Some new opinions/information from folks who've seen the film....

[Tom Servo]

That's inexcusable. They're not really going use this design in the movie, are they?

It's inexcusable?! Are you freaking kidding me? One may not like the design, but to see it's inexcusable is just rediculous. Really, the way people are bashing this design at this point seems like sour grapes. Im not saying thats you, but it seems more people are pissed we didn't get the original, more then they don't like the new one.

 

[ST-One]

That's inexcusable. They're not really going use this design in the movie, are they?

It's inexcusable?! Are you freaking kidding me? One may not like the design, but to see it's inexcusable is just rediculous. Really, the way people are bashing this design at this point seems like sour grapes. Im not saying thats you, but it seems more people are pissed we didn't get the original, more then they don't like the new one.

I, for one, can't wait to finally seeing it really in motion.

 

[scotthm]

As far as this being a "motion picture" rather than a book - well, in the trailer alone it's clear that this is more of a motion picture than any of the previous versions of Trek.

I guess if it's always moving fast enough to be a blur that I could stomach it.

it seems more people are pissed we didn't get the original, more then they don't like the new one.

Can't I wish we had something pretty close to the original and dislike the one we got? The ship could probably be salvaged if the warp nacelles didn't look like something out of the 1950s.

---------------

 

[ST-One]

As far as this being a "motion picture" rather than a book - well, in the trailer alone it's clear that this is more of a motion picture than any of the previous versions of Trek.

I guess if it's always moving fast enough to be a blur that I could stomach it.

it seems more people are pissed we didn't get the original, more then they don't like the new one.

Can't I wish we had something pretty close to the original and dislike the one we got? The ship could probably be salvaged if the warp nacelles didn't look like something out of the 1950s.

If only they looked like some thing out of the 60s...

 

[dreadpiraterose]

Good hunting, Malakai.

"The last thing the movie needs, from a marketing standpoint, is for Abrams to admit the truth, i.e. that he and his geeky friends have made a big geeky movie for their fellow Trek geeks."

Very interesting.

Yeah...that was an interesting observation. As much as we hate to admit it, we sometimes forget the incredible stigma a Trek movie has to overcome.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As far as this being a "motion picture" rather than a book - well, in the trailer alone it's clear that this is more of a motion picture than any of the previous versions of Trek.

I guess if it's always moving fast enough to be a blur that I could stomach it.

You don't have to take the risk at all, if you choose not to.

 

[Therin of Andor]

As much as we hate to admit it, we sometimes forget the incredible stigma a Trek movie has to overcome.

You mean the stigma of being a highly successful franchise that has lasted over 40 years and spawned eleven motion pictures and four live-action spin-off series that each lasted longer than the original?

Any "stigma" is in the minds of ST fans.

 

[Mordock]

Yeah...that was an interesting observation. As much as we hate to admit it, we sometimes forget the incredible stigma a Trek movie has to overcome.

I also saw room for another interpretation: namely, that despite superficial appearances, this film is crammed to the gunwales with the lore and fancy of Star Trek, and Bad Robot is trying not to underline that fact too early in the process...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You mean the stigma of being a highly successful franchise that has lasted over 40 years and spawned eleven motion pictures and four live-action spin-off series that each lasted longer than the original?

Maybe the stigma of struggling to make decent box office, movie after movie, despite relatively limited budgets due to the fact that few people other that trekkies are usually interested.

The only Trek movie that ever was liked well enough by the studio or did well enough in early box office returns to get an early go-ahead for another from Paramount was "Star Trek IV."

 

[scotthm]

The ship could probably be salvaged if the warp nacelles didn't look like something out of the 1950s.

If only they looked like some thing out of the 60s...

The 2260s? I've already seen that one, and I like it.

---------------

 

[ancient]

Very interesting comments. I think the nacelles are maybe thicker than in that diagram, at least up front.

The engineering keg plant. I guess Scotty will be happy at least.

 

[pookha]

(About Kirk) As any TOS fan can tell you, there’s a huge difference between the strong but cerebral, vaguely taciturn, occasionally self-doubting straight-arrow of that series and the wise-cracking, rule-breaking, authority-eschewing cowboy found in TWOK. For better or worse, Meyer played Kirk as a larger than life, Legend in his Own Time type, and the image stuck. Not surprisingly, the version of Kirk found in Trek XI builds upon Meyer’s incarnation of the character.

he did exist within the series..
errand of mercy, galieo 7, trouble with tribbles,,,

 

[carsondyle]

...we sometimes forget the incredible stigma a Trek movie has to overcome.

You mean the stigma of being a highly successful franchise that has lasted over 40 years and spawned eleven motion pictures and four live-action spin-off series that each lasted longer than the original?

While it’s true the ST franchise has enjoyed a long life and attained widespread brand recognition all over the globe, the Trek films have never managed to attract the vast, mainstream, international audiences that have made the Star Wars and James Bond series so successful (among others). Given the realities of the contemporary marketplace, Trek is going to have to attract a far broader audience than it previously has in order to endure as a viable film franchise.

Like it or not, the average 18-to-24-year-old target audience member equates Star Trek with all that is lame, un-sexy, and out-of-date. Given the cinematic dreck that’s passed for Trek over the past twenty years this should come as no surprise. Franchises don’t get any more moribund than this one, but Abrams and company are doing their level best to reverse the trend. It's my impression that they’re succeeding, but we’ll all find out for sure soon enough.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The ship could probably be salvaged if the warp nacelles didn't look like something out of the 1950s.

If only they looked like some thing out of the 60s...

The 2260s? I've already seen that one, and I like it.

---------------

You really, really haven't. Just the one from the 1960s.

 

[Lyon_Wonder]

With the $150 mil Paramount budgeted for the film, they should had constructed a proper main engineering set. Even the fan-made Trek films have that problem - no main engineering at all. Engineering must not get too much screen time in this film. I wonder what they’ll do about it when they plan for sequels?

 

[Therin of Andor]

the Trek films have never managed to attract the vast, mainstream, international audiences

ST:TMP, ST IV and "First Contact".

Like it or not, the average 18-to-24-year-old target audience member equates Star Trek with all that is lame, un-sexy, and out-of-date.

More like they don't even know what ST is. Been a long time since ST was on in prime time and sold action figures in the chain stores.

Abrams and company are doing their level best to reverse the trend. It's my impression that they’re succeeding...

I agree. But it's not a "stigma", more a disinterest because ST's never been marketed towards that particular demographic cohort in their time. The previous cohorts got married or retired or died off long ago.

 

[carsondyle]

ST:TMP, ST IV and "First Contact".

The returns on these pictures, while respectable, did nothing to cement Trek's reputation as a cinematic powerhouse at the box office.

More like they don't even know what ST is.

As one who came of age with TOS I think yours is a safe assumption to make.

No Trek series or feature has ever delivered on the promise of TOS as far as I'm concerned. All Trek XI's youthful target audience has to go on is what they've seen lately, and what they've seen lately sucks. That's the stigma I'm talking about, and if you don't think it exists... well, all that really tells me is that you don't work in motion-picture marketing (lucky you).

it's not a "stigma", more a disinterest

From a younger viewer's perspective, the outdated and unfamiliar aspects of TOS combine with the cheesier aspects of latter Trek incarnations to create what we in the biz refer to as a STIGMA.

It's real, and from a marketing standpoint it's a problem, but I honestly believe (hope) Trek XI will go a long way toward changing audience perceptions (without ticking off older fans like yours truly).

 

[judexavier]

Hmmm. From the images we've seen, the nacelles on, say Madman's latest model, appear to fit (and Ancient's diagrams and orthos).
Can't imagine them being much bigger, or it will be a cartoon.

Concerning the engine room, I'm suprised to hear the whole "dirty dark coal-fired steamship' analogy. I always figured it would be a 5 story, 200' long glittering chrome cathedral, a pipe-infested version of the new bridge.

Wow.

Anyway, great thread. Nice to hear more info.

 

[carsondyle]

I'm suprised to hear the whole "dirty dark coal-fired steamship' analogy.

It's not "dirty." It's not even "dark." What it is is very "late 20th Century Brewery."

 

[judexavier]

I'm suprised to hear the whole "dirty dark coal-fired steamship' analogy.

It's not "dirty." It's not even "dark." What it is is very "late 20th Century Brewery."

Oh, OK. Sorry, I think I got that from "shoveling coal" comment.
So, more copper/stainless steel, tanks and pipes. Cool.