Empire Magazine pics!

[starburst]

I think from most the 'praise' comes from the hopes of the film being good, as from the half a dozen pictures it would be impossible to tell either way.

Yes you could like the new uniforms or hate the new bridge (or the other way round or hate/like both of them) but untill a trailer comes out, and even then, it would be impossible to tell.

[trekkerguy]

starburst wrote:

---

I think from most the 'praise' comes from the hopes of the film being good, as from the half a dozen pictures it would be impossible to tell either way.

Yes you could like the new uniforms or hate the new bridge (or the other way round or hate/like both of them) but untill a trailer comes out, and even then, it would be impossible to tell.

Shouldn't we hope the film is good?
Most the praise comes from the fact yes, we have seen some interesting pics.
And that we have a brilliant crew of people working on it and the cast is good.
There's plenty of reason to hope. That doesn't neccesarily mean we've
decided it's good. There's plenty of reason to be critical if you want to be.
The point is not to decide a movie you havn't seen is trash as most
of those critical have.

You'll either be right or wrong, just go see first.

[starburst]

trekkerguy wrote:

---

Shouldn't we hope the film is good?

Im one of the hopers, and will indeedy be going to see it

By 'praise' i meant how some of skeptics have alluded to 'cheerleaders' etc, after all we have the same amount of evidence either way, its just our opinions based on these small facts that have created a personal positive or negative vibe.

I just hope that some of the more critical dont get swept up on the "it violate canon I shall not go see what this bunch have muppets have made" bandwagon and some time later see it and end up wishing they had seen it in the cinema (if it is indeed a good film).

[Psion]

trekkerguy wrote:

---

Shouldn't we hope the film is good?
Most the praise comes from the fact yes, we have seen some interesting pics.
And that we have a brilliant crew of people working on it and the cast is good.
There's plenty of reason to hope. That doesn't neccesarily mean we've
decided it's good. There's plenty of reason to be critical if you want to be.
The point is not to decide a movie you havn't seen is trash as most
of those critical have.

You'll either be right or wrong, just go see first.

Nah ... if I see pictures of a bridge set that I think looks stupid, hear rumors about a script that's been injected with "Star Wars Goodness", see an Enterprise that doesn't look at all like the original even though the crew wear uniforms that look a lot like TOS, see actors who aren't right for the parts they play, and get told by the producer that TOS was silly and can't be taken seriously after Galaxy Quest, then I'm pretty sure a fan is well within his or her rights to save $11 for a ticket and wait for something better to come along.

Now, I'm not even close to coming to that conclusion yet ... but if I see enough bad things in the trailer attached to Quantum of Solace, then I might just conclude JJ Abrams was the wrong man for the part and find other ways to entertain me on May 8. I'd probably have to see an Enterprise with UlTRaCoOOOL warp nacelles and Sulu saying, "I have a bad feeling about this" for that to happen, but I'm not prepared to say the boycotters are flat-out wrong yet, either.

A lot of what I've seen and heard is exciting. But every now and then a detail slips that just makes me worried that something is funamentally wrong with this project. Like that "Star Wars" nonsense. It could have been an innocuous quip about making the franchise more exciting. It could also indicate a horrendously bad understanding of Star Trek's core.

[starburst]

Psion wrote:

---

Like that "Star Wars" nonsense. It could have been an innocuous quip about making the franchise more exciting. It could also indicate a horrendously bad understanding of Star Trek's core.

Ive been wondering about this for a while, are we sure he doesnt mean anything but the effects and action scenes? As to me the picture of the Kelvin being shot to bits looks very recent Star Wars.

[ST-One]

starburst wrote:

---

Ive been wondering about this for a while, are we sure he doesnt mean anything but the effects and action scenes? As to me the picture of the Kelvin being shot to bits looks very recent Star Wars.

It quite probably means that the Trek-franchise needs the same excitement the original Star Wars films generated.

And btw, I agree, explosions and space-battles are such foreign concepts for Trek...

[starburst]

I simply meant the effects themselves look more like the ones used in Star Wars than the ones previously used, at least to me

[Brutal Strudel]

To ST-One and Trekkerguy: Sorry, gentlemen, but that simply is not true. Some people (you guys) look at this stuff and say "looks good." Others--myself, say--look at it and say "looks bad." Neither of us are neutral. Saying that you are does not make you so. It just makes you a liar.

"This movie could be shit or gold," you say? I've said it several times myself. I'm just saying that, based on the evidence, shit seems more likely. Pretend all you want, but the content of your posts and the way you seek to silence the critics (ain't happening, btw) shows that you expect gold. That's your right, of course. Just stop being so snide to those who disagree, please.

Psion wrote:

---

Nah ... if I see pictures of a bridge set that I think looks stupid, hear rumors about a script that's been injected with "Star Wars Goodness", see an Enterprise that doesn't look at all like the original even though the crew wear uniforms that look a lot like TOS, see actors who aren't right for the parts they play, and get told by the producer that TOS was silly and can't be taken seriously after Galaxy Quest, then I'm pretty sure a fan is well within his or her rights to save $11 for a ticket and wait for something better to come along.

Now, I'm not even close to coming to that conclusion yet ... but if I see enough bad things in the trailer attached to Quantum of Solace, then I might just conclude JJ Abrams was the wrong man for the part and find other ways to entertain me on May 8. I'd probably have to see an Enterprise with UlTRaCoOOOL warp nacelles and Sulu saying, "I have a bad feeling about this" for that to happen, but I'm not prepared to say the boycotters are flat-out wrong yet, either.

A lot of what I've seen and heard is exciting. But every now and then a detail slips that just makes me worried that something is funamentally wrong with this project. Like that "Star Wars" nonsense. It could have been an innocuous quip about making the franchise more exciting. It could also indicate a horrendously bad understanding of Star Trek's core.

Exactly. And I'm hardly planning to boycott this movie. However, should the advance material continue to make it look like something I won't like, I will simply choose not to see it, as I have done with countless other movies, as have we all. After a point, you have to make a decision whether to see a movie based on what you can gleen ahead of time. Otherwise, you'd be logically bound to watch every piece of crap that Hollywood flushes into theatres. I'm not spending time and money on that fucking Chihuahua movie so I can move my 98.7% certainty it stinks up to 100. Right now, Trek XI is at around 65%, based on everything Psion has said.

For further clarification, see below.

[ST-One]

Brutal Strudel wrote:

---

To ST-One and Trekkerguy: Sorry, gentlemen, but that simply is not true. Some people (you guys) look at this stuff and say "looks good." Others--myself, say--look at it and say "looks bad." Neither of us are neutral. Saying that you are does not make you so. It just makes you a liar.

"This movie could be shit or gold," you say? I've said it several times myself. I'm just saying that, based on the evidence, shit seems more likely. Pretend all you want, but the content of your posts and the way you seek to silence the critics (ain't happening, btw) shows that you expect gold. That's your right, of course. Just stop being so snide to those who disagree, please.

No, I hope for gold (well, silver at least).
But I will not judge the movie based on the set-design for the bridge (which has taken me aback at first) and some comments made in interviews.
I will judge this movie based on the story, the acting and the direction - things neither any picture nor a trailer could ever convey.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Brutal Strudel wrote:

---

To ST-One and Trekkerguy: Sorry, gentlemen, but that simply is not true. Some people (you guys) look at this stuff and say "looks good." Others--myself, say--look at it and say "looks bad."

... and a third group of people say "my childhood! My childhood!". I have to admit that I can't quite understand where they're coming from.

[Devon]

Brutal Strudel wrote:

---

Okay, I'll ask this one more time: Why is it acceptable for you enthusiasts to look at the stuff coming out and spew uncritical glee but we skeptics, looking at the same material, must wait to see the movie before venturing our own opinions?

Actually, I never "spewed uncritical glee." In fact, I may have stated it here but certainly have on other forums, I don't care much for the bridge design choice from that angle (but want to see the rest of it) and had a probably with a couple of the casting choices. So you can count me out of "uncritical glee" right there. But that doesn't mean I think the movie is going to be bad. I'm in the cautiously optimistic category myself.

Instead, you seem to think only the enthusiasts have a right to express their views. (Unless, of course, you can direct me to a post where you similarly "chide" a cheerleader for praising this film sight unseen. I doubt you can.) So yes, silly you. Indeed, "silly" is the kindest word I can think of to describe such blatant hypocrisy.

I don't know what you're going on about and I'm not sure you do either. I just thought you had to see a movie first to be able to compare its story to past ones. And you made the implication that this movie has been in development for SOOOO long and even compared the story (which I'm interested in what that story is) to works of the past.

[Cary L. Brown]

Brutal Strudel wrote:

---

To ST-One and Trekkerguy: Sorry, gentlemen, but that simply is not true. Some people (you guys) look at this stuff and say "looks good." Others--myself, say--look at it and say "looks bad." Neither of us are neutral. Saying that you are does not make you so. It just makes you a liar.

"This movie could be shit or gold," you say? I've said it several times myself. I'm just saying that, based on the evidence, shit seems more likely. Pretend all you want, but the content of your posts and the way you seek to silence the critics (ain't happening, btw) shows that you expect gold. That's your right, of course. Just stop being so snide to those who disagree, please.

Well, I'm currently looking at this in two ways... (1) will this be a good movie, and (2) will this movie be "of a piece" with the Star Trek that's been a major part of my "recreational side of life" for essentially the entirety of my 43 years of life?

I suspect that it's going to be a good movie. Not a GREAT movie, but a good one... one that the majority of people who shell out their $10 for a ticket will not feel cheated to have seen. But also, most likely, not one that the average moviegoer will feel all that enthused about after they walk out of the theater. Some movies "change everything" for the audience, but that's rare. This is almost certainly not going to be one of those movies.

On the other hand, I really expect to come out of the theater thinking "that wasn't Star Trek." I'm hopeful, still, that this may turn out to not be the case, but I think it's more likely to be this way. I suspect we're going to be shown stuff that's "A new take on Star Trek" rather than something that is "Star Trek" (aka, something which doesn't tell us to forget what we've spent the past 40+ years getting familiar with).

I get very tired of some of the folks on here referring to "TOS canonistas." That's simply a bullshit argument... by villainizing the people who disagree with you, you can then pretend that you don't have to seriously address the real, significant issues that these people raise. Of course, it's true that nobody HERE has to address those issues... this is just an internet BBS, after all. But the issues are still legitimate and will inevitably affect the movie... SOMEONE will have to deal with them... just not the majority of folks posting on this BBS.

I suspect that the average moviegoer won't care about the changes to anything... but that they also won't buy Trek merchanise, go see the flick more than once, buy the DVD, etc, etc. They'll forget about it immediately upon walking out of the theater. Nothing wrong with that, either... and that audience NEEDS to be served... they make up a larger percentage of the general population than the "fans" do.

The real issue isn't a choice between "fans" and "general audiences," though, and every single freakin' time I see someone raise that particular red herring, it just drives home how dishonest the argument is. The goal here really should be to make a movie that appeals to THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE, not just to one subsegment of the potential audience. That means telling a great story with great characters and a plot that's both intelligent and exciting. But it also means not contradicting 40+ years worth of history unless there's a truly compelling rationale for doing so.

Nobody expects the bridge to be made out of plywood flats with backlit transparencies for "view panels" and cast-resin gumdrops for buttons. NOBODY HAS EVER SUGGESTED SUCH A THING. Nobody has ever suggested that the exact same velour used in the original first-season shirts needs to be used, or that every single character from the entire run of Trek needs to make a cameo appearance. The only suggestion has been that the designs should reflect the same underlying concept.

The way I've always described it is like this... imagine that there's a "real Star Trek reality" that the original series was trying to replicate and reflect. In some ways, they deviated from that "reality" but they were still trying to reflect something "real." The new movie, ideally, would take the approach that the original series was a cost-limited attempt to do exactly that, and that with the more advanced (but still not 23rd-century) tech we have now, and the larger budget, they can get closer to that mythical "reality" than they could do in the 1960s. But both are trying to approximate the same thing, and thus should have the same GENERAL appearance, the same general feel, and shouldn't cause the audience to say "waitaminute, that's not what it used to look like."

Instead, they audience should find themselves not really noticing the difference at all, until they go back and watch the old stuff and say "well, now I've seen what it REALLY looked like, and I can see the flaws in the old stuff now."

With the new uniforms, you can argue that's what they've done (and other than the two quibbles I've mentioned before, I think that they did an acceptable job there). The concerns are really with the sets and ship designs... and we don't really know what we're seeing, except that in a reality that's clearly not the one we saw in TOS, we see an academy-uniform-clad Kirk sitting on a very different bridge with TOS-era crewmen. So either everything from TOS has been flushed... or we're seeing an "alternative timeline."

I'm hoping that it's the latter, rather than the former. But it's perfectly reasonable for people to be worried about it turning out to be the former... and if it does, it will turn away a great many of the franchise's long-time faithful audience, while not really gaining any new "faithful" audience members.

[Brutal Strudel]

Devon wrote:

---

Actually, I never "spewed uncritical glee." In fact, I may have stated it here but certainly have on other forums, I don't care much for the bridge design choice from that angle (but want to see the rest of it) and had a probably with a couple of the casting choices. So you can count me out of "uncritical glee" right there. But that doesn't mean I think the movie is going to be bad. I'm in the cautiously optimistic category myself.

I don't know what you're going on about and I'm not sure you do either. I just thought you had to see a movie first to be able to compare its story to past ones. And you made the implication that this movie has been in development for SOOOO long and even compared the story (which I'm interested in what that story is) to works of the past.

See my remarks on the chihuahua movie if you need further clarification.

[Classic Fan]

I have finally seen the pics and they are amazing, most we have seen on here anyway, but the others, espiecially the window/viewer/heads up display.

The photo shoot of Quinto is terrible, but from the film stills, he looks the part.


I love the homage to the classic TRek publicity shot of Kirk and Spock looking up to the camera, thats very well done.


Still dont know about Pines black variant/training/undershirt though, i suppose that will be explained as we go along. Although, like said earlier, im hoping it will like Casino Royale where we dont hear the Bond theme, or see him as Bond for that matter until the final few minutes. Where we see the crew in classic locales on the bridge, ready to leave space dock or whatever, all in uniform as we know them, and that will be where Giachino will utter in some sort of rendition of the Trek theme.

Also, like Quantum where the gun barrel iand theme ident is played at the end, a stark visual representation of the fact that he is now Bond, as we all know him.

Uss Stardis wrote:

---

+1

+ 2

The purpous of that was, purely, a teaser.

It said 'Under Construction' afterall, so until we see an image of the Big E from the movie, im not taking that as a legit screencap, i highly doubt that scene will be there anyway, as it was 'under construction'

[trekkerguy]

Brutal Strudel wrote:

---

To ST-One and Trekkerguy: Sorry, gentlemen, but that simply is not true. Some people (you guys) look at this stuff and say "looks good." Others--myself, say--look at it and say "looks bad." Neither of us are neutral. Saying that you are does not make you so. It just makes you a liar.

Again wrong. Saying something looks good does not mean the I have decided
the movie itself is going to be good. But the material so far looks good to me.
If you havn't decided it won't be good but simply don't find the released material
apealing, that's cool, but most the naysayers have not kept from doing that.

Thanks for trying to "call me out" but no thanks.