• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

See - this is where the problem seems to come in for a lot of people - it's not that it's "not Star trek", it's the Star Trek changed into something else - and now continues to change.

It's all Star Trek and it will continue to change...
I like all Star Trek, heck I started posting here because of Enterprise. But I know what made the original great got left behind years ago in favour of the stuff that brought in new blood/money.
So the argument that all it takes is phasers and transporters to make Trek rings hollow for many of us.
 
You know, in general, I'm pretty happy with everything we've seen and heard so far, but one thing that really does concerns me is this notion of Cadet Kirk winding up in permanent command of the Enterprise. Not only does it nullify a HUGE portion of Kirk's backstory and formative history, but it's utterly preposterous to think that Starfleet would ever do such a thing. It's bad enough that a disgraced cadet who was essentially smuggled on board could wind up in even temporary command during a crisis, somehow bypassing the entire chain of command, but there is simply no way he would be allowed to keep it no matter how hot s**t he is. I don't think that's just a fanboy complaint either, I think it's the kind of thing that could destroy a lot of this movie's credibility even with regular audience members who give it more than half a second of thought.

I'm holding out hope that Kirk isn't really a cadet by this point in the film, that he is actually a Lieutenant or even a full Commander with a few years of actual service under his belt. He might simply be back at command school and is wearing the black shirt not because he is a cadet but because he's been suspended from active duty for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test and the threat from Nero crops up in the middle of it.

Or maybe he doesn't wind up in permanent command at the end. Maybe Pike survives and Kirk goes back to fill in the rest of those blanks in his backstory, serve aboard the Farragut, be given the Republic as his first real command, etc. before succeeding Pike as captain of the Enterprise a few years down the road, just in time for Star Trek XII.

Just don't expect us to believe that a CADET would be given permanent command of Starfleet's flagship. Please.
 
And I'm sure that these things were done, not because they "fit" or "made sense" but rather because "they look cool." Unfortunately, while that may work for a one-off movie, it DOESN'T work for something that's going to stand up to years, or even decades, of scrutiny.

So what?
They can simply change everything again in the next movie.
Which I fully expect to see anyway... but that's a shame.

The folks on this BBS are generally older than on most 'net BBS's, so many of us (and this may include you?) remember the state of Trek fandom in the 1970s and 1980s. Pouring over and expanding upon seventy-odd episodes (and a few animated shows), plus eventually a movie or two. It was the gradual establishment of a "mythos" which created the loyal fanbase which eventually brought about the rebirth of Trek in the late 80s.

Myths need to be internally consistent... Hercules can't be a mortal in one story, a half-mortal in the next, a monster in the next. The stories that got passed around were always supposed to be the same heroic figure, living in the same world.

As bad as some aspects of the Star Wars prequels are recognized as being, with very few exceptions, they did try to be consistent with the prior universe as established... and where they did deviate, it merely ticked off the already-unhappy fans even more.

Internal consistency is important... unless, as some people (but, not me anymore) are still hoping, this movie "resets" to the original timeline at the end. Doesn't mean you need to tip the hat to everything ever done, only to avoid overtly contradicting it.

You know, in general, I'm pretty happy with everything we've seen and heard so far, but one thing that really does concerns me is this notion of Cadet Kirk winding up in permanent command of the Enterprise. Not only does it nullify a HUGE portion of Kirk's backstory and formative history, but it's utterly preposterous to think that Starfleet would ever do such a thing. It's bad enough that a disgraced cadet who was essentially smuggled on board could wind up in even temporary command during a crisis, somehow bypassing the entire chain of command, but there is simply no way he would be allowed to keep it no matter how hot s**t he is. I don't think that's just a fanboy complaint either, I think it's the kind of thing that could destroy a lot of this movie's credibility even with regular audience members who give it more than half a second of thought.

I'm holding out hope that Kirk isn't really a cadet by this point in the film, that he is actually a Lieutenant or even a full Commander with a few years of actual service under his belt. He might simply be back at command school and is wearing the black shirt not because he is a cadet but because he's been suspended from active duty for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test and the threat from Nero crops up in the middle of it.

Or maybe he doesn't wind up in permanent command at the end. Maybe Pike survives and Kirk goes back to fill in the rest of those blanks in his backstory, serve aboard the Farragut, be given the Republic as his first real command, etc. before succeeding Pike as captain of the Enterprise a few years down the road, just in time for Star Trek XII.

Just don't expect us to believe that a CADET would be given permanent command of Starfleet's flagship. Please.
That's exactly what we're getting, I'm afraid. That's what happens when people who've been promoted ahead of their peers (due to family connection) and who have no idea how real military command and rank structures work get to make things up on their own.

This is what a grade-school kid would write in his personal "fan fiction" story about how he impressed everyone and was given command of the Enterprise himself.

Maybe what we're getting from the rewritten script isn't what's really there... maybe the leaks are all misdirection. If they're not... then you're getting exactly what you just mentioned.
 
Which I fully expect to see anyway... but that's a shame.

The folks on this BBS are generally older than on most 'net BBS's, so many of us (and this may include you?) remember the state of Trek fandom in the 1970s and 1980s. Pouring over and expanding upon seventy-odd episodes (and a few animated shows), plus eventually a movie or two. It was the gradual establishment of a "mythos" which created the loyal fanbase which eventually brought about the rebirth of Trek in the late 80s.

Myths need to be internally consistent... Hercules can't be a mortal in one story, a half-mortal in the next, a monster in the next. The stories that got passed around were always supposed to be the same heroic figure, living in the same world.

While I agree with you about fandom in the 1970s and early 1980s, I'm afraid you're quite wrong about myths needing to be internally consistent.

It is a feature of some of our strongest and most enduring legends in Western culture that the stories are remarkably resilient and can undergo major changes that build a continually changing mythos. It is in this way that the myths stay vital and alive as they are updated to fit the changing time. If they cannot be so updated, they fall back into history - interesting as an historical artifact but no longer a living, resonant myth.

Take Hercules for example. In the earliest stories, he was a strong man who fought monsters - a symbol of brute force human strength fighting back the horrors of the unknown at the edges of civilization. His cult was ancient in what the Hellenistic Greeks called the Age of Heroes - the time of the Minoan and Mycenean cultures, the time of the Trojan War. As Greek civilization became more strongly established, he was incorporated into the mythology of the Olympians, becoming the demi-god son of Zeus. He still retained the monster-killing function, but he received a life story, which included a time of madness in which he murdered his own wife and children, becoming a monster himself. He had to redeem himself and so went to the Oracle At Delphi to receive his penance, which was his Twelve Labors. Among his Labors were things like having to spend a year in service to a Queen, who made him dress as a woman and spin. By this time he was not simply a symbol of brute strength (and people from previous ages would have been horrified to hear of their hero in this story), now he was symbol of how even strength needs to learn humility, discipline and fine control.

This is only a tiny bit of his history but it demonstrates how much change he underwent to fit the various times in which his myth was active. If you asked the Myceneans to look at the whole of his mythology, they would scream that it was not at all consistent, and the Hercules of later times was not their Hercules, but to us - the story we have inherited is the story of Hercules.

It's all in the perspective. It's difficult for some to deal with a changing mythos as it's happening. But if no one even tries to update the mythos then is becomes a relic. So, it's worth a shot to see if something can be done with the characters and universe of Star Trek to keep it resonant in our time.

Internal consistency is important... unless, as some people (but, not me anymore) are still hoping, this movie "resets" to the original timeline at the end. Doesn't mean you need to tip the hat to everything ever done, only to avoid overtly contradicting it.

They shouldn't worry at all about overtly contradicting existing stories. They should create as freely as they can using the existing stories as fabric which can be unwoven down to its threads and rewoven into a new tapestry. So long as enough of the same material is used, it will mesh just fine. People will easily be able to say this is the earlier version and this is the later version. Just like you can look at Robin Hood stories and say - he was a peasant robber in the early ballads, and a nobleman unfairly outlawed in the later plays.
 
...

Myths need to be internally consistent... Hercules can't be a mortal in one story, a half-mortal in the next, a monster in the next. The stories that got passed around were always supposed to be the same heroic figure, living in the same world.

...
Lapis has covered even more thoroughly what I might have said on that, but I'd also suggest you read the Ulster Cycle in Irish mythology. Cú Chulainn exhibits exactly such extreme variations and, to a lesser extent, I think the same might be said of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian/Akkadian mythologies.
 
See - this is where the problem seems to come in for a lot of people - it's not that it's "not Star trek", it's the Star Trek changed into something else - and now continues to change.

It's all Star Trek and it will continue to change...
I like all Star Trek, heck I started posting here because of Enterprise. But I know what made the original great got left behind years ago in favour of the stuff that brought in new blood/money.
So the argument that all it takes is phasers and transporters to make Trek rings hollow for many of us.

I love you.. you nob.
 
Seems like a good enough reason to me. I love that shot!

"Because it looks cool" or "because it'll be a neat scene" should never be a reason to make a scene.

That's Michael Bay thinking, there.
The worst bit about that scene is that it's NONSENSE from the standpoint of efficient construction.

Why would you assemble the nacelles in-place, or assemble the saucer on top of the secondary hull? No existing, or projected, construction methodology ever envisioned makes for that sort of a construction process. This is what people who have no freakin' clue how things are actually made think it happens, though.

In a more reasonable approach... you'd build the nacelles separately. You'd build the primary hull separately. You'd build the secondary hull separately. Then you'd integrate them at a later point in the construction process.

Isn't it possible that this is exactly what the trailer is depicting? Perhaps these components were built separately. I imagine they were built fairly close to eachother, since you can't throw a 400 foot long nacelle onto a tractor-trailor and ship it halfway across the country very easily.

Once they have all the part frames complete, then they attach them. Then they fill in her guts and finally, they weld a hull onto her. I think we are seeing her almost completely finished. It looks like they're lifting the sensor dish into place and are about 85% finished with the hull.

For a real-world example... look at the F-22. The engine is manufactured at one site, and is shipped to the integration facility. The forward fuselage is manufactured at another site. The mid-body/wing section is done at yet another site. A series of subsystems are assembled at other sites. And all are sent to the "integration site" where the final airframe assembly is done, and all the subelements are turned into an actual aircraft.
Now, if the F-22 were the size of a ship, it would be more like I said, which is like a cross between plane and ship building.
 
"Because it looks cool" or "because it'll be a neat scene" should never be a reason to make a scene.

That's Michael Bay thinking, there.
The worst bit about that scene is that it's NONSENSE from the standpoint of efficient construction.

Why would you assemble the nacelles in-place, or assemble the saucer on top of the secondary hull? No existing, or projected, construction methodology ever envisioned makes for that sort of a construction process. This is what people who have no freakin' clue how things are actually made think it happens, though.

In a more reasonable approach... you'd build the nacelles separately. You'd build the primary hull separately. You'd build the secondary hull separately. Then you'd integrate them at a later point in the construction process.

Isn't it possible that this is exactly what the trailer is depicting? Perhaps these components were built separately. I imagine they were built fairly close to eachother, since you can't throw a 400 foot long nacelle onto a tractor-trailor and ship it halfway across the country very easily.

Once they have all the part frames complete, then they attach them. Then they fill in her guts and finally, they weld a hull onto her. I think we are seeing her almost completely finished. It looks like they're lifting the sensor dish into place and are about 85% finished with the hull.

For a real-world example... look at the F-22. The engine is manufactured at one site, and is shipped to the integration facility. The forward fuselage is manufactured at another site. The mid-body/wing section is done at yet another site. A series of subsystems are assembled at other sites. And all are sent to the "integration site" where the final airframe assembly is done, and all the subelements are turned into an actual aircraft.
Now, if the F-22 were the size of a ship, it would be more like I said, which is like a cross between plane and ship building.

It isn't like there are not real world examples which could influence this...

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/video-installin.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier2.htm
 
Seems like a good enough reason to me. I love that shot!

"Because it looks cool" or "because it'll be a neat scene" should never be a reason to make a scene.

That's Michael Bay thinking, there.
The worst bit about that scene is that it's NONSENSE from the standpoint of efficient construction.

Why would you assemble the nacelles in-place, or assemble the saucer on top of the secondary hull? No existing, or projected, construction methodology ever envisioned makes for that sort of a construction process. This is what people who have no freakin' clue how things are actually made think it happens, though.

In a more reasonable approach... you'd build the nacelles separately. You'd build the primary hull separately. You'd build the secondary hull separately. Then you'd integrate them at a later point in the construction process.

For a real-world example... look at the F-22. The engine is manufactured at one site, and is shipped to the integration facility. The forward fuselage is manufactured at another site. The mid-body/wing section is done at yet another site. A series of subsystems are assembled at other sites. And all are sent to the "integration site" where the final airframe assembly is done, and all the subelements are turned into an actual aircraft.

Each system is easier to work with and to "tweak" when it's in a stand-alone condition. They are tested individually, and only tested as a complete aircraft once you know that all the subelements work individually.

Okay, in the future there will be all sorts of advancements... sure. But this isn't a description of a technological limitation, it's a description of the most rational way to do things, and no advance in technology will change that.

You make sure that parts work first.

JJ's "all on the ground" approach is just silly. I'm certain he's reading these pages these days, so I know he knows how many of us feel about it. And I'm sure that these things were done, not because they "fit" or "made sense" but rather because "they look cool." Unfortunately, while that may work for a one-off movie, it DOESN'T work for something that's going to stand up to years, or even decades, of scrutiny.

Very well said.

If they want to have the thing built on the ground, sure, whatever, fine.

But it'd make far more sense to build the various components (engines, secondary hull, pylons, primary hull) on the ground, haul them into space and then assemble the whole ship.

But from the looks of things they just built from the ground up and somewhat randomly to boot.

Even ships and airplanes are built in sections at various locations and then put together in one final place.

Hell even AUTOMOBILES are built in such a way.
 
Can't we just pretend that 200 years from now they have discovered a way to launch the ship into space?
 
Can't we just pretend that 200 years from now they have discovered a way to launch the ship into space?
No, that's like asking us to believe in 200 years they will be able to travel faster than light. That's just silly. :rolleyes:
 
'Your wife's a moron' doesn't count as a flame as well? What gives?
Read the post he got warned for Trolling.. Now back to discussion.

Now lets take this idea of Internal Consistency up with one of the classic Fairy Tales in the western world.

Little Red Riding Hood.
Once upon a time


there was a little village girl, the prettiest that had ever been seen. Her mother doted on her. Her grandmother was even fonder, and made her a little red hood, which became her so well that everywhere she went by the name of Little Red Riding Hood. One day her mother, who had just made and baked some cakes, said to her: “Go and see how your grandmother is, for I have been told that she is ill. Take her a dake and this little pot of butter."
Little Red Riding Hood set off at once for the house of her grandmother, who lived in another village.
On her way through a wood she met old Father Wolf. He would have very much liked to eat her, but dared not do so on account of some woodcutters who were in the forest. He asked her where she was going. The poor child, not knowing that it was dangerous to stop and listen to a wolf said: “I am going to see my grandmother, and am taking her a cake and a pot of butter which my mother has sent to her." “Does she live far away?” asked the Wolf.
“Oh yes,” replied Little Red Riding Hood; “it is yonder by the mill which you can see right below there, and it is the first house in the village."
“Well now,” said the Wolf “I think I shall go and see her too. I will go by this path, and you by that path, and we will see who gets there first.”
The Wolf set off running with all his might by the shorter road, and the little girl continued on her way by the longer road. As she went she amused herself by gathering nuts, running after the butterflies, and making nosegays of the wild flowers which she found.
The Wolf was not long in reaching the grandmother’s house. He knocked. Toc Toc.
“Who is there?”
“It is your little daughter, Red Riding Hood,” said the Wolf disguising his voice, “and I bring you a cake and a little pot of butter as a present from my mother.”
The worthy grandmother was in bed, not being very well, and cried out to him:
“Pull out the peg and the latch will fall.”

The Wolf drew out the peg and the door flew open. Then he sprang upon the poor old lady and ate her up in less than no time, for he had been more than three days without food. After that he shut the door, lay down in the grandmother’s bed, and waited for Little Red Riding Hood.
Presently she came and knocked. Toc Toc.
“Who is there?”
Now Little Red Riding Hood on hearing the Wolf’s gruff voice was at first frightened, but thinking that her grandmother had a bad cold, she replied:
“It is your little daughter, Red Riding Hood, and I bring you a cake and a little pot of butter from my mother.”
Softening his voice, the Wolf called out to her:
“Pull out the peg and the latch will fall.”
Little Red Riding Hood drew out the peg and the door flew open.
When he saw her enter, the Wolf hid himself in the bed beneath the counterpane.
“Put the cake and the little pot of butter on the bin,” he said, “and come up on the bed with me.”
Little Red Riding Hood took off her clothes, but when she climbed up on the bed she was astonished to see how her grandmother looked in her nightgown.
“Grandmother dear!” she exclaimed, “what big arms you have!”


“The better to embrace you, my child!”
“Grandmother dear, what big legs you have!”
“The better to run with, my child!”
“Grandmother dear, what big ears you have!”
“The better to hear with, my child!”
“Grandmother dear, what big eyes you have!”
“The better to see with, my child!”
“Grandmother dear, what big teeth you have!”
“The better to eat you with!”
With these words the wicked Wolf leaped upon Little Red
Riding Hood and gobbled her up.
Moral


Little girls, this seems to say,
Never stop upon your way.
Never trust a stranger-friend;
No one knows how it will end.
As you’re pretty, so be wise;
Wolves may lurk in every guise.
Handsome they may be, and kind,
Gay, or charming never mind!
Now, as then, ‘tis simple truth—
Sweetest tongue has sharpest tooth!
 
The Grimm Brothers version

Little Red-Cap

Once upon a time there was a dear little girl who was loved
by every one who looked at her, but most of all by her
grandmother, and there was nothing that she would not have
given to the child. Once she gave her a little cap of red
velvet, which suited her so well that she would never wear
anything else. So she was always called little red-cap.

One day her mother said to her, come, little red-cap, here
is a piece of cake and a bottle of wine. Take them to your
grandmother, she is ill and weak, and they will do her good.
Set out before it gets hot, and when you are going, walk
nicely and quietly and do not run off the path, or you may
fall and break the bottle, and then your grandmother will
get nothing. And when you go into her room, don't forget
to say, good-morning, and don't peep into every corner before
you do it.

I will take great care, said little red-cap to her mother, and
gave her hand on it.

The grandmother lived out in the wood, half a league from the
village, and just as little red-cap entered the wood, a wolf
met her. Red-cap did not know what a wicked creature he was,
and was not at all afraid of him.

"Good-day, little red-cap," said he.

"Thank you kindly, wolf."

"Whither away so early, little red-cap?"

"To my grandmother's."

"What have you got in your apron?"

"Cake and wine. Yesterday was baking-day, so poor sick
grandmother is to have something good, to make her stronger."

"Where does your grandmother live, little red-cap?"

"A good quarter of a league farther on in the wood. Her house
stands under the three large oak-trees, the nut-trees are just
below. You surely must know it," replied little red-cap.

The wolf thought to himself, what a tender young creature. What a
nice plump mouthful, she will be better to eat than the old
woman. I must act craftily, so as to catch both. So he walked
for a short time by the side of little red-cap, and then he
said, "see little red-cap, how pretty the flowers are about here.
Why do you not look round. I believe, too, that you do not
hear how sweetly the little birds are singing. You walk gravely
along as if you were going to school, while everything else out
here in the wood is merry."

Little red-cap raised her eyes, and when she saw the sunbeams
dancing here and there through the trees, and pretty flowers
growing everywhere, she thought, suppose I take grandmother a
fresh nosegay. That would please her too. It is so early in the
day that I shall still get there in good time. And so she ran
from the path into the wood to look for flowers. And whenever
she had picked one, she fancied that she saw a still prettier one
farther on, and ran after it, and so got deeper and deeper into
the wood.

Meanwhile the wolf ran straight to the grandmother's house and
knocked at the door.

"Who is there?"

"Little red-cap," replied the wolf. "She is bringing cake and
wine. Open the door."

"Lift the latch," called out the grandmother, "I am too weak, and
cannot get up."

The wolf lifted the latch, the door sprang open, and without
saying a word he went straight to the grandmother's bed, and
devoured her. Then he put on her clothes, dressed himself in
her cap, laid himself in bed and drew the curtains.

Little red-cap, however, had been running about picking flowers,
and when she had gathered so many that she could carry
no more, she remembered her grandmother, and set out on the
way to her.

She was surprised to find the cottage-door standing open, and
when she went into the room, she had such a strange feeling that
she said to herself, oh dear, how uneasy I feel to-day, and at
other times I like being with grandmother so much. She called
out, "good morning," but received no answer. So she went to the
bed and drew back the curtains. There lay her grandmother with
her cap pulled far over her face, and looking very strange.

"Oh, grandmother," she said, "what big ears you have."

"The better to hear you with, my child," was the reply.

"But, grandmother, what big eyes you have," she said.

"The better to see you with," my dear.

"But, grandmother, what large hands you have."

"The better to hug you with."

"Oh, but, grandmother, what a terrible big mouth you have."

"The better to eat you with."

And scarcely had the wolf said this, than with one bound he was
out of bed and swallowed up red-cap.

When the wolf had appeased his appetite, he lay down again in
the bed, fell asleep and began to snore very loud. The
huntsman was just passing the house, and thought to himself, how
the old woman is snoring. I must just see if she wants anything.

So he went into the room, and when he came to the bed, he saw
that the wolf was lying in it. Do I find you here, you old
sinner, said he. I have long sought you. Then just as he was going
to fire at him, it occurred to him that the wolf might have
devoured the grandmother, and that she might still be saved, so
he did not fire, but took a pair of scissors, and began to cut
open the stomach of the sleeping wolf. When he had made two
snips, he saw the little red-cap shining, and then he made two
snips more, and the little girl sprang out, crying, ah, how
frightened I have been. How dark it was inside the wolf. And
after that the aged grandmother came out alive also, but scarcely
able to breathe. Red-cap, however, quickly
fetched great stones with which they filled the wolf's belly, and
when he awoke, he wanted to run away, but the stones were so
heavy that he collapsed at once, and fell dead.

Then all three were delighted. The huntsman drew off the wolf's
skin and went home with it. The grandmother ate the cake and
drank the wine which red-cap had brought, and revived, but
red-cap thought to herself, as long as I live, I will never by
myself leave the path, to run into the wood, when my mother has
forbidden me to do so.

It is also related that once when red-cap was again taking cakes
to the old grandmother, another wolf spoke to her, and tried to
entice her from the path. Red-cap, however, was on her guard,
and went straight forward on her way, and told her grandmother
that she had met the wolf, and that he had said good-morning to
her, but with such a wicked look in his eyes, that if they had
not been on the public road she was certain he would have eaten
her up. Well, said the grandmother, we will shut the door, that
he may not come in. Soon afterwards the wolf knocked, and cried,
open the door, grandmother, I am little red-cap, and am bringing
you some cakes. But they did not speak, or open the door, so
the grey-beard stole twice or thrice round the house, and at last
jumped on the roof, intending to wait until red-cap went home in
the evening, and then to steal after her and devour her in the
darkness. But the grandmother saw what was in his thoughts. In
front of the house was a great stone trough, so she said to the
child, take the pail, red-cap. I made some sausages yesterday,
so carry the water in which I boiled them to the trough. Red-cap
carried until the great trough was quite full. Then the smell
of the sausages reached the wolf, and he sniffed and peeped
down, and at last stretched out his neck so far that he could
no longer keep his footing and began to slip, and slipped down
from the roof straight into the great trough, and was drowned.
But red-cap went joyously home, and no one ever did anything
to harm her again.

In the original version Red Riding hood dies, she's eaten because she trusted a stranger.

In the Grimm Brothers verson she kills the wolf.

This is how MYTHS and LEGENDS are changed via a different artist view, but they are the same story.

In fact Perrault's version (The original) Is actually the Forgotten one and most times people have drawn from the Grimm version where LRR is oftimes saved by a hunter or a woodsman, after being devoured whole.
 
Last edited:
I have decided, though: if Nero isn't actually working for Future Guy--that is, if this movie isn't just an enormous, roundabout, backdoor way to give Enterprise a proper sendoff--then I will withhold several roses from the bouquet I am sending J.J. Abrams.

Hmm I'd send him two to compensate, if Future Guy is behind the events in this movie, I will be extremely disappointed.
Let Enterprise die, along with its idiotic Temporal Cold War story.
 
Seems like the Enterpise might be being built in San Francisco after all. From J.J. -

Abrams began with the initial scenes of a young Kirk riding in the Corvette and on the motorbike. "The idea with the trailer was to start with something unexpected and Earth-bound and then thrust you into the world of Trek. The scenes on Earth were important to feel a sense of future but also a real sense of now as well. Star Wars is a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away but Star Trek is our future, so it's important that we not feel disconnected from that. There are a couple of sequences that take place in Iowa and some in San Francisco and it was just important that the movie feel connected to familiar terrain before it became about things that you more might expect."
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top