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

[Peacemaker]

I can't think of a single good reason for it to be built planetside other than to have Kirk sneak in to look at it

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.

Well, let's put that scene into some context, which can be deduced from the trailer.

The trailer places the journey's of Kirk and Spock in parallel. Both are trying to become something special, something more than they are. Kirk is a self-destructive young man. Spock is the product of two worlds, human and Vulcan and must make a choice.

In a wider context, there is something each man loves. Apparently, Kirk's Dad, the one thing he loves most, is taken away early in his childhood. Spock's love isn't Vulcan as much as it's his family - his father and mother. For each, there's a choice - a choice to choose what they will love, a moment when they are confronted with the sight of that thing.

For Spock, as we know from TNG and the movies, that which he loves expands over time. His parents represent, in many ways, the two forces that lie behind the Federation, Earth and Vulcan - which is parallel to the Kirk-Spock relationship itself. Spock makes the choice to join Starfleet - a choice to try to reconcile the opposing parts of himself? Maybe, but perhaps it begins with him embracing the more emotional part of his heritage. After serving with Pike, he begins to embrace the idea of wanting command for himself - but he's too young too human for that, to unstable to be a captain. When he sees Vulcan threatened, he begins to expand his love beyond himself, rather to the wider scope of the Federation. He begins expanding his journey to be something special...so by the time he is old, he returns to save the Federation, not just his crew (as in TWOK). He's seen a future that threatens everything. To do that, he needs Kirk, which gets us back to Kirk's journey.

Kirk's journey is one from self-destructive adolescent to Captain of the Enterprise. He'll need Spock for that. Kirk is also a womanizer. Sure, he can love a woman like Carol Marcus, even father a son, but that's not Kirk's first and true love. No that has been and always has been the Enterprise. This scene isn't a scene for the sake of being "cool," it's Kirk's first look at his true love, and it's love at first sight. He's on Earth, and she's on Earth. She'll be launched into space, and he'll join her there. So, it's only natural that he see her, not in space, but on Earth, being built. This is a highly symbolic scene. It's his first sight of his true love, and it's also symbolic of things yet to come. As she is built, he is built. She is built on Earth, she is built on Earth. She will take him to find his truest friends, and his best friend, Spock.

And this brings me to a bit of speculation. I have a suspicion, with the sighting of what appears to be Spock's time ship in the trailer, that this film may end with Spock's true death. IMO, he'll give his life in order to save Kirk and his crew - a direct nod to TWOK, but this time, Spock is not to be resurrected. I should think that would be a fitting end for Spock, giving his life to save the people he most cared about - a second, and final time - which is likely the reason Shatner's presence wasn't requested.

 

[Peacemaker]

So 'your mother wears army boots' and 'your mother sucks off syphillitic camels' are ok rejoinders whenever the mood strikes? Geez, the things you learn years down the line ...

EDIT ADDON I'm going to make a point of referencing this thread any time somebody pisses me off and I reply unkindly, which should make me bulletproof so long as I insult ancestry and relations and not the poster him/her/itself, right?

Weren't you paying attention? The wife cracks earned a warning too, but a trolling warning, not a flaming warning. So it's still out of line.

YES I was paying attention (ahead of the mods apparently), but I'm trying to get my head around why it was just a trolling warning and not a flame warning. The idea that this board is setup to protect idiots (and meanspirited folks who would malign parents and children and whathaveyou) seems seriously seriously wrong to me.

I know I'm not a mod, but I've been on this board many years, so feel qualified to remind you, Commodore...That's why there's a forum called Moderator Actions...problems? Take them there.

 

[AlanC9]

YES I was paying attention (ahead of the mods apparently), but I'm trying to get my head around why it was just a trolling warning and not a flame warning. The idea that this board is setup to protect idiots (and meanspirited folks who would malign parents and children and whathaveyou) seems seriously seriously wrong to me.

Now I'm a bit confused. Is flaming somehow worse than trolling?

Edit: Sorry, Akiraprise. Shoulda kept reading before replying.

Peacemaker, I think you're on to something here. And honestly, I've been betting on Future Spock dying all along

 

[anywhouk]

Ok i know i am getting older, and i know that parts of me are starting to fail. but i am sure i heard right that the kid Kirk said his name is James 'SIBERIOUS' Kirk.

 

[anywhouk]

If it was a cyborge why would it need filters on the cheeks of its face protection

 

[Hoser]

Its all taken very much out of context. What was so un-Star Trek about it? Starships - check. Phasers - check. Transporters - check. Space battles - check. Introspective voice-overs - check.

Seriously. If this doesn't look like Star Trek to you and your wife, you need to watch more Star Trek.

Thing is, none of those make Star Trek 'Star Trek'. Those were all the place settings, the set pieces for what was Star Trek. Saying any of those things make up Star Trek is like saying that ghosts, swords and tights make up all that is Shakespeare.

Honestly, Star Trek hasn't really been 'Star Trek' since after the first movie, and arguable the first few seasons of TNG. Which is fine, you guys get a movie. And darn skippy I ain't missing it. But what made Star Trek a phenomena has long since taken a back seat to other things, things that have widened the fanbase and arguably made much more money than what 'Star Trek' ever could have made.

It's nothing to do with being TOS only either. It's storytelling, viewpoint, motive and method....it's dang near impossible to describe as well.

I kinda doubt the new movie will be as bad as Starship Troopers was to it's original material. But I also doubt they'll capture the old feeling, because they want new blood. They want people to see the movie, go out and buy the overpriced merchandise, listen to the rocking soundtrack and collect the limited edition repainted action figures.But none of that is Trek either.

Maybe we'll get the old Trek feeling back at some point, there's new blood in the White House and even with all the dismal outlook people are starting to feel optimistic again. But phasers, transporters and stilted dialogue don't make Star Trek Star Trek, and never have.

And yeah, I'm still optimistic for the new movie.

 

[JoeZhang]

Honestly, Star Trek hasn't really been 'Star Trek' since after the first movie,

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...

 

[JoeZhang]

Nope, those are real good reasons for a shot or a scene in a movie.

"Because it really happened" is a terrible reason.

Christian, we've been having a think about you using your Batrope to leap off that skyscraper - the force of gravity would lead you to hurt your arms. Instead, we'd like you to run down the internal stairs.

Gosh, would be impolitic for me to point out that never once does Christian Bale's Batman ever leap off a skyscraper using a Batrope - one assumes precisely because of such concerns of it interrupting the naturalistic style of Nolan's Batman movies?

You are quite right - I'm thinking of the scene where he leaps out of the top window of a tall building and is caught by a plane which is towing a cable.. which of course is the high of naturalistic filming and wasn't done because it looks cool.

The motorbike that comes out of the batmobile - makes total sense and wasn't done because it was cool*.



* actually I thought it looked awful but I get what they were going for...

 

[ST-One]

Ok i know i am getting older, and i know that parts of me are starting to fail. but i am sure i heard right that the kid Kirk said his name is James 'SIBERIOUS' Kirk.

[Lex Luthor] WRONG! [/Lex Luthor]

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I can't think of a single good reason for it to be built planetside other than to have Kirk sneak in to look at it

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.

 

[JoeZhang]

I'm certain he's reading these pages these days, so I know he knows how many of us feel about it.

Please don't start giving off "that" vibe, the next step is looking for his address so you can "visit" him for a chat...

You know nothing about him, you know nothing about his internet habits.

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.

Sure it will - because besides a minority of people who think that are watching a documentary, nobody cares.

 

[scotthm]

I just showed the trailer to five guys here in the office (ages 23 to 40) who aren't really Star Trek fans, but they're all sci-fi/action film fans, and they all seemed underwhelmed. The trailer just didn't seem to do much for any of them.

Well I think some of that probably has to do with seeing it on a small screen. Or none of them wanted to admit that Star Trek looked cool. I bet at least three of them go see the movie.

I just showed this same group of people the new Watchmen trailer, and they're a lot more anxious to see it than Star Trek.

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

 

[scotthm]

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...

That wouldn't be a problem if this movie continued on that forward progression, but it's taking us back to the beginning--to something that we already 'know'.

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

 

[datas_cat_spot]

I just showed the trailer to five guys here in the office (ages 23 to 40) who aren't really Star Trek fans, but they're all sci-fi/action film fans, and they all seemed underwhelmed. The trailer just didn't seem to do much for any of them.

Well I think some of that probably has to do with seeing it on a small screen. Or none of them wanted to admit that Star Trek looked cool. I bet at least three of them go see the movie.

I just showed this same group of people the new Watchmen trailer, and they're a lot more anxious to see it than Star Trek.

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

Hopefully Watchmen will do well. It isn't likely to make as much in the long run as Trek though.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hopefully Watchmen will do well. It isn't likely to make as much in the long run as Trek though.

"Watchmen" looks great. There's not a chance in Hell that it will draw as large an audience or make nearly as much gross profit as "Star Trek" though - which is why Warners is opening it in March rather than letting it get smashed flat by competition in the Spring or Summer.

 

[JoeZhang]

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...

That wouldn't be a problem if this movie continued on that forward progression, but it's taking us back to the beginning--to something that we already 'know'.

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

You are taking my words too literally, when I talk about change and evolution - I'm talking about how characters are handed, how stories are told, the visual look, not the in-universe fictional history of the show.

 

[BenRoethig]

Kirk's journey is one from self-destructive adolescent to Captain of the Enterprise. He'll need Spock for that. Kirk is also a womanizer. Sure, he can love a woman like Carol Marcus, even father a son, but that's not Kirk's first and true love. No that has been and always has been the Enterprise.

Actually its pretty likely that Kirk never met Carol in this timeline. He was drunk in a bar instead of being well into his Starfleet career.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Christian, we've been having a think about you using your Batrope to leap off that skyscraper - the force of gravity would lead you to hurt your arms. Instead, we'd like you to run down the internal stairs.

Gosh, would be impolitic for me to point out that never once does Christian Bale's Batman ever leap off a skyscraper using a Batrope - one assumes precisely because of such concerns of it interrupting the naturalistic style of Nolan's Batman movies?

You are quite right - I'm thinking of the scene where he leaps out of the top window of a tall building and is caught by a plane which is towing a cable.. which of course is the high of naturalistic filming and wasn't done because it looks cool.

Hee! That's my favorite part of TDK.

Of course they did it because it looked cool. I personally have no objection to doing things because it looks cool, provided it has a story purpose as well - we don't know yet whether the Enterprise built on the ground does (though I like Peacemaker's interpretation of Kirk and the ship's symbolic relationship). I was just being an annoying Bat-geek by correcting you.

Cary L. Brown said:
I'm certain he's reading these pages these days, so I know he knows how many of us feel about it.

I'm pretty sure there's some underpaid intern consigned to go through these threads for Paramount (and it's either a hoot and a half for her/him, or some kind of unimagined hell), but the idea that Abrams is spending his time reading this stuff, which mostly amounts to immature bellyaching, is entirely silly.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Don't know if this has been covered. Is that Ben Cross or Nimoy in the scene with Spock's mother?

 

[ST-One]

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.