World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[perigee]

well the most prominent problem i can foresee is that star trek will seize to exist the way we knew it.

if this movie happens to be a success at the box office the next movie will most likely pick up where this one has ended. all future tv series are likely to feature storylines which are connected to this alternate reality.

dont get me wrong, this might be an enjoyable flick but if this movie is a success "nuStar Trek" might alter our view on the things which seperate a Star Trek movie from every other big budget sci fi movie

Of Course Star Trek moving forward will be drastically altered.

It HAS to be.

TOS is reaching towards AARP status - and I don't say that lightly, because that's My series. It was my time, it was our circumstances at the time... and on Saturday mornings I'd laugh like a loon at that piece of junk that Buster Crabbe flew around in when he fought giant lizards and a bald-headed drag queen.

Now, Star Trek is Older than "Flash Gordon" was, when I thought it was pathetic. '66 Trek is over. Cyrano Jones is Done. Harry Mudd is Done. You're old enough now to just leave it. This is not your "Star Trek." It will Never be your "Star Trek." Yours is way over there, and the new one is way over here. Not Equivalent. Not Yours.

What we have now is "turning death into a fighting chance to live." This franchise, which we have loved so well, is now officially the property of a new generation. So far, it seems like we're doing better than the Star Wars fans got. Maybe, in 2050, there will still be a "Star Trek," which I promise will be completely different than anything you can imagine. Maybe Captain Jane Kirk - who knows? Who cares?

In the long run, the series becomes more than a franchise, and becomes something much more - the first real American Mythos. The American Illiad. The American Beowulf.

But you've got to let it go, to let it grow.

 

[EJA]

Again, LOOK AT IDW COMICS AND POCKET BOOKS. They are good indications that we don't have to mutilate the Star Trek universe in order to tell exciting new stories! Working new stories into the existing canon is part of the fun!!! If you start chucking huge great chunks of what's gone before out the window, it stops being fun, and is just indicative of a lazy attitude.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Emotionally, it is very similar. A direct strike, out of nowhere, on something fundamental, with a large loss of life.

Don't reduce it to "two buildings". The families don't. I don't. Al-Qaida don't when they celebrate.

Things happen we all have to deal with, and this is just as true in Star Trek as elsewhere.

Americans are NOT settling down from 9/11, but they are getting on with their lives, doing their best to deal with the aftermath.

The Federation is not tied to any one world. It, like America, is founded much more as an idea, an ideal, that has been made real.

Well I certainly don't want to margenalise what happend on 9/11. But what if that attack had been a lot worse, say not just 1000s dead, but 10s of millions? I think the anger, fear and retribution from that would have been understandably worse. In Irak probably hundres of thousands died as a concequence of the invasion which occured indirecctly as the result of what happened on 9/11. So what might have happened if 9/11 had been a lot worse, WWIII? Furthermore, the war in Iraq didn't exactly give me the impression that the American government was holding on to the ideals of the constitution all that tightly. But then again, the Federation might, maybe that's what some are interpreting as utopia in this thread.

Actually, the soldiers on the ground were. The American people wanted justice, but they still believed in democracy.

For goodness sake, that was one of th Bush administration's goals.

Methods and effectiveness are a different story in many cases.

The destruction of Vulcan in this film serves one key dramatic purpose: It raises the stakes. It raises them to a level where we are drawn into the situation.

 

[The Academic]

Of Course Star Trek moving forward will be drastically altered.

It HAS to be.

TOS is reaching towards AARP status - and I don't say that lightly, because that's My series. It was my time, it was our circumstances at the time... and on Saturday mornings I'd laugh like a loon at that piece of junk that Buster Crabbe flew around in when he fought giant lizards and a bald-headed drag queen.

Now, Star Trek is Older than "Flash Gordon" was, when I thought it was pathetic. '66 Trek is over. Cyrano Jones is Done. Harry Mudd is Done. You're old enough now to just leave it. This is not your "Star Trek." It will Never be your "Star Trek." Yours is way over there, and the new one is way over here. Not Equivalent. Not Yours.

What we have now is "turning death into a fighting chance to live." This franchise, which we have loved so well, is now officially the property of a new generation. So far, it seems like we're doing better than the Star Wars fans got. Maybe, in 2050, there will still be a "Star Trek," which I promise will be completely different than anything you can imagine. Maybe Captain Jane Kirk - who knows? Who cares?

In the long run, the series becomes more than a franchise, and becomes something much more - the first real American Mythos. The American Illiad. The American Beowulf.

But you've got to let it go, to let it grow.

That's probably the smartest thing anybody has written about this topic the entire evening*...

*It's 10:16 P.M. where I'm right now.

 

[locborg]

Well what bothers me is that for the first time in ST history this movie is having a serious amount of covert advertising. in another spoiler i read that kirk is clearly driving a BMW motorcycle. this is not Star Trek as i remember it. covert advertising should always be a sacrilege in the Star Trek world.
What if the next movies featurs a warp core powered by general electrics or a microsoft lcars interface?
im afraid that JJ is capable of doing this...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Again, LOOK AT IDW COMICS AND POCKET BOOKS. They are good indications that we don't have to mutilate the Star Trek universe in order to tell exciting new stories! Working new stories into the existing canon is part of the fun!!!

Do you know what it costs to publish a comic book, and how many people have to purchase it in order for it to be profitable?

Do you know how that compares to the economics and expectations of the commercial movie industry?

Bottom line is that the remaining hard-core trek fandom can support IDW and Pocket Books. Our support cannot even begin to justify what the studio must spend to produce a movie that can compete commercially in today's entertainment industry.

Apples and oranges, dude. Apples and oranges.

 

[Jefferies]

Actually, the soldiers on the ground were. The American people wanted justice, but they still believed in democracy.

For goodness sake, that was one of th Bush administration's goals.

Methods and effectiveness are a different story in many cases.

The destruction of Vulcan in this film serves one key dramatic purpose: It raises the stakes. It raises them to a level where we are drawn into the situation.

Somehow, I feel myself drawn away. In my opinion this is overkill in the literal sense. Shame really, I was just warming up to this movie. Why must everything be an overstatement in order to be noticed these days?

 

[FarDreaming]

I think that some fans, and I am wholeheartedly among them, have are emotionally vested in Vulcan, and its destruction becomes a real sticking point to us. Yes, doubtless there are still Vulcans out there, but for a culture so steeped in tradition and ceremony, what does the loss of a home world mean? And we know Spock's reaction to the destruction of the Intrepid-- what sort of effect will this loss of life will have on the survivors?

I had been very optimistic about this movie, and now I find myself backing off. I will see it once, but whether I see it again is up in the air.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Not to steer the conversation from such a delightful topic, but where does the Beastie Boy "Sabotage" come into this movie?

 

[Grant]

^^Well said perigee.

And what difference does it make if the two or three future Abrams movies are in an divergent universe?? So what?

Does that proclude any future 'mainstream' Trek timeline movies? NO
Can they make a future TNG movie or spin-off show set in the original timeline? YES
Can they make a show set in the original TOS era/timeline? YES

It's sci-fi, they can change it any way they want it as long as they make it entertaining and honor the original spirit.
I'm sure this movie has done that.

The absolute worst case (or best depending on your POV) is maybe 3 sequels of this new cast franchise.

If the increased popularity causes enough buzz for a new series, great!

If it's set in space on a starship the main factor is the quality of stories told--not whether the exact parameters of the original timeline are adherred to. Especially since a new TOS era show would be featuring almost exclusively new characters.

I am so anxious and excited for this movie speaking as a fan from 1970. And it's not dishonoring anything from the past 40+ years.

 

[Blue_Trek]

I am sorry to say this, but if this is the type of thing this movie is about then I do not see myself watching it. This is meant to be a utopian future, not some type of armageddon endtime story.

it is a utopian future, but it is our future. bad things have certainly happened in star trek land before, need i remind you.

The destruction of one of the founding worlds that made that utopia happen somehow doesn't make sense. They could have blown up Earth in stead, as far as the Federation is concerned the difference would have been negligible. This is not utopian and if it were realistic in any fashion it would cast a very dark cloud of doom over the Federation for a long, long time. Just imagine if the state of New York were entirely wiped out by terrorists. I doubt America would recover from that any time soon, and nor would the world as there would be hell to pay I'm sure.

Do you forget the DS9 story line in the Dominion Wars things got really ugly, it was not Utopian by any means. The loss of life was staggering.

In ANH when Alderaan got blown away by the death star we didn't know what an important planet it was until years later.

The end of Vulcan is the equivalent of the end Alderaan, I don't like it either, but it ratchets up the emotional impact of the entire movie.

In sci-fi planets get slagged, Cardassa was left a smolding cinder at the end of DS9. It is what it is.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not to steer the conversation from such a delightful topic, but where does the Beastie Boy "Sabotage" come into this movie?

Since James "Siberius" Kirk is evidently playing some golden oldies in that 'Vette as it goes over the cliff, I'm guessing it's there. Other lesser possibility is in the Iowa bar.

 

[Devon]

Well what bothers me is that for the first time in ST history this movie is having a serious amount of covert advertising. in another spoiler i read that kirk is clearly driving a BMW motorcycle. this is not Star Trek as i remember it. covert advertising should always was a sacrilege in the Star Trek world.
What if the next movies featurs a warp core powered by general electrics or a microsoft lcars interface?
im afraid that JJ is capable of doing this...

Yes, of course you are 23 years too late for this as Product Placement was done in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," by way of Apple Computers and Michelob Beer being featured in the film. Then Kraft Foods and Levi Jeans got credit in The Final Frontier for their products being used.

BTW, that BMV logo was from a sketch someone made that was used during the presentations. I don't believe its even been said to be featured on the bike itself though someone who has SEEN IT now can set this issue straight.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Not to steer the conversation from such a delightful topic, but where does the Beastie Boy "Sabotage" come into this movie?

Since James "Siberius" Kirk is evidently playing some golden oldies in that 'Vette as it goes over the cliff, I'm guessing it's there. Other lesser possibility is in the Iowa bar.

That would be the obvious answer; I'm just curious if it came from some 23rd century iPod or if were just attached to the scene.

 

[FlyingLemons]

Given the "reboot" direction the film is taking, I'm wondering if Abrams, Orci etc. have been influenced by the 2004 "Reboot the Universe" proposal that J. Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel came up with. Looking at it, it seems that they at least had similar intentions in mind.

As for the whole parallel dimension thing, I'm not bothered by it. Although there's 40+ years of Trek continuity, being rigidly bound by it and trying to keep everything completely consistent with the "future" when reinventing it would probably lead to a lot of problems, as it would just lead to retreads of what has been done before.

It offers an opportunity for a new story direction, and in my mind that can only be a good thing.

 

[Cheebo]

Not to steer the conversation from such a delightful topic, but where does the Beastie Boy "Sabotage" come into this movie?

I read that when Kirk steals his step-fathers car he turns on the "radio" and it is playing Beastie Boys.

 

[urbandk]

That is naive and totally simplistic. An extreme disaster like that will not let any people, regardless of how advanced they are just continue as if nothing happened. Dispair and grief seem much more likely and I doubt that was the future Roddenberry had in mind. Star Trek was about a future where we live in safty, where there are no WMDs to scare us shitless any more. That was one of the big morale points of the show - humanity having overcome the Cold War and all those types of conflicts not just with themselves but with a larger community of intelligent beings. This movie seems to make a mockery of that vision.

Excuse me, but we had 9/11. We ARE at peace with other beings. VULCUNS !!!! OTHER ALIENS !!!!

The Planet Killer destroyed planets and starships (the Doomsday Machine).

Vejur destroyed countless worlds.

Star Trek is not about us being in a Utopia, it is about us being better, and surviving to that future.

There was conflict with the Romulans and the Klingons.

The antagonists actions have NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMANITY'S SENSIBILITIES !!!!!

Saying this film violates Gene Roddenberry's visoon of HUMANITY (not Romulans) is absolutely incorrect.

I am getting tired of repeating myself so I wont again. Read what I have already written or don't, I don't care. If you cannot see how this might be at odds with the peacful and hopeful future potrayed in Star Trek then that's your prerogative.

On the contrary, my good man, it is you who are not paying attention one whit to people's responses to your grossly exaggerated suppositions about human nature and morality. Your condescending, over the top, disrespectful rhetoric does an injustice to the core of your argument.

I, for one, understand what you are saying, and I disagree emphatically and completely. Now, unless you have a new topic to discuss, I suggest you rant elsewhere.

 

[The Super Brando]

Is the time-traveling black hole natural or man-made?

Do they evacuate Vulcan before it's destroyed? Do they at least save most of the people on the planet?

By the end of the movie does the bridge and technology and special effects look exactly the same as TOS did in the 60's? hehe

Can you describe some of the new starships seen in the movie? Are there any new and different designs never seen before?

I love spoilers in the spoiler thread, whoever has seen it don't hold back!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So, do you suppose T’Pring gets off the planet, or is Spocko going to have to come up with a more creative solution when all that green shit gets backed up in there?

 

[Jefferies]

it is a utopian future, but it is our future. bad things have certainly happened in star trek land before, need i remind you.

The destruction of one of the founding worlds that made that utopia happen somehow doesn't make sense. They could have blown up Earth in stead, as far as the Federation is concerned the difference would have been negligible. This is not utopian and if it were realistic in any fashion it would cast a very dark cloud of doom over the Federation for a long, long time. Just imagine if the state of New York were entirely wiped out by terrorists. I doubt America would recover from that any time soon, and nor would the world as there would be hell to pay I'm sure.

Do you forget the DS9 story line in the Dominion Wars things got really ugly, it was not Utopian by any means. The loss of life was staggering.

In ANH when Alderaan got blown away by the death star we didn't know what an important planet it was until years later.

The end of Vulcan is the equivalent of the end Alderaan, I don't like it either, but it ratchets up the emotional impact of the entire movie.

In sci-fi planets get slagged, Cardassa was left a smolding cinder at the end of DS9. It is what it is.

You are raising a good point and I always wondered how agreeable Rodenberry would have found DS9 in its later seasons. Personnally, I love that show. However, even though the Dominion War was gruesom and had a large impact on the Alpha Quadrant, they never stooped so low as to just take a major home world off the map. You could always see the affected cultures bouncing back eventually, even the Cardis given time. The destruction of Vulcan on the other hand feels a lot more crass and fatalistic. It also feels rather gimmicky to be honest.