Am I the only one who didn't like the trailer?
- Thread starter Anticitizen
- Start date
First off, why are Trekkies so fucking afraid of SEX? Is it because they've never had it, or because they think SEX is a bad, bad thing? If all other movies and TV shows can have SEX as a story forwarding mechanism, why can't Star Trek have so either? I mean in TOS you had Kirk banging any nearby hottie, Spock had a couple of SEX storylines and the hot-babe-of-the-week definitely had lots of SEXy parts of hers being displayed. So why the irrational hatred?
Some of the things I've read recently on this board in regards to the trailer make it seem as if sex and Trek (other than starship polaris's thread) don't go hand in hand. Cries of "there goes Trek's family appeal" and so forth.
The original series was conceived and marketed as an adult space drama-- the first according to NBC's preview week ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_E3A3Eu0pk).
The original Trek was infused with sexuality from the get-go, Vina's short dress and Orion Slave Girl outfit in "The Cage."
The show was the NYPD Blue of the 1960s, constantly pushing the envelope on how much skin should be shown; censors telling Roddenberry not to show certain body parts like a woman's belly button.
Sex became more subdue by TNG and beyond, and more juvenile in certain aspects of Enterprise. The "adult" drama gave way to the "family" aspect of Trek, an aspect that only grew out of TOS being aired during dinner time in syndication in the 1970s.
Then with TNG that "for the family" aspect seemed to get bigger and bigger. The stories and such became more subtle rather han "pushing the envelope" on topics such as religion, sex, God, etc. by way of "little green men" and "zap guns." Roddenberry states in "The Cage" introduction that he wanted a venue to tell those types of stories and by using the guise of science-ficition maybe get it pass the censors.
The sexiness on TNG, VOY and, certainly, ENT felt more puerile, almost like a teenage boy's early sexual fantasies. To some extant, so did DS9.
Hell, GR used the original series to get laid most of the time according to Inside Star Trek. So I say bring on the sex, the seriousness and leave the juvinelle crap back in the decon chamber on the NX-01.
Although I agree with a few points that Anticitizen made, I think he might have forgotten the point.
This movie is an entirely new concept. Its not rooted in canon. Heck, its not rooted in anything! Its a Reinterpretation. If you look up the word Interpretation in the dictionary it means,
An explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation
If you look up the word Reinterpretation, it means,
A new or different meaning A new or different interpretation
The first word, interpretation, by itself, explains why this movie is different. But reinterpretation emphasises the fact that its someone else take on a concept. Nothing is written in stone! JJ Abrams concept has nothing to do with canon or trying to make it fit with the other films or series. He pays homage to Trek fans by keeping the characters and the basics, but he is basically starting over and reinventing what we know as TOS. From here on out, if this movie is a success, the original ten movies will be meaningless beyond the fact that they are a different interpretation.
So its pretty much pointless to try and figure out how any of the movie will fit into canon or point to any of the other movies. Try doing that with the Batman series! See if you can figure out how Christian Bale becomes Michael Keaton somewhere down the line. No one is complaining about Batman being reinterpreted. Everybody understands that each series has its own place. Look how many times they've rebooted the movie, "Journey to the center of the earth". There have been fourteen different reinterpretations, including tv series.
As far as whether or not Kirk, Spock, or Mccoy should do or say certain things, or act a certain way. Thats also up for interpretation. Just because Spock has a tantrum doesn't mean anything. He's going through a point in his life where he has to learn to control his human side and create a balance between the human and the vulcan. Each character brings a specific ideal to the concept,not necessarily the exact one That Gene envisioned. Chris Nolan made batman have the same characteristics but a different personality than Tim Burton portrayed him. Got the point across though.
But in the end, the most basic reason why JJ made this movie different was money. The original concept was run into the ground and didn't attract the general audience. If only 20% of people go and see a specific type of movie, the movie companies gonna be looking for a way to boost sales. So they either scrap a concept completely, or they reboot!
Just my take. I'm 28 and have been a fan since I was 5, and I'm open to Interpretation, if you'll excuse the pun!
This movie is an entirely new concept. Its not rooted in canon. Heck, its not rooted in anything! Its a Reinterpretation. If you look up the word Interpretation in the dictionary it means,
An explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation
If you look up the word Reinterpretation, it means,
A new or different meaning A new or different interpretation
The first word, interpretation, by itself, explains why this movie is different. But reinterpretation emphasises the fact that its someone else take on a concept. Nothing is written in stone! JJ Abrams concept has nothing to do with canon or trying to make it fit with the other films or series. He pays homage to Trek fans by keeping the characters and the basics, but he is basically starting over and reinventing what we know as TOS. From here on out, if this movie is a success, the original ten movies will be meaningless beyond the fact that they are a different interpretation.
So its pretty much pointless to try and figure out how any of the movie will fit into canon or point to any of the other movies. Try doing that with the Batman series! See if you can figure out how Christian Bale becomes Michael Keaton somewhere down the line. No one is complaining about Batman being reinterpreted. Everybody understands that each series has its own place. Look how many times they've rebooted the movie, "Journey to the center of the earth". There have been fourteen different reinterpretations, including tv series.
As far as whether or not Kirk, Spock, or Mccoy should do or say certain things, or act a certain way. Thats also up for interpretation. Just because Spock has a tantrum doesn't mean anything. He's going through a point in his life where he has to learn to control his human side and create a balance between the human and the vulcan. Each character brings a specific ideal to the concept,not necessarily the exact one That Gene envisioned. Chris Nolan made batman have the same characteristics but a different personality than Tim Burton portrayed him. Got the point across though.
But in the end, the most basic reason why JJ made this movie different was money. The original concept was run into the ground and didn't attract the general audience. If only 20% of people go and see a specific type of movie, the movie companies gonna be looking for a way to boost sales. So they either scrap a concept completely, or they reboot!
Just my take. I'm 28 and have been a fan since I was 5, and I'm open to Interpretation, if you'll excuse the pun!
I asked my husband last night what he thought of the trailer. "It's stupid," he said. I was pretty surprised. I rather liked it, minus these points:
- The corvette. One of the things I hated worst about Voyager was Tom Paris's obsession with 20th century junk. That would be like me wanting to drive a 1700s horse and buggy. I just couldn't buy that and it makes me wince to see it in a "future" film. I don't WANT to see "today" in a "tomorrow film."
- The bra. Are you kidding me? We're still stuck in those contraptions (and in one looking just like one I could pick up in J.C. Penney's today?) in the future? Bah!
I can't address the sex issue without knowing how it's done (seeing more of the scenes.) If it's well-done and mature, that's fine. If it's a la the utter garbage they handed us in Enterprise (oooh, let's rub decon gel all over someone except have them wear their underwear. Didn't you know that underwear is an effective microbe stopper?
And let's tease them by slipping a finger under the waistband of the underwear. Zzz. ) If Kirk is with Uhura, I don't care. The Kirk of TOS time was more mature than a younger Kirk would have been, one assumes.
I found lots to like in the trailer. My husband, who is also a long-term fan, didn't. I think my fear is that the movie will be more like later Trek (Voy, Ent, both of which missed the mark and yet had such potential!) than like either TOS or TNG, or even DS9.
**crosses fingers.**
- The corvette. One of the things I hated worst about Voyager was Tom Paris's obsession with 20th century junk. That would be like me wanting to drive a 1700s horse and buggy. I just couldn't buy that and it makes me wince to see it in a "future" film. I don't WANT to see "today" in a "tomorrow film."
- The bra. Are you kidding me? We're still stuck in those contraptions (and in one looking just like one I could pick up in J.C. Penney's today?) in the future? Bah!
I can't address the sex issue without knowing how it's done (seeing more of the scenes.) If it's well-done and mature, that's fine. If it's a la the utter garbage they handed us in Enterprise (oooh, let's rub decon gel all over someone except have them wear their underwear. Didn't you know that underwear is an effective microbe stopper?
And let's tease them by slipping a finger under the waistband of the underwear. Zzz. ) If Kirk is with Uhura, I don't care. The Kirk of TOS time was more mature than a younger Kirk would have been, one assumes. I found lots to like in the trailer. My husband, who is also a long-term fan, didn't. I think my fear is that the movie will be more like later Trek (Voy, Ent, both of which missed the mark and yet had such potential!) than like either TOS or TNG, or even DS9.
**crosses fingers.**
I don't have particularly high hopes for this film either. Like you , I don't care about canon - in fact I am eager for "canon" to be rewoven, along with all the other material of the last 40 years, into a new tapestry that takes the best of it and throws out the crap. My concern is that Paramount has a terrible track record over the last ten years with Trek. They don't seem to know what it is that earned it its legendary status. They don't even seem to know what it was that earned TNG its high ratings. They flail about trying to recapture both of those things, because Star Trek has made a lot of money for them over the years. I understand that the entertainment industry is a business and this attitude of theirs towards Trek is only logical.
So now they've hired a trendy director whose work, for me personally, has never held the slightest bit of interest. He seems good at hooks, getting people in, and he seems lousy at resolution - which is the ultimate core of any great story. However, I understand the screenwriter is a serious Star Trek fan, so that's the only thing that still has me interested.
The trailer was obviously made to appeal directly to the non-Trek fans. Which is fine, and even smart. Getting butts in seats is their job after all.
Trek has always appealed to the 20th century, because it, like almost all SF, is exploration of our contemporary world. The vette is cheesy, but Trek has often been cheesy. I thought the bait and switch was clever marketing. I was struck by how Kirk's full name has next to no meaning to the audience in the theater. That did make the point that this is a new beginning.
Eh, I understand your gut reaction, but it's a cop uniform. They've always been a tad anachronistic, even in our time.
Yeah, it told us nothing about the story, and barely established anything about the characters.
There was probably a good idea somewhere in TFF, unfortunately it was hard to see it past the sheer badness of everything else. But I get what you're saying. The movies have not been at all about exploring the unknown.
I'm probably going to raise some ire here by saying that almost everything about the TNG movies was uninspired crap in terms of plot, and capturing the Trek spirit. Every movie was a typical beat-the-bad-guys-in-combat story. First Contact, which I feel the best of them, even took away the only unique and interesting thing about the Borg - their collective hive mind and lack of individuality - by introducing the Borg Queen. Data's quest to learn about humanity is gone thanks to his new emotion chip, so he's just another crew member now, but really smart and made o' metal which has made him a sort of deux ex machina (no pun intended) for wrapping up plot problems. From this point on the films abandoned anything resembling Roddenberry's optimistic dream about a ship that travelled to the distant stars and discovered wonders of the human spirit. TNG's final two outings were downright embarassing, and I think a little piece of me died inside when Riker starts piloting the Enterprise via the use of a friggin' joystick that pops up out of nowhere.
I know I'm rambling a bit, but I wanted to make it clear what it is that I understand Star Trek to be, and I think that the declining interest in the franchise with each new installment over the past two decades backs me up. I think another Enterprise Versus The Bad Guys that is merely relying on kitsch references to TOS will do the franchise no favors.
That last is a very good point, as is the rest of what you say here. But in reference to the trailer, keep in mind that it had a very specific goal, and that goal had nothing to do with telling a good or deep story. It remains to be seen if the movie itself will do that.
This is what they evolve into, and it is fair for the movie to not have them in that place already, but to destabilize that neat triangle in order to show how it formed. What is bothering me a bit is the idea that these characters all met when they were still forming, as opposed to meeting when they are more mature, fully developed personalities.
Movies, especially anything that falls into the action/adventure genre, are a very obvious form of entertainment. What studios look for is "high concept" - that is a story that can be summed up in a single sentence. You're just not going to get much complexity out of that usually. However, it is possible. Just look at what The Dark Knight managed to do this summer.
I have to argue with you here. All the characters had pain in their pasts. Spock has always been a very angsty character. McCoy has a deep bitterness in his soul and Kirk - well, we saw his dark side. Do you think great explorers are such without the need to prove something? If it were as simple as we-can-do-it, we'd all be explorers. There is interesting material to be had out of delving into what made Kirk a great explorer and a great leader. I'm not so sure this movie will get to that interesting material, but I will allow that it might.
There is a chance that this movie will be a fresh take on Star Trek that manages to be true to the original magic that made it an icon. There is a chance that this movie will be yet another in a long line of "going back to the well once too often 'cause we think it'll make us some cash even though we don't really have a good idea" that we've seen in Star Wars and Indiana Jones. There's no way to tell just yet. If we had only this trailer to go on, I might be checking out of the whole deal, but, while I was searching for the current trailer on line, I ran across the original teaser trailer on someone's blog page and they said that they didn't post trailers, and they certainly never expected the first one they posted to be a Star Trek trailer. But that this teaser was so evocative, so subtle and intriguing, they were struck by its power. So I revisited that trailer and thought about it. At the very least, taking the two pieces together, I can hope that the movie will contain both mass appealing adventure (which Trek often did), and the evocation of the fear and courage and the notion of the great quest of space that originally captured me.
I'm 27 years old, and I've been a Star Trek fan since I was old enough to watch TV. I was raised on TOS reruns, the movies, and TNG's first run. Read a vast amount of the novels and was able to quote The Wrath of Khan word for word in 3rd grade. Met my best friend in elementary school because we shared Trek interest. We used to arrange the furniture in his basement to be 'bridge-like' and role-play Trek, including throwing ourselves across the room and smacking into walls to simulate incoming enemy torpedoes.
Just wanted to say all that before I said this:
I didn't like the trailer, and I don't particularly have high hopes for the film.
I am by no means a purist. I don't mind messing with the canon a little bit if you intend to reboot a franchise. Worked well for Bond and Batman. What I found distasteful about this trailer was the fact that absolutely nothing felt like Star Trek.
First of all, I didn't like kid-Kirk driving a centuries-old vette (those things are rare enough now in 2008) off a cliff to tense techno-drum music. That's just not something anyone would do. My suspension of disbelief is immediately shattered, which is saying a lot considering I'll accept all the science fiction aspects of Star Trek, like time travel and transporters. It just screams too much of something that was intended to be a cool scene rather than a realistic act by a rebellious kid. Also, one of the sillier things about Trek have been all the constant references to the 20th century, from TOS onward. The inclusion of a 20th century car seems to have been made just for the trailer alone - to pull a bait 'n' switch on viewers watching the trailer, and pique their interest when Droid Swat Cop pulls up on his hoverbike, letting you know Things Aren't Quite What You Thought. Anyone seeing the actual movie already of course knows it's a Star Trek movie set in the future.
I don't think Roddenberry would've liked his optimistic, evolved society Earth policemen wearing scary-looking cyborg SWAT clothing and speak with gravelly metallic voices. The cop looked like something out of a dystopia, like THX-1138 or Logan's Run.
Then the trailer turns into an extremely quick-cut mess of fighting, monsters, crap blowing up, sex, and out-of-context one-liners.
It looks like a visually different movie than its predecessors, but what clips we were shown paint a picture to me that's evocative of the garbage heap which was Nemesis. Space battles against creepy Romulans, even styled after Nosferatu just like in Nemesis.
Here's the problem I've had with the movies as of late: at some point, someone abandoned the original dream and decided Star Trek was all about space battles. That point was, of course, after the lukewarm reception of STTMP, and TWOK was created to feed the legions of new sci-fi fans who had seen Star Wars.
Don't get me wrong, The Wrath of Khan is a near-perfect movie that works on many levels and explores philosophical questions about life, death, and sacrifice. But it was the point at which the spirit of the original series started to take a backseat, somewhat, to the 'action' plots.
This is the part that most people will probably disagree with me on: I think The Final Frontier best invoked the spirit of the orignal series. Taking a starship to the center of the galaxy to find 'god' is straight out of TOS scriptbook - in the spirit of exploration not just of the cosmos, but the human spirit, evocative of both 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' and 'Who Mourns for Adonais?'. There is a Klingon antagonist in a Bird of Prey, but the antagonism ends in mutual celebration and the beginnings of a friendship between enemies, the sort of idealism that did not exist on the 'planet of intergalactic peace' in the beginning of the movie. It reminded me of 'Day of the Dove', a previous TOS outing where we see the crew and Klingons laughing together at the conclusion. The events that took place lessons learned simply felt very 'Trek' to me, having been raised on TOS.
I'm probably going to raise some ire here by saying that almost everything about the TNG movies was uninspired crap in terms of plot, and capturing the Trek spirit. Every movie was a typical beat-the-bad-guys-in-combat story. First Contact, which I feel the best of them, even took away the only unique and interesting thing about the Borg - their collective hive mind and lack of individuality - by introducing the Borg Queen. Data's quest to learn about humanity is gone thanks to his new emotion chip, so he's just another crew member now, but really smart and made o' metal which has made him a sort of deux ex machina (no pun intended) for wrapping up plot problems. From this point on the films abandoned anything resembling Roddenberry's optimistic dream about a ship that travelled to the distant stars and discovered wonders of the human spirit. TNG's final two outings were downright embarassing, and I think a little piece of me died inside when Riker starts piloting the Enterprise via the use of a friggin' joystick that pops up out of nowhere.
I know I'm rambling a bit, but I wanted to make it clear what it is that I understand Star Trek to be, and I think that the declining interest in the franchise with each new installment over the past two decades backs me up. I think another Enterprise Versus The Bad Guys that is merely relying on kitsch references to TOS will do the franchise no favors.
I do not want an angsty, angry, violent Spock who's 'torn between two worlds'. Spock, along with Kirk and McCoy, served a specific purpose to the show - they each represent a unique and different perspective to whatever philosophical quandries our intrepid ship meets in space: Spock championing logic and reason, McCoy counterweighing with emotion and old-fashioned human values, and Kirk the icon of decision, intuition, and adventurism.
Changing this dynamic takes away what I think is the core of the spirit of the original series. I know personal angst is 'in vogue' right now in TV fiction, but it has no place in these characters.
If you saw the horrible remake of 'The Time Machine' a few years ago, you'll know what I mean. The time traveller from the orignal HG Wells novel was a man motivated only by the quest for knowledge and exploration. In the modern remake, the storytellers decided that that motivation wasn't apparently valid or at least easy enough for viewers to relate to, so they tack on a scene at the beginning of the movie where the traveller's beloved fiance is killed, driving him to create the time machine in an attempt to go back in time to save her. Apparently the the human need to explore and discover that was present in both Trek and The Time Machine are no longer considered valid human qualities by the cabal of Hollywood screenwriters, and only something as basic and trite as 'The Power of Love' or something can help mankind achieve anything. Star Trek was about self-improvement and pushing forward for the sake of its own reward.
The same goes for Kirk. In fact, I don't want *any* of these characters to be driven by something in their 'dark past'. I want the gung-ho, we-can-do-it, golly heck, what new thing are we gonna find out there on the final frontier?
Oh, and speaking of time travel, it's DEFINITELY been done to death already in this franchise. And they're doing it again.
Anyway. Sorry for the long-ass post. I hope I'm wrong in all my misgivings and that this turns out to be the most awesome Star Trek outing that's ever existed... but judging by what I've seen I'm afraid I expect the same old crap of recent years, mixed with kitsch references and teen drama.
A couple more niggles before I sign off:
-Kirk gettin' jiggy with Uhura? Nuh-uh. No. Just no. Green-skinned aliens are okay, but Jim Kirk wouldn't diddle about with his crew. 'I've already got one woman... her name is The Enterprise', remember? And his self-discipline in swallowing his affections for Janice Rand in the name of duty.
-I didn't catch a trace of the good Country Doctor's drawl in McCoy.
-'I like this ship, it's exciting!' Scotty was comedic for situational humor, not wacky one-liners. Ironical sarcastic remarks like that are something else that's 'in vogue' right now and will probably not age well.
-Kirk's bike looks VERY contemporary for 2008. Is it a centuries-old antique too? It has an incandescent headlamp which is something we're already starting to phase out now. Just something else that will not age well, and date the film.
-This isn't about the movie, but the trailer itself - the Romulan telling us 'The Wait Is Now Over'. Obviously put in at the end to serve as a message to the audience. But... that audience is gonna have to wait almost seven more months
Anyway... am I alone in all of this? I've only heard one or two other people say they didn't like it which really surprised me. Can those of you who did like it at the very least relate to the reasons I didn't?
All that said, I do hope it turns out to be a very good Star Trek film, and I will be seeing it regardless.
I honestly don't think any of your criticisms are remotely valid...but instead of going over it point by point--which would bore even me--I would like to point out almost all your complaints exist in one way or another from past ST...and ST, while often allegory and philosphical, is ultimately an action-adventure, and even Roddenberry admitted this. If you ask me, the adventure quotient in the movie looks quite high.
RAMA
Well - I have to agree with Anticitizen on this one, for the most part. It doesn't feel like the 'intelligent' Star Trek I grew up with. I fear that this will be too much like the mindless drek of ST Voyager and the worst bits of ST Enterprise (which did get better later on) all mixed up with the shabby and weakly written mess of ST Nemesis...
IF they had Enterprise built on the ground, but at least in San Francisco, might work out. IF they had not so thoroughly goofed up the Enterprise's design, might work out. IF they didn't make Kirk such a angsty twit and have Spock at least TRY to control himself instead of doing a 'Sylar' impression, might work out...
I could go on forever on this, but there isn't much point as so many have already made up their minds to ignore the blatant mistakes being made. I don't hold out much hope of this being good 'Star Trek', or even 'Trek Wars'. More than likely, it'll make some money and they'll do another one even worse and it'll loose money and so on...
IF they had Enterprise built on the ground, but at least in San Francisco, might work out. IF they had not so thoroughly goofed up the Enterprise's design, might work out. IF they didn't make Kirk such a angsty twit and have Spock at least TRY to control himself instead of doing a 'Sylar' impression, might work out...
I could go on forever on this, but there isn't much point as so many have already made up their minds to ignore the blatant mistakes being made. I don't hold out much hope of this being good 'Star Trek', or even 'Trek Wars'. More than likely, it'll make some money and they'll do another one even worse and it'll loose money and so on...
I asked my husband last night what he thought of the trailer. "It's stupid," he said. I was pretty surprised. I rather liked it, minus these points:
- The corvette. One of the things I hated worst about Voyager was Tom Paris's obsession with 20th century junk. That would be like me wanting to drive a 1700s horse and buggy. I just couldn't buy that and it makes me wince to see it in a "future" film. I don't WANT to see "today" in a "tomorrow film."
- The bra. Are you kidding me? We're still stuck in those contraptions (and in one looking just like one I could pick up in J.C. Penney's today?) in the future? Bah!
I can't address the sex issue without knowing how it's done (seeing more of the scenes.) If it's well-done and mature, that's fine. If it's a la the utter garbage they handed us in Enterprise (oooh, let's rub decon gel all over someone except have them wear their underwear. Didn't you know that underwear is an effective microbe stopper?
I found lots to like in the trailer. My husband, who is also a long-term fan, didn't. I think my fear is that the movie will be more like later Trek (Voy, Ent, both of which missed the mark and yet had such potential!) than like either TOS or TNG, or even DS9.
**crosses fingers.**
Human beings in general are OBSSESSED with the old. There are societies in every friggin town in America that want to keep buildings even 50-100 years old up because they are vaguely historical. People are even more obssessed with cars, especially old ones. It isn't even remotely unlikely that this condition wouldn't exist in the future...even in the TOS movies, we saw antique eyewear, old flintlocks as decoration, etc. Not really much of a criticism in my book.
Why would bra technology change that much?? Only likely changes might be the connection method and material. Who's to say the material isn't futuristic?
Why are SF and ST fans so prudish about sex? I've never understood that.
RAMA
ST is only pseudo-intellectual. How many times did Kirk have sex in TOS off camera, and how many times did they fire phasers? More than you'd want to spend time to count.
"Mistakes" in this case are a point of view.
RAMA
Thank you. I wrote it before going to bed last night and was pleased to see this morning that I wasn't completely hated and reviled.
First off, why are Trekkies so fucking afraid of SEX? Is it because they've never had it, or because they think SEX is a bad, bad thing? If all other movies and TV shows can have SEX as a story forwarding mechanism, why can't Star Trek have so either? I mean in TOS you had Kirk banging any nearby hottie, Spock had a couple of SEX storylines and the hot-babe-of-the-week definitely had lots of SEXy parts of hers being displayed. So why the irrational hatred?
Did anything I say really sound like 'irrational hatred'? Can you really attach any such level of emotion to my post?
I didn't say sex had no place in the Star Trek universe, I simply object to attempts to 'sex it up'.
I 'conveniently forgot to mention' them? Look, I didn't give a play-by-play recollection of the trailer. What would I have said about those lines, anyway? They're neither here nore there for me, neither exciting or a letdown. What's your point in bringing them up?
Because there was no Angry Spock. When he wasn't infected by alien spores, modified water molecules, or Pon Farr, the only anger we ever saw in Spock was via a raised eyebrow.
I never saw anything illogical about Spock's decision to join Starfleet. Vulcans are a race of scientists, and the desire to serve on a scientific vessel (not a battleship!). If anything, Sarek seemed the one out of line back then.
I already stated my intention to see it. But if we can't speculate on the film based on the trailer and media released, then what the hell are any of us doing here? Is it a forbidden topic until the release date?
I think you know what I meant. I meant THAT CAR is already rare enough today.
No, I mean the handbrake-slide-to-the-edge-of-the-cliff-before-jumping-out-in-slow-motion part. I could virtually hear the electric guitar wail in the background. It's like a Mountain Dew commercial.
Did you see 'Trekkies'? It's pretty damn moving. It explores the phenomenon of what effect that dream had on thousands if not millions of people around the globe. Whatever Gene's dream for himself was, he poured one into Star Trek that was a message of hope and optimism for legions worldwide.
Well, McCoy WAS the sarcastic type
There's a reason I put that under the 'minor niggles' section at the bottom of my post. It's not going to destroy Star Trek, but like I said, it's just going to date the film. I would've preferred it if he had been on a hoverbike like the one the cop rode.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and I'm not opposed to a re-imagining of the series at all, and already stated that I'm not too concerned with canon or even keeping the timeline intact, and I mentioned Batman and James Bond as examples that worked. I'm just afraid they're going to miss the whole point of what TOS was, and what made it work and become so popular in the first place. I've disliked pretty much all Trek after DS9 ended, and freely welcome a 'back to the basics' approach. I just don't want a non-Trek story that uses the characters and themes as window-dressing.
I can't address the sex issue without knowing how it's done (seeing more of the scenes.) If it's well-done and mature, that's fine. If it's a la the utter garbage they handed us in Enterprise (oooh, let's rub decon gel all over someone except have them wear their underwear. Didn't you know that underwear is an effective microbe stopper?
Aha! That is my exact concern and you put it better than I did. It's not not that I don't want sex in Star Trek, I just don't want to see Star Trek 'sexed up'.
There were more posts I want to respond to but this multi-quoting can get confusing when you're trying to keep it all in one post. I'll try to get to them in a later post.
Personally I thought the trailer had "Star Trek" written all over it. Yeah the style might be a little different than we're used to, but most of the core elements of the series look to be intact-- you got dynamic characters, a gung-ho spirit of adventure, swashbuckling action, character conflict, and, yes, a little sex thrown in too.
All Abrams is doing is getting back to that fun, swashbuckling 60s spirit that's been missing from Trek since TOS, and then injecting it with some modern day action and effects.
I don't see anything horribly outrageous or sacrilegious going on here.
I think I could put my thoughts in summary thus:
"To boldly go where no man has gone before."
That is the spirit that attracted millions to Trek and caused it to become a worldwide phenomenon and one of the, if not the, largest and best recognized franchises ever made.
When the producers seemed to forget those words, Trek popularity waned. The four TNG movies contained the words but did not pay them any attention.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before."
That is the spirit that attracted millions to Trek and caused it to become a worldwide phenomenon and one of the, if not the, largest and best recognized franchises ever made.
When the producers seemed to forget those words, Trek popularity waned. The four TNG movies contained the words but did not pay them any attention.
I think that's exactly what the new Trek movie is doing best, by establishing a sense of adventure....not just the Enterprise, but multiple starships....strange planets, strange creatures, etc.
If you look at the ST movies 1-10, the only one that didn't have scenes on Earth was ST Insurrection! All the ST movies predominately took place around "family", and the same alien planets/empires we've always seen, except perhaps STTMP, STFC and, ST INS, ST NEM. If you ask me, 3 of the 4 STNG movies were more expansive than the TOS movies. But while the new movie also has scenes on Earth, the thrust of the story takes place on a scale we have never seen it away from Earth.
RAMA
The armored suit assault on the drill and the corresponding sword fight Sulu has from the trailer are definitely welcome additions to the swashbuckling.
RAMA
My faith in the future of the fanbase has been restored, as has my belief that this movie is gonna bomb.
Why because 3 people agreed with you? Or because maybe a 1000 or so die-hard Trekkies will bury their head and refuse to see the movie? I highly doubt it. Good riddance to the lot of them.
RAMA
I am pretty sure it wasn't and you are being overly reactive to it.
Ack! All this heated discussion over a 2 minute trailer. Maybe what people say about us Trekkies is right. Imagine this place when the actual film is released?? 
ITS. A. TRAILER. Done by the advertising department to get butts in seats, nothing more and nothing less. Surely you must be able to realise this. For christs sake, open your eyes and see it for what it really is. A lot of you here are making more out of it than what it actually is to further your arguments. If you want to judge something, judge your backwards, naive, non 'Trek' attitudes.
ITS. A. TRAILER. Done by the advertising department to get butts in seats, nothing more and nothing less. Surely you must be able to realise this. For christs sake, open your eyes and see it for what it really is. A lot of you here are making more out of it than what it actually is to further your arguments. If you want to judge something, judge your backwards, naive, non 'Trek' attitudes.
Similar threads
