Just saw the trailer, and I have only three words to describe it: WTF? May 2009 will come too soon for me, I fear. I'll go see it - hell, I stuck through all of ENT! - but man I hope it's better than it looks, because it sure as hell didn't look like Star Trek to me.
Isnt that the point though, that it doesnt feel exactly like what has been produced over the last 10 years.
Everyone's been clamoring for new blood and to re-popularize ST, now you have IT, and people still complain. It doesn't really surprise me, except for the fact that Abrams could produce something THIS good looking and still have people complain. Guess what, its NOT the same ST, get over it. RAMA
You do realize there are aficionados and restorers of both model-ts and colonial era carriages who think YOU are fucking ridiculous. RAMA
You're missing the point, that scene NEEDED to be in the trailer, its the hook that catches the attention of those who otherwise would dismiss a standard scifi/Star Trek trailer out of hand. Sharr
I'm not looking for something that feels exactly like what has been produced over the last 10 years - frankly, I think most of what's been produced over the last 10 years (ENT, most of VOY, NEM) has been a lot of tripe with a brand name slapped on it and very little of either integrity or imagination. And here we are again with yet another time-travel crutch being employed. No, I'd like to see someone who understands Star Trek and also understands how to tell a good, original story without believing it's impossible without rewriting the franchise, to get in there and make something unique. And, frankly, I'd like to see them do it without making it all about either the old fans or the 'potential' new ones ("Well, we want to make it all familiar to the old fans so we can get their money, and yet make it totally different so we can fool at least the opening day crowds into buying a ticket because it doesn't look at all like Star Trek - you see, it's not about the product, it's abotu the bottom line ...") - pay attention to the universe that's already been created, tell a great story, and let the chips fall where they may. If you have to "reinvent" something just to get people to watch it, then you've already shot yourself in the foot - go tell your own story and get out of someone else's sandbox. Why does Paramount even value the franchise if they think no one will watch it if they stay true to it? Make something new, morons! You couldn't do any worse by it! Sorry, RAMA, but get over yourself - what makes your seal of approval more valid than someone else's concern that we're getting yet another commercial "epic" with little effort being made to create something that is worthy of the title? I don't give a damn about re-popularizing Star Trek - I'm not in the "even bad Trek is better than no Trek" crowd that thinks as long as it has those two words in the name, then life continues. And I'm not so arrogant to "know" that the movie is going to be either good or bad - I just don't see Star Trek in that trailer except for the most superficial aspects of it - the story and the characters that that trailer presents (and let's not argue on the one hand that a trailer tells a story when we agree with it and doesn't when we don't) don't show me that anyone involved has a clue about what Star Trek means, only what spaceships look like. I don't agree. Is Star Trek about telling the story of how a juvenile delinquent - or a group of them, given the impression of the film - somehow became 'great explorers and adventurers,' or is it the story of what great explorers and adventurers achieved and discovered? (Not to mention that I see a whole lot of mental gymnastics involved in explaining how a kid got his hands on a three hundred year old car, just to drive it over a cliff in a thrill ride.) Sorry, but again, if the only way to get the dog to play with you is to tie a pork chop around your neck, then maybe you're trying to play with the wrong dog.
Exactly, Sharr! I can't believe all these long-time Trekkies proclaiming that the trailer isn't their cup of tea. Guess what? It's not. Star Trek will never be successful without new fans who don't already hang out a Trek BBS or buy Reliant Christmas ornaments. The trailer needs to hook all the people who went to The Matrix, the Star Wars prequels, the Lord of the Rings films, superhero movies, etc. The start of the trailer was a great hook for non-fans.
Its about Kirk and Spock and how they "find themselves" in the world or so I have the impressions that's the only important exploration worth dealing with in a fictional universe and so its best they don't start off all perfect and self-discovered tends to be boring that way. People is stories NEED arcs. "juvenile delinquent" is likely a vast exaggeration on your part. Kirk needs to be some place before he realizes his "First best destiny commanding a starship" (I think that line's gonna have a whole deeper meaning very soon). Do you think Kirk (or any of the crew for that matter) was born and fully aware StarFleet and the Federation were what he (or they) had been meant to do or do you think he had to find himself first? My point still remains that clip likely pulled in people who would have phased out if they first thought they were seeing a Trek Trailer. Its all about fooling the none geeks into giving this a none biased look and being there when the movie premiers. Sharr
I didn't think he actually jumped. It seemed to me like he used some kind of 23rd century vehicle escape system. I imagine it's designed to make jumping out of a car at 80 mph no more unpleasant than falling off of a bicycle. This allows one the thrill-seeking fun of driving without a seat belt. If he didn't happen to pop-out at the edge of a cliff I'm sure he would have been in no danger at all. Perhaps that's even the motivation behind the stunt. This is punk-ass micro-Kirk's version of free-climbing El Capitán.
No, the car's actually an Autobot. Kirk wondered why it decided to transform into a beat-up old 'vette and got tossed out of spite.
Looks all new and different does it? Personally, I think that's great. Even an achievement (if that's what's happened). And might be a major part of the films ultimate success?
Why I can't buy the obsession with old cars, either by Tom Paris in Voyager, or by young Kirk in what, 2250 (give or take a year.) If someone of OUR time was obsessed by a vehicle from around 1768, it would have to be something like a curricle or some similar vehicle that young men would want (race, etc.) Doesn't happen. We're so far removed from that time frame that almost no one has an interest in that stuff. And so would it be for young Kirk (or for Paris in Voyager.) They wouldn't be obsessed with vehicles from 240 years before their time.
True, but the trailer doesn't show us a young Kirk obsessed with old cars - not unless his daddy left him a huge trust fund to buy toys with. It shows us a kid Kirk out for a joy ride - or possibly a pay-back - in someone else's obsession. Perhaps, as has been speculated, a car belonging to his uncle. And middle-aged men have all sorts of obsessive hobbies. I grew up in a working class neighborhood where it seemed like half the yards on my street had either a half-rotting cabin cruiser or dismantled cadillac (both well beyond the means of my neighbors to afford or maintain) planted in the front yards or car ports. There are folks, and organizations, who build replica sailing ships from centuries past. This car may be an original, or it may be a replica. In either case, it probably don't belong to boy Kirk.
"Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups."-bad guy from Under Siege 2 EXACTLY! This is meant to get new butts in the seats. I have been struck by how many dedicated fans have said they almost missed the trailer because IT DID NOT instantly look like Star Trek. As stated, this is what we need to get new fans hooked on Star Trek. The alternative is stagnation and death of the franchise.
Of course it's not for fans - that's the whole idea! http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjFkAR_KZb7mpPFaQZ8r3Mkol81gD94EQMBG0