Odd suggestion re: "the Trailer"

[Cary L. Brown]

Hi everyone...

I was talking to a friend of mine who's "in the FX biz" last night (mainly talking politics... he wanted my take on Obama's speech). And the topic of the Trek 11 trailer came up.

My friend threw out a tidbit I'm not 100% sure I believe, but which he CLAIMED was true. If it WERE true, I'd be pretty happy about things, though.

Apparently, as he claimed, the "Enterprise" we saw in the trailer isn't, in fact, the model for the movie Enterprise at all. But it IS a model we'll see in the film, just redressed a little bit.

Basically, what do we SEE? We see a saucer, a nacelle, and some nondescript parts we THINK are pylons... right?

He's telling me that what we were actually looking at was the model for the USS Kelvin, just "rearranged" a little bit.

I'm not convinced that this is really the case, and he's not on the Trek team, but he knows several people who are, and he claims that he got this from someone who actually worked on the ship (and thus would have 1st-hand information).

What do you guys think? Possible?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Well, the saucer in the trailer WAS in fact mark with the name "USS ENTERPRISE", so it really wasn't too nondescript. IF it actually was the Kelvin, then I suppose the makers of the trailer were intentionally and overtly pulling the wool over our eyes.

 

[trevanian]

Could be malarkey, but if those shots are actually in the movie, would also explain why detail/credibility level is higher in those closer shots than in the last shot. Once we find out what happens with that ship plotwise (salvage operation? refit?), it'd' be easier to evaluate.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Isn't the Kelvin supposed to be fairly small (relative to the Enterprise)? I thought I read that somewhere. The ship under construction in the trailer was huge in comparison to the people and exposed bulkheads on the hull.

Of course that could have been a deliberate scaling up for the trailer.

 

[Vektor]

I've been suggesting this possibility for a while now, although it never occurred to me that the ship in the teaser might actually be the Kelvin, or parts of it, rearranged, rescaled and renamed to pass as the Enterprise. I was thinking that the ship we saw was basically an unfinished "placeholder" cobbled together specifically for the teaser, but it makes sense that they wouldn't build it purely as a throw-away. Assuming this rumor is true, I still wonder if the Kelvin model was adapted for the teaser or if the teaser model was further developed to become the kelvin.

Looking back on the front view from the teaser, it occurs to me that if you assume the warp nacelles are supposed to be close to the same size as the original Enterprise but the rest of the ship is smaller, as the Kelvin has been described, then the odd proportions make a lot more sense. The whole bridge structure atop the saucer might only be a single deck. It might also explain why there was no hint of a secondary hull in the teaser as the Kelvin is not supposed to have one.

Or course, it remains to be seen if any of this true, but I'm still laying odds that the Enterprise we see in the movie will not be the one from the teaser.

 

[Sector 7]

Well, my friend is the boyfriend of the girl who walks J.J. Abrams' dog... and HE says... the actual Enterprise from the movie will be a kit bash of the Space Cruiser from Space Ghost and the Batmobile (1989 version) with added depth using parts from nuBSG ships. They had to cut the budget since Shat is suing them for giving his cameo to Tom Cruise...
But I digress. I think the trailer is EXACTLY what Abrams wanted it to be... a conversation starter and a TEASER. So far, it has worked beautifully. He is proving to be an absolute mastermind at this, which gives me confidence that he also knows what he is doing as director and re-creator of Star Trek.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...I think the trailer is EXACTLY what Abrams wanted it to be... a conversation starter and a TEASER. So far, it has worked beautifully. He is proving to be an absolute mastermind at this, which gives me confidence that he also knows what he is doing as director and re-creator of Star Trek.

You make a great point:

Abrams may or may not be the best option as director of this film -- we will find THAT out in May. However, he is definitely a great choice to run a PR campaign that has the mission of making Star Trek relevant again.

 

[Dukhat]

Did your friend actually say, "It's the Kelvin," or did he just say that it was an older ship and you are assuming it to be the Kelvin?

Although I admit that I do like the ship, it would make sense that it's not really the same model they will be using for the movie to represent the Enterprise. Someone here once made a good point that the "real" Enterprise model wasn't in any way finished at the time of the trailer, so TPTB used a "placeholder" if you will.

 

[Jon1701]

Interesting theory.

I suspect the reality of the situation is somewhere in the middle. A placeholder makes sense, but they must have known we would over analyze every frame and shot in that trailer.

Will be funny if it turns out we were analyzing a ship that won't be in the movie

 

[M'Sharak]

Isn't the Kelvin supposed to be fairly small (relative to the Enterprise)? I thought I read that somewhere. The ship under construction in the trailer was huge in comparison to the people and exposed bulkheads on the hull.

Of course that could have been a deliberate scaling up for the trailer.

The only thing I recall for sure is that the Kelvin was smaller and an older design -- "a Federation starship from a generation before the Enterprise and smaller than the Enterprise," according to this article at TrekMovie.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yep, that's the one I read. Thanks.

 

[Vektor]

Although I admit that I do like the ship, it would make sense that it's not really the same model they will be using for the movie to represent the Enterprise. Someone here once made a good point that the "real" Enterprise model wasn't in any way finished at the time of the trailer, so TPTB used a "placeholder" if you will.

That may have been me. I suggested that very possibility quite recently, but it was only speculation. I don't know what the production schedule on the special effects has been or how early ILM started work on the actual Enterprise design-wise. They might have had the thing finished at that point for all I know, but I rather doubt it. Either way, it's not iconceivable that it could have undergone significant changes since then.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Did your friend actually say, "It's the Kelvin," or did he just say that it was an older ship and you are assuming it to be the Kelvin?

Although I admit that I do like the ship, it would make sense that it's not really the same model they will be using for the movie to represent the Enterprise. Someone here once made a good point that the "real" Enterprise model wasn't in any way finished at the time of the trailer, so TPTB used a "placeholder" if you will.

Well, I can't recall the entire conversation... just sort of "meandered" onto that topic. Basically, I think we went from Obama's "change" to the idea that all change isn't necessarily "GOOD change," to the revised Enterprise idea (as an extension... about whether change is good, bad, or indifferent).

He did say "it's the Kelvin" but I think that name had come up before in the conversation about the "old" ship, so I don't remember if he mentioned the name first.

Remember, though... I'm not saying this is true, only something I've been told, by someone who isn't in that tiny little cluster of four or five people in the world I'd trust without reservation. For one thing, he's a big Obama supporter... and we weren't exactly agreeing on that point. (I'm jazzed right now about the (R) VP choice... never thought that Sarah Pallin had a chance... but I think she's great, and I may actually be able to vote for that ticket with her on there!)

Anyway.... I'm about 50/50 on whether or not I really believe what I've been told. I think it's ENTIRELY possible. And it certainly fits into my own "wish-fulfillment" situation. But I'm not convinced that my friend wasn't just pulling my chain. He works for the company but he's not on that project, like I said, so I'm "cautiously optimistic" but still pretty skeptical.

 

[Gepard]

^Damn, you know people at ILM?


...can I be friends with you?

 

[Sector 7]

For one thing, he's a big Obama supporter... and we weren't exactly agreeing on that point. (I'm jazzed right now about the (R) VP choice... never thought that Sarah Pallin had a chance... but I think she's great, and I may actually be able to vote for that ticket with her on there!).

I like your friend already! Speaking as a Democrat, I think McCain made the right call. He is really showing how far the party has come. After all, it takes guts for the party of family values to choose a VP whose 17 year old daughter is pregnant!

 

[OneBuckFilms]

For one thing, he's a big Obama supporter... and we weren't exactly agreeing on that point. (I'm jazzed right now about the (R) VP choice... never thought that Sarah Pallin had a chance... but I think she's great, and I may actually be able to vote for that ticket with her on there!).

I like your friend already! Speaking as a Democrat, I think McCain made the right call. He is really showing how far the party has come. After all, it takes guts for the party of family values to choose a VP whose 17 year old daughter is pregnant!

I'm not so sure it takes "guts", since the 17 year old isn't the one running for VP.

It's a big thing for Palin's family and personal life, but is a non-issue to most voters.

But I agree, it's a GREAT call, for many reasons.

Anyway, back to Trek ....

The only way we'll know what our favourite starship will look like will be when the movie is let loose among the rabid fans (us).

I'll look at this with great interest.

 

[Vektor]

I like your friend already! Speaking as a Democrat, I think McCain made the right call. He is really showing how far the party has come. After all, it takes guts for the party of family values to choose a VP whose 17 year old daughter is pregnant!

Yeah, because as everyone knows, our usual policy for dealing with pregnant 17-year-olds is to burn them at the stake and disqualify their entire families--especially their mothers--from holding public office.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

For one thing, he's a big Obama supporter... and we weren't exactly agreeing on that point. (I'm jazzed right now about the (R) VP choice... never thought that Sarah Pallin had a chance... but I think she's great, and I may actually be able to vote for that ticket with her on there!).

I like your friend already! Speaking as a Democrat, I think McCain made the right call. He is really showing how far the party has come. After all, it takes guts for the party of family values to choose a VP whose 17 year old daughter is pregnant!

Well, I was talking anecdotally about a conversation between me and someone else, just to explain how the topic came up. I'm not interested in turning this thread into another political-beat-em-up thread.

But I'm not quite sure if you're trying to be funny (and failing completely) or being serious (about liking how McCain blew off "conventional expectations"). I'll assume it's the latter, in which case we'd probably agree.

The idea of "family values" isn't about never having sex... that's a myth that's been perpetuated by folks who want to pretend that they're somehow "morally superior" to other people. "Family values" is really about taking responsibility for your own choices. So divorce is frowned upon, because that's a matter of people not taking responsibility for their own choices. Abortion is frowned upon for much the same reason (along, of course, with the obvious case regarding it being a human life... and thus being, effectively, murder). It's not about not making mistakes, and definitely not about not living. It's about owning up to the consequences of your choices... you know, like grown-ups do.

So, the "family values" bit here isn't contradicted in any way by her daughter having had sex... it would, however, be contradicted if the daughter went out and had an abortion, and would arguably be contradicted (though to a lesser extent) if the father wasn't going to be involved in raising the kid.

The 17-year-old daughter is gonna have to own up to her own choices... and to take responsibility for the result (ie, a human being). That's all about what "family values" really means.

Anybody who claims differently is full of bovine stuff.

 

[Sector 7]

Interesting, since the GOP is always condemning the 'immorality' of the Democrats. But back to the OT... (Original Topic, I love all the abreviations)... I STILL think J.J. Abrams is playing the promotion game better than anyone before him. If this movie is the blockbuster I believe it will be next year, look to see some changes as to how a movie is promoted and marketed in the future.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Interesting, since the GOP is always condemning the 'immorality' of the Democrats. But back to the OT... (Original Topic, I love all the abreviations)... I STILL think J.J. Abrams is playing the promotion game better than anyone before him. If this movie is the blockbuster I believe it will be next year, look to see some changes as to how a movie is promoted and marketed in the future.

Well, on the latter point, we definitely agree. The guy is masterful at "playing the audience" prior to a release. The hype about Cloverfield was MASSIVE, just for example (I enjoyed the flick but, of course, it wasn't in any way an all-time-great or anything!).

And, you know you're right... there's plenty of talk from people on the "right" about some people on the left being "immoral." Of course, it seems to me that there's at LEAST as much volume of "claims of being bad" directed towards people on the right by people on the left. The only people I think are "immoral" are the ones whose actions and their personal beliefs aren't the same... who do something, claim it's for one reason or another, but turn out to be lying about it. My favorite example is Teddy Kennedy, who's always been big on talking a line over "environmentalism" yet lives on a huge fund based in its majority upon petroleum dollars, and who killed off a proposed off-shore wind-farm because it was going to SPOIL HIS VIEW FROM HIS YACHT. Now THAT'S immoral.

Immorality is about knowing that something is wrong and doing it anyway. Otherwise, it's not immorality... at worst, it's simply "being mistaken." And of course, nobody (unless you want to talk about God, which we won't here!) is perfect... so everybody is immoral sometimes. You, me, everybody. Right?