More Screening Reports...

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Here's another:

FirstShowing.net

 

[ST-One]

I skipped most of the article to avoid spoilers, but this at the end is exactly what I'm hoping for:

Other journalist out there might try to dissuade you about Abrams' vision of this franchise and claim that he's taking something classic and turning it a pile of glossy Hollywood crap, but I couldn't disagree more. What Abrams is doing is taking a franchise that has progressively lost its magic over the years and is pumping it full of modern-day energy and excitement - which is exactly what it needs. It's not only fun, but it's intense, it looks great, and it's a true Star Trek film at its core with massive space battles and epic fight scenes.

 

[Mordock]

A sober analysis from CHUD.com's Devin Faraci:

What makes all of this most baffling is the extent of fan service in the film. Rather than just restart the series, Abrams and his writers concoct a time travel story that forces us to place this movie in the context of what has gone before. This isn't like retaining Judi Dench as M when rebooting James Bond in Casino Royale, this is more like having Judi Dench tell Daniel Craig that the last Bond died in action or something. And that aspect of fan service is only compounded by what looks to be a number of winks in the fans' direction with references to the movies and TV show (Sulu seems to fight a Romulan with a sword only because of his famous sword escapades in Naked Time). This is a movie serving two masters, and I wonder why it bothers. There's no way you're going to make nerds like me totally happy - Trek fans are the original detail-oriented nit-pickers - unless you do it right. Not correctly, but right. Abrams should have jettisoned all concerns about continuity and what came before and taken the concept of Star Trek and the characters and done them anew, but right. How Batman Begins did it. How Casino Royale did it. How Superman Returns didn't do it.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

All of these comparisons to other franchises need to end.

Star Trek is nothing like James Bond or any Superhero franchise. It only ends up displaying a complete lack of knowledge about all of them when a person allows themselves to make such poorly conceived comparisons.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

All of these comparisons to other franchises need to end.

Star Trek is nothing like James Bond or any Superhero franchise. It only ends up displaying a complete lack of knowledge about all of them when a person allows themselves to make such poorly conceived comparisons.

So says you. I guess I'll wait to see some evidence that you know more about any of this - particularly "Star Trek" - than the folks coming down on the other side.

Let the comparisons continue - the "Superman" comparisons are particularly apt, IMAO.

Onward...

Here's a link to another review of the footage...

Slashfilm Review

Some good bits:

This is not the Star Trek film that Trekkies are looking for,
…but that might not be a bad thing.
.
.
.
Could it be that the corvette represents something more than just a fast car? Is it just a coincidence that the car was released during the same decade that the original Star Trek television series premiered? I believe that by throwing the 1960’s era car off a cliff, Abrams was making a statement - “this is not your father’s Star Trek movie - we’re throwing all that stuff away, off a cliff no less. This is the new Star Trek.”
.
.
.
This film will make you believe that the USS Enterprise actually exists. The majority of the show and films were shot on a Bridge set and a small series of hallways that were always reused to create different areas within the ship. In the few short sequences I screened, I was amazed at how exactly how much of the Enterprise you get to see. I would compare it to the many areas of James Cameron’s the Titanic. You travel through so many diverse sections of the ship that it not only feels authentic, but it feels HUGE.
.
.
.
I’m also pretty confident that the hardcore Trekkies won’t care for this movie. It is clearly a much different type of film than the franchise has ever given us before. But truth is, it might also be a much better film than they have ever gotten before.

Fans will get used to it.

 

[Garak]

A sober analysis from CHUD.com's Devin Faraci:

What makes all of this most baffling is the extent of fan service in the film. Rather than just restart the series, Abrams and his writers concoct a time travel story that forces us to place this movie in the context of what has gone before. This isn't like retaining Judi Dench as M when rebooting James Bond in Casino Royale, this is more like having Judi Dench tell Daniel Craig that the last Bond died in action or something. And that aspect of fan service is only compounded by what looks to be a number of winks in the fans' direction with references to the movies and TV show (Sulu seems to fight a Romulan with a sword only because of his famous sword escapades in Naked Time). This is a movie serving two masters, and I wonder why it bothers. There's no way you're going to make nerds like me totally happy - Trek fans are the original detail-oriented nit-pickers - unless you do it right. Not correctly, but right. Abrams should have jettisoned all concerns about continuity and what came before and taken the concept of Star Trek and the characters and done them anew, but right. How Batman Begins did it. How Casino Royale did it. How Superman Returns didn't do it.

This guy is just a trainwreck, I love it - I can't wait to see his downward spiral continue. Someone put him on suicide watch.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A sober analysis from CHUD.com's Devin Faraci:

What makes all of this most baffling is the extent of fan service in the film. Rather than just restart the series, Abrams and his writers concoct a time travel story that forces us to place this movie in the context of what has gone before. This isn't like retaining Judi Dench as M when rebooting James Bond in Casino Royale, this is more like having Judi Dench tell Daniel Craig that the last Bond died in action or something. And that aspect of fan service is only compounded by what looks to be a number of winks in the fans' direction with references to the movies and TV show (Sulu seems to fight a Romulan with a sword only because of his famous sword escapades in Naked Time). This is a movie serving two masters, and I wonder why it bothers. There's no way you're going to make nerds like me totally happy - Trek fans are the original detail-oriented nit-pickers - unless you do it right. Not correctly, but right. Abrams should have jettisoned all concerns about continuity and what came before and taken the concept of Star Trek and the characters and done them anew, but right. How Batman Begins did it. How Casino Royale did it. How Superman Returns didn't do it.

This guy is just a trainwreck, I love it - I can't wait to see his downward spiral continue. Someone put him on suicide watch.

Yep.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

From Luke Thompson's report at www.deadlinehollywood.com:

I have, like many fans, been very skeptical about the idea of this new TREK.
.
.
.
So upon seeing the trailer, which was shown again to kick off Paramount's presentation today, my geek brain kicks in and says, "Wait a minute, Shatner's Kirk didn't know how to drive a vintage car, so how come he knew as a kid? Nobody in Kirk's time ever saw a Romulan face to face, so what are they doing here? Why doesn't the Enterprise interior look anything like it did on TV? Etc."

But by the end of the presentation, I can say this: I was enjoying what I was seeing so much that the nitpicker in me shut the hell up, at least momentarily. Besides, even if J.J. Abrams utterly screws this up, he can't do worse than the last couple of STAR TREK movies. And I don't think he's going to screw it up..
.
.
.
Overall, I suspect this movie will play very well if the rest of it is up to these scenes. Casual fans will have no problems whatsoever; continuity geeks will probably do like me and find themselves turning off their internal critic during stuff like the freefall sequence. Whether they turn it back on after remains to be seen. One thing I do like quite a bit is the sense of scale and size -- this is easily the biggest budget TREK yet, and it finally has an epic feel to it.

So far, anyway.

 

[Carbon Unit]

Ok, I think we've gone beyond the point where these reviews are useful to any of us. Obviously, some reviewers thought it was the greatest thing ever, and others are pretty negative about it. They all probably have their biases.

Until we can see the film, all we are doing is making ourselves crazy by talking, talking, talking about these tiny little second and third hand accounts of something none of us have seen.

I say that, and yet here I am...

 

[mredom]

All of these comparisons to other franchises need to end.

Star Trek is nothing like James Bond or any Superhero franchise. It only ends up displaying a complete lack of knowledge about all of them when a person allows themselves to make such poorly conceived comparisons.

As someone who has made those comparisons, please accept my apology for my incredible and inexcusable ignorance of all things related to the Batman or Bond franchises, or any other movie or TV show that had multiple incarnations. I obviously haven't watched any of those movies, read any of those comics, seen any of those shows. except...

I have, and maybe, just maybe I disagree with your point of view, and maybe, just maybe, I might not be the ignorant fool you make me out to be because I think this movie may be good.

But hey-it's just a movie, it's not real life....

right?

 

[RAMA]

Its interesting that one of the reports has a lot of Hollywood insiders mentioned at the screening. Looks like there might be a lot of informed opinions about this mvoie out there.

Another good sign, JJ seems to be having a ball showing off his movie!

 

[ST-One]

From Trekmovie:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/20/anthonys-thoughts-on-the-la-star-trek-movie-presentation/

Abrams and his team are trying to thread the needle of creating a film that works for the Trek fans and works for a general audience. From what I have seen, it appears that they may have pulled it off.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Hollywood Reporter has an article up. An excerpt:

Despite "Trek's" indisputable cultural brand and avid fan base, the filmmakers and the studio hope to bypass two potential obstacles on the way to blockbuster boxoffice returns: the MySpace generation's unfamiliarity with the series and genre and the franchise's typically anemic performance in the global market.

 

[Flake]

Interesting, Abrams says they have a 'life-size' Enterprise when he talks about the 'insane' promotion drive.

What on Earth could he mean?

 

[ST-One]

Interesting, Abrams says they have a 'life-size' Enterprise when he talks about the 'insane' promotion drive.

What on Earth could he mean?

'Humor. It's a difficult concept.'

 

[God Magnus]

As soon as the Chud report began to rant about the Enterprise being built on the ground, I stopped reading.

As much as I've read about these scenes, I still keep thinking they'll impact me very differently than I'm reading now (and hopefully, in a positive way) once I see'em.

 

[Flake]

Interesting, Abrams says they have a 'life-size' Enterprise when he talks about the 'insane' promotion drive.

What on Earth could he mean?

'Humor. It's a difficult concept.'

Oh, a joke? It totally passed me by, because they appear to be spending SO much money on this that it wouldn't surprise me if they did build it!

On the ground, in Iowa - of course.

 

[Sharr Khan]

All of these comparisons to other franchises need to end.

Star Trek is nothing like James Bond or any Superhero franchise. It only ends up displaying a complete lack of knowledge about all of them when a person allows themselves to make such poorly conceived comparisons.

Nonsense! Trek is no different then any other franchise. Its the view that it some how transcends every other piece of entertainment that has sapped all the creativity out of it and constrained it with useless rules.

Generally I take such a view as myopic, and elitist.

There is NO RIGHT WAY to make a "Star Trek" film/TV show - but to simply make a GOOD film regardless of its label.

and it finally has an epic feel to it.

Good, good long over due!

Sharr

 

[Mordock]

Drew "Moriarty" McWeeny, who for my money has always been AICN's best writer, has also given his account of the screened footage, and he's quite positive:

Look... I’m not the authority on continuity or on how this fits into canon or doesn’t, and since I don’t like more of STAR TREK than I do like, feel free to complete disregard everything I have to say about the preview footage we saw. But I’m betting now that at the very least, what we’ll get next May is going to be a rousing SF adventure film with a sincere desire to capture the optimistic nature of my favorite era of TREK. It looks like a huge canvass, and I’m really eager to check out more of the work by Michael Giacchino, cinematographer Dan Mindel, and production designer Scott Chambliss. It looks like everyone’s really trying to redefine and still respect the iconography of the show, and I’m sure everyone will have their own take on how well they do or don’t accomplish that.
May. 2009. Looking forward to it.

He's also specific about the tone in a way many of the reports have not been:

There’s a lot of humor in this sequence, but also a lot of tension, and it gave us our best look at Chekov (Anton Yelchin), who’s playing it big and broad. His Russian accent’s so thick that the computer doesn’t recognize him at one point, and I sincerely hope that’s as big as that joke ever gets. I know a lot of people love STAR TREK IV, but it’s precisely that sort of winky winky jokey jokey vomit that makes me hate that film. The entire movie is like an episode of HAPPY DAYS where the cast walks into the room as if greeted by applause. It’s STAR TREK vaudeville, and there’s a few beats out of the Abrams stuff that has just the slightest little whiff of that. I pray that it’s not played up much more than this. Seriously.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Humor is always tricky, and if there's one aspect of this footage that has truly received a "mixed reaction" - that is, skepticism from many folks with more on the ball than Devin Faraci - it's the humor here.