The First Trailer

[Trekkin]

This might be old news or have been debunked, but the trailer wasn't in front of Star Wars last night.

Maybe it was never going to be and I missed that update, or maybe Australia's just done its typical thing of being different from everyone else. I just thought it was interesting due to all the rumours about that's where it originally would have been unveiled.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Somehow, suggesting that automatically dismissing contemporary art as being less than classic art might be a little arrogant is the equivalent to imposing one's own culture on another, even if said culture is fictional.

Whatever.

 

[Mudd]

I don't give a crap what art someone else thinks is better. Trek has never been scored with "classical music" but simply with orchestral scores.

It's become the aural equivalent of Cheez Whiz , I'm bored with it and glad to see something different.

 

[BillJ]

I don't give a crap what art someone else thinks is better. Trek has never been scored with "classical music" but simply with orchestral scores.

It's become the aural equivalent of Cheez Whiz , I'm bored with it and glad to see something different.

+1

 

[ancient]

The thing I found most confusing is that there wasn't a bad guy with a big ship taking revenge in this trailer. I'm not sure what I'm seeing here.

 

[Paradise City]

Classical music or orchestral scores are timeless and is consensus stuff. People who otherwise don't like these styles will accept it in a film without much of a thought. It's settled into history and is less risky to include. Modern music can divide people more although there's plenty of modern styles that does strike one as futuristic and could be included in a futuristic film .

But there's this thing throughout Trek, where all these characters have a fetish for the 20th century. I think it's overdone and creates a lot of clutter. All these guys interested in baseball and what not. That's just the writers shovelling in their own interests and I kinda wish they resist that temptation more. I like these films set in the future to be futuristic, a portal to an unimaginable future cut off from contemporary society and if they are playing something some guy wrote yesterday it draws me back to the present more than I would like, often without adding any substantive to the storyline or to the aesthetic.

 

[Beagleman]

The thing I found most confusing is that there wasn't a bad guy with a big ship taking revenge in this trailer. I'm not sure what I'm seeing here.

Don't you know? This isn't real Trek!

 

[CorporalClegg]

Kind of like there are large groups of people who have "fetishes" for steampunk. Or the renaissance, or feudal Japan, etc.

No other century in human history saw more progress, change, and diversity than the 20th. It's really not a mystery why future people might have an interest in it.

 

[Kor]

All these guys interested in baseball and what not.

They should depict future humans playing Jai Alai instead.

Kor

 

[nx1701g]

This might be old news or have been debunked, but the trailer wasn't in front of Star Wars last night.

Different theatres get different trailers to go with the films. For example, when my wife and I went to see Age of Ultron we saw it twice in the same day in the same theatre. The trailers playing with the film were different between the different auditoriums in the same building.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

All these guys interested in baseball and what not.

They should depict future humans playing Jai Alai instead.

Kor

Why does everybody hate anbo-jyutsu and parrises squares?

 

[Mudd]

All these guys interested in baseball and what not.

They should depict future humans playing Jai Alai instead.

Kor

Why does everybody hate anbo-jyutsu and parrises squares?

God, was there anything about oldTrek's future after about 1984 that wasn't ersatz, dull and vaguely awful?

 

[Paradise City]

Kind of like there are large groups of people who have "fetishes" for steampunk. Or the renaissance, or feudal Japan, etc.

No other century in human history saw more progress, change, and diversity than the 20th. It's really not a mystery why future people might have an interest in it.

Trek is going to a brighter, more exciting future. It's supposed to be getting better and better. People shouldn't be tethered to the 20th century to the degree that they are in Trek. It just comes across as contemporary writers shovelling in their own interests. This reaches absurd lengths with the fetish many Trek characters have with baseball cards.

There isn't much of a human 23/24th century music either. Everyone is listening to classic or 20th century stuff. It doesn't put the future in a great light. This paradise, once secured, is kinda boring and stale.

I wouldn't overstress it but I think it's a salient point.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

The thing I found most confusing is that there wasn't a bad guy with a big ship taking revenge in this trailer. I'm not sure what I'm seeing here.

And there isn't a bad guy with a big ship who also wants to destroy Earth....just because.

 

[Amaris]

Kind of like there are large groups of people who have "fetishes" for steampunk. Or the renaissance, or feudal Japan, etc.

No other century in human history saw more progress, change, and diversity than the 20th. It's really not a mystery why future people might have an interest in it.

Trek is going to a brighter, more exciting future. It's supposed to be getting better and better. People shouldn't be tethered to the 20th century to the degree that they are in Trek. It just comes across as contemporary writers shovelling in their own interests. This reaches absurd lengths with the fetish many Trek characters have with baseball cards.

There isn't much of a human 23/24th century music either. Everyone is listening to classic or 20th century stuff. It doesn't put the future in a great light. This paradise, once secured, is kinda boring and stale.

I wouldn't overstress it but I think it's a salient point.

They're still quoting the Bard in the 24th century, to the point that the Klingons apparently quote it as well. To take a note from Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark, take a cheap watch, bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless. The same could happen here. It certainly happened to Shakespeare (much as I love his stories). The Beastie Boys might well be considered high folk niche music in the 23rd/24th century.

Plus, keep in mind that the future we see has to connect back to us on some level, unless you think it was pure coincidence that in TVH, a film made in 1986, Kirk and Co. was transported back to Earth in the late 20th century in order to find some humpback whales. Boy, San Francisco sure looks like the mid-1980s for some reason, ya know?

How well did that film do? It was accessible to the layperson in the audience who had no idea what century Kirk came from, because it didn't matter. They were here, they were relatable, and it resonated with people.

That's all that matters.

 

[WoTe]

Why is it so important that a Star Trek film be so intellectual when the show really wasn't, for you?

Thing is I will still call out any series of Trek for their bad episodes, each one had many.

It's not important it be intellectual, I just want internal consistency that makes sense. Hell, who doesn't love a good action film like Terminator 2? But then there is shit like Prometheus that tries to be high and mighty but has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

The problem with the Abrams Trek has been with it from the first movie onwards. Things like how Kirk became Captain just don't make sense (not to me anyway). A ton, ton of stuff from the second movie. Etcetera.

They're just taking Star Trek elements to portray the action, regardless of how it fits (or not). It comes off as half-baked and breaks my suspension of disbelief. Kind of like how the music kills it for me too as too try hard (at audience catering).

They could make the film nonstop action from the moment the lights go out to end credits and still make it a good, internally consistent film.

Anyway, I wish the film luck, but I gave the series two shots at home, first half of the first one was good, but downhill from there, won't wait for a third strike.

 

[Lance]

My reaction, ''This is Star Trek?''

I think I am seeing what Paramount believes is the course the franchise will be pursuing in the future - a frenetic, moment-to-moment action film. Will CBS follow in its footsteps? We shall see.

A question - if there were not elements of Star Trek in the film, is there anything in the trailer that would differentiate this film from the average action film?

Isn't that kind of the point, though? The key demographic, for better or worse, *has* to be the 'Joe Public' figures who are looking for something to satiate their blockbuster lust between sequels of superhero franchises. That's the business their in. To that regard, ST:B may not look like old-school philosophizing Star Trek, but it DOES look like a movie that people will actually pay money to see.

If they can then carry them over into becoming fans of the wider franchise then that's great. But all three of the Abrams-verse movies are deliberately made to appeal to as a wide a demographic as possible. And in my view, they've succeeded admirably in that aim. I know lots of people who are not 'Trekkies' as such, but who love the recent movies.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Sabotage is a twenty-year-old song. It's not like they grabbed the latest hit single for use in the 2009 film. And it's possible, although pushing it, that there might be a thematic connection between the song and the plot of the film (is the Enterprise sabotaged?).

Plus, only Kirk seems to have an affinity for the song. In the trailer, it seems that Scotty is confused by the song ("Is that music?" - nice underhanded criticism, Scotty).

I'm not convinced that the song is actually in the film. It might've just been included for the trailer hijinks. All we know is that Kirk, and perhaps his stepdad, liked it as a child, and perhaps enjoys it into his adulthood. It could be considered classical music, or it could be a find of young Kirk's or his stepdad's while browsing their Nokia phone.

 

[nx1701g]

My reaction, ''This is Star Trek?''

I think I am seeing what Paramount believes is the course the franchise will be pursuing in the future - a frenetic, moment-to-moment action film. Will CBS follow in its footsteps? We shall see.

A question - if there were not elements of Star Trek in the film, is there anything in the trailer that would differentiate this film from the average action film?

Isn't that kind of the point, though? The key demographic, for better or worse, *has* to be the 'Joe Public' figures who are looking for something to satiate their blockbuster lust between sequels of superhero franchises. That's the business their in. To that regard, ST:B may not look like old-school philosophizing Star Trek, but it DOES look like a movie that people will actually pay money to see.

If they can then carry them over into becoming fans of the wider franchise then that's great. But all three of the Abrams-verse movies are deliberately made to appeal to as a wide a demographic as possible. And in my view, they've succeeded admirably in that aim. I know lots of people who are not 'Trekkies' as such, but who love the recent movies.

That's one of the sad things about the more modern movies. People are seeing Star Trek, which is a good thing, but they expect the new films when they're exposed to older episodes and movies. Case in point my wife (whom I was dating at the time) and I went to see Into Darkness in the theatre. She loved it and I talked her into watching Wrath of Khan. She hated Wrath of Khan and could barely make it through it. I got her to watch 09 and she loved it, so I thought lets give First Contact a chance. Same deal: she hated First Contact. Same with my niece and nephew who are both teens. They love the Abrams movies, can't make it through any of the classics. This is also why I'm nervous for the new series. I can see them going this route with it.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Hell, who doesn't love a good action film like Terminator 2?

Me. I prefer the first, gritty, take no prisoners first film. The 2nd is a bit too pretentious and overblown.