrospect first encounter wouldn't be too far fetched at all.

tomalak301 · November 20 2008, 08:11 AM

So the New York Times lumps The Undiscovered Country with the TNG films? Count that another reason I hate the NYT with a passion. Those liberal bastards who only review movies in which I end up hating but they go gah gah over.

Python Trek · November 20 2008, 05:04 PM

tomalak301 wrote:

So the New York Times lumps The Undiscovered Country with the TNG films? Count that another reason I hate the NYT with a passion. Those liberal bastards who only review movies in which I end up hating but they go gah gah over.

Well, I'm a libertarian, not a liberal, and I've always thought that TUC is vastly over-rated. It had a ham-handed script, it was too cute with lots of its dialogue, and both the production design and FX were garish. I've always grouped it with The Final Frontier---kind of crappy. <shrug>

But I agree with you that the TNG films suck, though.

I enjoyed the first four Trek films, and I liked about thirty minutes of First Contact, but Treks 5-7 and 9 and 10 sucked ass, IMHO.

tomalak301 · November 20 2008, 05:43 PM

Python Trek wrote:

tomalak301 wrote:

So the New York Times lumps The Undiscovered Country with the TNG films? Count that another reason I hate the NYT with a passion. Those liberal bastards who only review movies in which I end up hating but they go gah gah over.

But I agree with you that the TNG films suck, though.

I enjoyed the first four Trek films, and I liked about thirty minutes of First Contact, but Treks 5-7 and 9 and 10 sucked ass, IMHO.

I never said the TNG films suck. I actually like the TNG films, but they were not as good (with the exception of First Contact) as the other six. I'm just surprised given supposedly popular opinion that the TNG films were not as good, TUC was lumped with them.

Python Trek · November 22 2008, 02:59 PM

tomalak301 wrote:

Python Trek wrote:

tomalak301 wrote:

So the New York Times lumps The Undiscovered Country with the TNG films? Count that another reason I hate the NYT with a passion. Those liberal bastards who only review movies in which I end up hating but they go gah gah over.

But I agree with you that the TNG films suck, though.

I enjoyed the first four Trek films, and I liked about thirty minutes of First Contact, but Treks 5-7 and 9 and 10 sucked ass, IMHO.

I never said the TNG films suck. I actually like the TNG films, but they were not as good (with the exception of First Contact) as the other six. I'm just surprised given supposedly popular opinion that the TNG films were not as good, TUC was lumped with them.

Your post seemed to dis numbers 7, 9, and 10, so I thought you dint like 'em.

BTW, The Convential Wisdom (TM) that the even-numbered films are cool, and the odd-numbered ones stink, except for the pattern-breaking Nemesis, has always made me do one of these:

TMP and TSFS may not be perfect, but they're far superior to TUC, and although FC has some great moments in Montana, the Borg Queen stuff is frickin' lame.

To each his own, though---some people even like TFF! Yikes!

donners22 · November 22 2008, 10:29 PM

the reviewer asks, "Will the new 'Star Trek' erase our bitter memories of the last five sequels? (Not including 'First Contact,' which I now concede was a pretty good entry in the series.)"

Last five? Because the ones before that were so good? Or because people can only remember back that far?

If the former, there is something very wrong there...