The trailer made me want to see the movie even more. Then again, I'm up for a little rebooting when it comes to Trek. So it doesn't bother me the upcoming Trek movie has those evil qualities like being edgy and hip.
Am I the only one who didn't like the trailer?
- Thread starter Anticitizen
- Start date
Trendy, maybe, but edgy? What exactly was edgy about the trailer? It was the safest possible collection of lowest common denominator appeal - hot-rebellious-guy-on-a-bike, 'splosions and a little gratuitous cute-chick-in-underwear. I understand why they did it, but c'mon, that trailer is about as edgy as High School Musical.
Good Will Riker
Admiral
I am of the opposite mind who believes that the richly-layered Casino Royale is one of the more superior James Bond outings while the plot-thin Quantum of Solace belongs in the bottom of the barrel.
It worked for Daniel Craig's "new 00-agent" in Casino Royale, but backfired on him in Quantum of Solace, because it is unbelievable that this agent will not be severely reprimanded or have his license revoked for disobeying orders so recklessly.
At least Dalton's Bond in Licence to Kill and Brosnan's Bond in Die Another Day had good reasons for doing that. Plus those Bonds were already established, and have proven countless times that they could get the job done in saving the world, so they already have some brownie points in getting some leeway in going rogue like that. Craig's "green" Bond didn't have much of an excuse for doing that because Vesper is the one who killed herself in CR, and going after Quantum for her death -- a girl who did not even love him but only used him in the first place -- isn't much grounds for M to give him leeway in going rogue like that for an agent who hasn't proven his worth yet to MI6 beyond the fact that he is a superb card player.
The whole plot falls apart under close scrutiny. And, I am not saying that about Bond films in general, but that Quantum of Solace truly sucked just as bad as 2 Fast 2 Furious and Speed 2: Cruise Control.
Last edited:
"baaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh" went the unthinking sheep, blindly following their sheppard. (Off the edge of the cliff)
The trailer STILL evokes to much nerdness that the general public associate with Star Trek. It's actually funny how the trailer DOES resemble a lot of other movies- conflict, sex, explosions- nothing wrong with. Just nothing original, clever, or interesting about it either. Quantum of Solace had very similar aspects in it's trailer- people WILL see it. Star Trek has too many negative perceptions about it.
I LOVED Star Trek since I saw my first episode "Doomsday Machine" in the 70's. As a kid, I was hooked, looking forward to every movie. The excitement when TNG was due to come out, was beyond containment (I think I still have the old TV guide with the new Enterprise on it when it was promoted.) As a yonge adult, I followed TNG and still looked forward to the movies. Then DS9 came- I was so excited to see something new, and though not too impressed with the characters, still eagerly watched each episode. Voyager followed, and my excitement was re ignited to see something that promissed to be more ship based again- it sucked, but I STILL watched them all.
Then Enterprise came- and the last of the TNG movies- and though I was excited to see how they would turn out, they were all less then exciting or compelling.
Then came along JJ and his vision of Star Trek. When I FIRST heard about it, I was excited again (as only a blind Trekkie can be!), but then the information about it started to trrickle out. And all I can say now, is that as a stupid Trekkie, I'll probably STILL go see it. But as a rational adult who can think for himself, I can see speculate that this movie is not going to be Trek- and there is nothing that the GENERAL non-Trek fan populace will find interesting about this movie at all.
If I'm wrong- then no big deal. If I'm right, then again, it's no big deal. We'll have compelling books and fan fiction to keep the universe alive for every fan.
Last edited:
I liked it. I don't think it was like anything else, either ST or otherwise.
At least JJ's kept the thing going. At the very least, it shows that humans are alive in the 23rd Century and decent - well, I hope sort of decent. More evolved than people today let's say. That's 20% of what Roddenberry wanted, and if he was looking down he would be pleased.
I think that messages in SF today are very subtle. I read the SF magazine 2000Ad and that is very convoluted, apart from Judge Dredd.
I think that it is good that they have spent more money on the effects, but it doesn't want to become just effects, and money making, like Star Wars.
At least JJ's kept the thing going. At the very least, it shows that humans are alive in the 23rd Century and decent - well, I hope sort of decent. More evolved than people today let's say. That's 20% of what Roddenberry wanted, and if he was looking down he would be pleased.
I think that messages in SF today are very subtle. I read the SF magazine 2000Ad and that is very convoluted, apart from Judge Dredd.
I think that it is good that they have spent more money on the effects, but it doesn't want to become just effects, and money making, like Star Wars.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
'Double dumb-ass on you!'
It's a movie trailer. What do you expect? Shakespeare?
And, nothing interesting? At all?
Did you keep your eyes shut during the trailer?
Actually, Shakespeare trailers look just like regular trailers.
Now THAT was horrible! Even I can admit the trek trailer beats this one out!
Funny though...
Actually, the sheep were angrily chasing the shepherd shrieking some nonsense about his having had nonconsensual intercourse with their lambhoods...
Last edited:
I dunno - see cooleddie47 for counseling...
The only compaint I can somewhat agree with is the Kirk/Uhura thing. Not so much because of canon or anything but as much as I love Abrams and the writers he puts together the romance in his stuff is usually subpar I feel.
Everything else looked ace, though.
Everything else looked ace, though.
The only compaint I can somewhat agree with is the Kirk/Uhura thing. Not so much because of canon or anything but as much as I love Abrams and the writers he puts together the romance in his stuff is usually subpar I feel.
Everything else looked ace, though.
There is no Kirk/Uhura thing....
In ther HD trailer it can be clearly seen that Kirk is in bed with another chick...an Orion slave girl
What Kirk/Uhura thing?
When all we had was the crappy youtube version of the trailer, it looked like Kirk was having sex with Uhura...
Something the HD version shows is not true.
Well don't forget that Kirk as an adult doesn't even know what a clutch is let alone know how to drive a stick! Source, "A Piece of the Action".
See, See, THIS is how you air your grievances... Well thought out and polite..... Kudos to you my friend.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.
Yeah you'd have to take Bond's portrayl up with Ian Fleming actually... Wait he's dead isn't he.
Similar threads
