Official Trailer Review & Comments Thread!! [Spoilers, of course]

[websbestcomics]

Well, I just saw the trailer in front of the Bond flick today. I have to admit, I'm a little baffled by what I've seen so far. The writer in me wonders why they chose to put young Kirk on a motorcyle instead of on horseback? That was a missed opportunity to draw a strong contrast between Jim Kirk's farm-boy origins and the futuristic construction of the 1701. It would have been a far more compelling scene, anyway. Plus, Kirk is a cowboy in spirit, right? It was so right seeing Shatner on a horse in the Nexus, it informed viewers of Kirk's simple childhood, and was symbolic of Roddenberry's 'Wagon-train to the stars' analogy behind the premise of Star Trek. Look, I want to be wowed by this movie, and I'm ready for surprises and new aspects of these characters. But don't RE-WRITE them. Otherwise, call it something other than Star Trek, and I'll likely enjoy the movie more.

I'm also curious to know if the car chase is set in Iowa, because that setting didn't look like Iowa to me. There's some other canon-defiling things happening in the trailer, but I'm willing to look the other way on that--such as the 1701 being built in front of young Kirk, when we know that the 1701 was in service for a dozen years prior to Kirk taking command. I'm still scratching my head at seeing it built in a shipyard in what looks like a desert. But like I mentioned, I'm ready to accept some new interpretations, as long as the story explains this stuff and is able to loosely bridge it to TOS somehow.

 

[Sector 7]

What about me for pointing out the implications of such power?

NO.

You are The Smoking Man, always destined to stay in the shadows. (How's that for BSing my way outta that? Did it work?)

 

[The]

Well, until they explain and justify all those pesky faster-than-light speeds the ships can travel, all the phasers that shoot "lay-zer beams", and the nifty transporter, I'm really not going to sweat...much less complain...about a starship being welded together on Earth. I'll just enjoy the fictional program as it is intended...

Excuse me if I insist on at least a dash of scientific plausibility in my science fiction.

Fair enough, brother. However, it would serve discussions like these far greater if you were to outline a distinction between what should and should not be dashingly plausible. Time travel, warp speed, inertial dampeners, transporters, phasers...all perfectly fine. But, people are worried about the ship being built on Earth as if it somehow redefines the Laws of Physics? That's reaching for something to complain about. Well done, fandom...

 

[SonicRanger]

Well, I just saw the trailer in front of the Bond flick today. I have to admit, I'm a little baffled by what I've seen so far. The writer in me wonders why they chose to put young Kirk on a motorcyle instead of on horseback? That was a missed opportunity to draw a strong contrast between Jim Kirk's farm-boy origins and the futuristic construction of the 1701. It would have been a far more compelling scene, anyway. Plus, Kirk is a cowboy in spirit, right? It was so right seeing Shatner on a horse in the Nexus...

Of course, Kirk leaving an idealized existence in the Nexus is the only time Kirk was seen on a horse or even talked about a horse. Horses were Picard's cup of tea, not Kirk (until TNG writers decided he was).

Besides, you want him to ride a horse all the way to San Francisco from Iowa?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The writer in me wonders why they chose to put young Kirk on a motorcyle instead of on horseback?

Among other things, and based upon reports about the extended scenes being shown to the press in Europe, it's quite likely that the distance he travels in that sequence would have been impractical on horseback at least in the period of time allotted.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, until they explain and justify all those pesky faster-than-light speeds the ships can travel, all the phasers that shoot "lay-zer beams", and the nifty transporter, I'm really not going to sweat...much less complain...about a starship being welded together on Earth. I'll just enjoy the fictional program as it is intended...

Excuse me if I insist on at least a dash of scientific plausibility in my science fiction.

Uh, building a huge spacecraft on Earth is not less scientifically plausible - and is a good deal more likely - than a transporter beam.

Except, perhaps, on Bizarro World.

 

[Lawrence B]

Well, I just saw the trailer in front of the Bond flick today. I have to admit, I'm a little baffled by what I've seen so far. The writer in me wonders why they chose to put young Kirk on a motorcyle instead of on horseback?

Well, for one thing I'm not sure how audiences would've reacted to seeing young Jimmy Kirk send a horse over a cliff.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

That and the, he and Spock really don't like each other at first. It's just so entirely tired. You know, a lot of the time people who become lifelong friends feel an instant affinity for each other.

Well, of course one of the cardinal rules of writing fiction is that just because something happens in real life is not an excuse (in and of itself) for putting it into a story.

Really.

There's some great fiction that involves friends who like each other from the start of the story. Butch Cassidy, Thelma & Louise, Jerry Maguire, Harold and Maude, The Shawshank Redemption.

Notice many of those stories are about how the relationship changes both characters.

There's no dramatic conflict in people getting along. The core of drama is people talking to one another. If they agree, most of the time there's no story at all.

My point wasn't that there shouldn't be any conflict between Kirk and Spock. It was that there should be motivated conflict that arises from the characters' fundamental natures, not the easy, lazy conflict of one character is acting like an ass, and the other character is touchy, but everyone knows they're destined to be the closest of lifelong friends.

There are some other story types, of course. There are the classic "man against nature" and "man versus himself" stories. My experience is that most of the former are reducable to the latter in terms of the telling, and that the latter are in many respects the character divided so as to be two characters for purposes of drama.

Exactly. So long as the conflict is about "man versus himself", i.e. about the character's behaving according to their inner flaws - I'm all for some friction between them.

 

[Enterprise101]

Nice warp effect? Sounds like a great shot! Visually stunning I hope!

I hope they don't overdo the BSG style handheld zoom effect. A couple of times are fine, but... - Unless every space shot uses it, having more than a couple will just look silly

To restate, the handheld zoom was on people shooting through an atmosphere at high speed. Shots of ships, so far, are more graceful than that (not that I have a problem with BSG's style).

I've only seen the trailer once, but I believe you see the new warp effect there. The best way I can describe it is sort-of a blue blur. When arriving at the debris field, you see the blur on the viewscreen, then SNAP, normal space and debris.

I hate to say it, in fear of the reactions of certain close-minded people here, but that scene reminded me of the Falcon's arrival at Alderaan.

I much preferred the Rebel fleet's arrival at Endor, but oh well.

I agree! Don't know why Lucas forgot about that beautiful manouver into Endor orbit and resorted to use the sudden swift manouver to sub-light speed shown in the new trilogy. Enterprise's warp exit to Kitomer in ST6 was rather good, the pan too, but she took way too long to slow down. I hope the warp exits in this new Trek film will be like that light speed exit to Endor, and maybe with the warp trail catching back up to the nacelles as she comes out of warp.... Oh, the possibilities!

 

[Enterprise101]

To restate, the handheld zoom was on people shooting through an atmosphere at high speed. Shots of ships, so far, are more graceful than that (not that I have a problem with BSG's style).

I've only seen the trailer once, but I believe you see the new warp effect there. The best way I can describe it is sort-of a blue blur. When arriving at the debris field, you see the blur on the viewscreen, then SNAP, normal space and debris.

I hate to say it, in fear of the reactions of certain close-minded people here, but that scene reminded me of the Falcon's arrival at Alderaan.

I much preferred the Rebel fleet's arrival at Endor, but oh well.

I agree! Don't know why Lucas forgot about that beautiful manouver into Endor orbit and resorted to use the sudden swift manouver to sub-light speed shown in the new trilogy. Enterprise's warp exit to Kitomer in ST6 was rather good, the pan too, but she took way too long to slow down. I hope the warp exits in this new Trek film will be like that light speed exit to Endor, and maybe with the warp trail catching back up to the nacelles as she comes out of warp.... Oh, the possibilities!

It just hit me!.... Ye know what's going to happen, don't you?... Why have they released this trailer so early down the line? They know we've all be dying to see sneek peeks at it, and it's still six months till it hits the screen. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Paramount has scouts out there taking note of all this to report back home to head office for the production to really vamp-up the film ready for May to what we all hope for!

 

[Peacemaker]

Wow. I'm psyched.

My favorite shot, as a Sarek fan, was the shot of Sarek and Amanda. *sigh*. My only shipper inclinations...

My only whine. A BRA 300-400 years from now? Well just damn. I would hope that they have designed better clothing by then. Bras suck. I hope by then, something is built directly into clothing.

Uhura's old school . Janeway's had a built in transporter; "Come near these and I'll space you!" The button was her bun of death .

Seriously, I'm thinking that's an homage to the fact that TOS was made in the 60's...an inside joke. My guess is that the film is chocked full of all sorts of goodies that we'll only "get" by further analysis.

For example, the opening shot of the trailer and the appearance of a man who's been watching Kirk as he nearly falls from a cliff evokes the opening of Trek 5.

The shot of Enterprise passing by an orbital station that looks strikingly like the lower part of Spacedock in Trek 3 recalls the shots of Enterprise's approach to Spacedock in Trek 3.

The warp trail shortly thereafter recalls the ending of Trek 4.

The freefall recalls the scripted, but unseen in theaters, opening of Generations.

Kirk on the snow planet recalls Rura Penthe in TUC.


IMO, the bra, which itself to me seems to be sorta mid-60's in style, Uhura is wearing is a nod to the 60's.

I guess this is where I should insert a comment about the colors matching...surely she's not wearing white drawers under the miniskirt. That'd be tacky.

On the one hand, I'm stoked for this now. On the other, I'm still hoping Trek 11 doesn't have so many running gags and nods to the past that it seems to be a checklist. That was one of Nemesis' flaws. On the other hand, what made Nemesis flawed in that particular manner wasn't the checklist-like aspect as much as the inner continuity that went along with it. It's entirely possible to allude to the past, if not directly mimic bits of it, without that weakness - as Doctor Who has done during RTD's time.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

At least this trailer doesn't have any recycled footage, as is what we received with many of the TNG-era movies!

 

[Peacemaker]

So:

-Building the parts on the ground then launching them into space = A-Ok

-Building the parts on the ground all together and then launching them into space = terrible for some reason, total fantasy loony land.

No ... underestimating. Capiche?

No capiche. You compared it to making Kirk bullet-proof - i.e. turning it into a looney tune.



I don't recall calling it such. I also don't see the Saturn V launch and the Enterprise launch as being at all similar.


Meh, sounds needlessly complicated.


Doesn't sound better, just alternate.

So they're building the flagship on the Earth HQ, so this means all ships are built there? I doubt it.

Flagship? What makes you think the Enterprise is the Federation's flagship? That doesn't happen until after Kirk's five year mission, as I recall. If anything, I'd think the Constellation, commanded by a commodore, has a better shot at being the flagship of that era. Or maybe the Constitution. Regardless, Orci made an announcement that it was necessary to align or tune the warp engines in a planet's gravity well, thus they think of this as standard procedure. So yes, this does probably mean all ships are built there.

I don't think Earth is the only thing with a gravity well. And not all ships have warp engines. It doesn't matter if it's the flagship, it is clearly one of the best of the best. It probably is the flagship, imo, but whatever.

You know, it may not be the flagship...but Constellation carried a higher registry number, as did Constitution. This could actually indicate something about why the Enterprise looks "more advanced" in this movie...she's not the flagship...but she is the testbed for a lot of new technology. That would account for a great many things about which we have seen and read, and, without running into the flagship argument still fit with our general idea that the Enterprise, if not the flagship is (of each generation of ships) is (also) the "most advanced ship in the fleet," to quote Geordi from FC.

That strikes me as being far less complicated a thing to say than to provide some sort of heavy continuity laden explanation. I'd be much happier with that...something like this: "Kirk; This is the most advanced starship I've ever seen - nothing like the standard for this class." Pike or Spock replies, "That's because we're testing several new designs on this mission."

In other words, the inference for the fans is that she's the Excelsior of her time. Like transwarp, some things will make it into the standard model, others never will. Some things will make it later on, and she'll gradually take on an interior design with a technological look that moves closer to those we've seen in the TOS movies of the past.

After all, Excelsior's bridge under Sulu's time was very, very different than the one when she was launched, and the Enteprise bridge, et.al, in each successive movie was changed, sometimes slightly - other times more heavily, as from Trek 4's conclusion to Trek 5 to Trek 6. Granted the A was an altogether new ship, but the idea's the same.

 

[Nardpuncher]

It seems that Kirk never really learned how to drive stick...remember A Piece of the Action?

Is there anywhere here where someone does a shot by shot analysis of the trailer? I still don't know what some of the things I saw were.

 

[sebialex]

I haven't the slightest clue if you are right, but.... DAYUM! I nominate you for the prestigious UBER-GEEK OF THE YEAR AWARD!!
I think you out geeked all the other geeks on TrekBBS (and that is saying something).

I guess. I just used grade 12 physics nothing more. I wouldn't call myself a trekkie, since I haven't watched the old series or TNG (only a couple of episodes from each). I have seen DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. I like Trek for the hope, humanity and morals it promotes, not the technobable. I don't care if new Enterprise is different from the old, as long as the new one looks good (I disliked the old design anyway). I don't really care about canon when it comes to aesthetics, because people's perspectives change every year. I don't really care about canon regarding stats and timeline becuase this is a reboot. What Trek needs now is a broader audience and it cannot get that if it tries to stay glued to the 60's. For a new audience the canon doesn't mean squat. I hope the new movie is like a Battlestar Galactica reboot but without the depressive and dark tone.

 

[JuanBolio]

It seems that Kirk never really learned how to drive stick...remember A Piece of the Action?.

Maybe he was messing with Spock.

 

[ST-One]

Is this Sarek or old Spock whom Amanda touches so affectionately on the cheek?

 

[Ronwald]

Uh, building a huge spacecraft on Earth is not less scientifically plausible - and is a good deal more likely - than a transporter beam.

True enough, but then I've always disliked the transporter for that reason.

However, the transporter is part of that category of things not likely, but not explained enough to be disprovable. While building a huge honking spaceship on Earth with all the resources, environmental impact, power consumption, and the simple fact that it would be far easier to do it in orbit, falls into science a good NASA engineer can check and be found as downright silly. The smart guys who work on these things for a living will tell you it makes far more sense to build in space.

It's only there so Abrams can get his "Kirk rides up" shot.

Be prepared to hear (non-Trek fan) reviewers bring this point up when the film is released next May.

 

[NCC-1967]

Is this Sarek or old Spock whom Amanda touches so affectionately on the cheek?

Sarek, with a guest appearance of the Vasquez Rocks in the back!

 

[JoeZhang]

Be prepared to hear (non-Trek fan) reviewers bring this point up when the film is released next May.

I will be staggered and amazed if anyone cares - if they do, they need to get out more.