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

[ST-One]

I'm getting kinda bored with the whole construction argument, but what on earth does "promethean-hating" mean?

Nothing of consequence.

You just have to see Kirk look up at that thing in the trailer to get that these people know what they're doing. But some fans will always complain - hell, Bond "fans" bitched about Daniel Craig and the new direction of the Bond films, and they were flat-out dead wrong.

Re: Bond... I love the new guy... but he's the "new guy" to me, not the "same guy."

I'll explain that...

In my "personal Bond canon" I treat the identity of "James Bond" not as the guy's given name but rather as his "spy identity" which he assumed after giving up whatever name his mother and father gave him (this is actually quite common, by the way).

So, as far as I'm concerned, the Connery character may or may not have been the first agent to have this name, but he wasn't the last. Connery's character retired... but was brought back from retirement twice (both times after someone else holding the "identity" of Bond for a while).

He retired, and is probably living on some desert island... or perhaps is some "spymaster" high up in the UK government. Meanwhile, every so often a new agent assumes the identity of "James Bond." As far as I'm concerned, only one actually retired (Connery) and all the rest either died in the line of duty or were injured in some disabling way and were forced out of commission. (Lazenby's agent cracked up and was forcibly retired... Moore's agent probably died of syphilis!... Dalton's was killed, as was Brosnan's).

So, as far as I'm concerned, this new guy is just another secret agent who was assigned the code-name "James Bond" because he fit the profile. He's not the same guy, so I have no trouble accepting him.

(FYI, "Q" and "M" aren't just silly code-names... "Q" stands for "Quartermaster" and "M" stands for "Minister"... both significant positions within the intelligence agency. Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Iam Flemming understood this perfectly well.)

Total crap. All the Bonds (starting with Lazenby) arw the widower of the same woman (except Craig of course, for very obvious reasons).
Bond, regardless who plays him, is always the same person.

 

[trevanian]

Nothing of consequence.

You just have to see Kirk look up at that thing in the trailer to get that these people know what they're doing. But some fans will always complain - hell, Bond "fans" bitched about Daniel Craig and the new direction of the Bond films, and they were flat-out dead wrong.

Re: Bond... I love the new guy... but he's the "new guy" to me, not the "same guy."

I'll explain that...

In my "personal Bond canon" I treat the identity of "James Bond" not as the guy's given name but rather as his "spy identity" which he assumed after giving up whatever name his mother and father gave him (this is actually quite common, by the way).

So, as far as I'm concerned, the Connery character may or may not have been the first agent to have this name, but he wasn't the last. Connery's character retired... but was brought back from retirement twice (both times after someone else holding the "identity" of Bond for a while).

He retired, and is probably living on some desert island... or perhaps is some "spymaster" high up in the UK government. Meanwhile, every so often a new agent assumes the identity of "James Bond." As far as I'm concerned, only one actually retired (Connery) and all the rest either died in the line of duty or were injured in some disabling way and were forced out of commission. (Lazenby's agent cracked up and was forcibly retired... Moore's agent probably died of syphilis!... Dalton's was killed, as was Brosnan's).

So, as far as I'm concerned, this new guy is just another secret agent who was assigned the code-name "James Bond" because he fit the profile. He's not the same guy, so I have no trouble accepting him.

(FYI, "Q" and "M" aren't just silly code-names... "Q" stands for "Quartermaster" and "M" stands for "Minister"... both significant positions within the intelligence agency. Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Iam Flemming understood this perfectly well.)

Total crap. All the Bonds (starting with Lazenby) arw the widower of the same woman (except Craig of course, for very obvious reasons).
Bond, regardless who plays him, is always the same person.

I'm impressed that you GET this; lots of folks do not. Even Martin Campbell, the guy who directed GE and CR, has pushed for the crazy 'bond as code name/different guy' argument, which seriously leaks water under the weight of Bond's dead wife (and to cement that it is the same wife, we even have FYEO, where you see her name on her gravestone, even though we've gone through a couple of different actors by that time.)

 

[trevanian]

And however you lift it up to space, that isn't going to make up for the prometheian-hating mindset that deigned to put that image on screen.

I'm getting kinda bored with the whole construction argument, but what on earth does "promethean-hating" mean?

Prometheanism is a kind of belief that most woes can be solved with technology. Ben Bova's THE HIGH ROAD nf book goes into it a bit. It is something that doesn't completely work, but is a great starting point for rational minds (even ones that don't understand the mathematics of hard science.) I think it is a little naive to think everything can be solved with science, but it can get you a helluva long way towards a conclusion in many cases.

I would consider STAR WARS to be antiPromethean because even though you have the trappings of progress, there's little to support how it happened, or that it could happen. TREK had some pinnings of actual SF and science extrapolation, but I see this new builtonearth thing to be a repudation of that, for very cheap effect.

That's for the promethean argument. For the spiritual mythical comment complaints in another post by somebody else, I guess I'd go with something like this.
For starships (I refer you to Probert's comments in the tech thread) I would say you can be prosaic and build on earth, or you can be prosaic and build in space. You can be lyrical and build in space, but I don't see the lyricism of building a fes starship on earth, no matter how pretty the liftoff.

 

[Logical Leopard]

From what it looks like to me, this Enterprise Built On Earth thing is a pretty nice way of bridging elements of the story. You've got Kirk on Earth, in familiar settings, which draws the viewer in and helps them to identify with him. Then you bridge Kirk's current state with Kirk's destiny by having Kirk look at his future right while he's in the middle of his present situation. That's a pretty powerful and nifty scene, when you think about it, in my opinion.

People, dont forget that JJ is a FILMMAKER. Not a producer of walking, talking technical manuals. He's probably thinking "How can I draw the audience in, and show them what I'm trying to say" instead of "How can I demonstrate my awesome knowledge of starship construction so that everyone in the theater will drop their popcorn and sob at the sheer beauty of it? SOON, ALL WILL REALIZE THAT I AM THE HENRY FORD OF SPAAAAAACCCEEE!!!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!"


Enterprise built on earth. Check.

Enterprise built on earth not canonical. Check.

Set disbelief to suspension. I'm going in....

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

By definition one can't have a "personal Bond canon" or a "personal Trek canon" or a "personal" anything canon. Canonicity derives from authority - what is the "personal canonista" doing exactly, forcing his/her right brain to accept the "authority" of the left or some such nonsense?

One can, I guess, have personal rationalizations that help one to endure the apparent cognitive dissonance of exposure to an evolving series of stories that by nature include inconsistencies. That's rather a bit too obsessive for my tastes.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

By definition one can't have a "personal Bond canon" or a "personal Trek canon" or a "personal" anything canon. Canonicity derives from authority - what is the "personal canonista" doing exactly, forcing his/her right brain to accept the "authority" of the left or some such nonsense?

One can, I guess, have personal rationalizations that help one to endure the apparent cognitive dissonance of exposure to an evolving series of stories that by nature include inconsistencies. That's rather a bit too obsessive for my tastes.

Anyone can have a "personal canon" on any issue... as is so clearly illustrated by the various choices to accept, or not accept, various subelements of any entertainment medium. This is not the same as saying "official," of course... hence the modifier.

Why is it that you guys choose to assault the verbage rather than addressing the points (yet again)?

It's quite simple... "James Bond" has no internal consistency under any other circumstances. The "born in 1920" James Bond isn't the same as the "Sean Connery" James Bond, who isn't the same as the Timothy Dalton James Bond, who isn't the same as the current one.

I'd be inclined to accept that every movie existed in a separate, stand-alone "world-let" if it weren't for the fact that the background players were consistent ... various Ministers of Intelligence, various quartermasters ("M" and "Q"), but consistent, even as different "Bonds" came and went. Judy Dench is playing the same role now, even though she started off playing the role with other actors in the lead...

You either have to drop all pretense of "getting into" the fiction, and just treat it as nonsensical garbage, or you try to make it make some sort of sense. Those are the only two options.

But feel free to attack my thought process and so forth... not like it matters to me if you guys agree, after all.

 

[JoeZhang]

To be honest, I think you are thinking about it a bit too much.

Bond films have consistency, rather than anyone really caring about strict canon or the fact that his history is always in the eternal present.

When someone goes to see Bond, they expect to see him 1) shag birds 2) killing Johnny Foreigner 3) and exchanging saucy quips with Moonpenny or some totty with a sexual sounding name.

This short education film will give you the details:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dOH8_Vf_xIE

That's the depth of it - nobody involved in the films has cared about canon beyond a few minor things like the death wife.

You either have to drop all pretense of "getting into" the fiction, and just treat it as nonsensical garbage, or you try to make it make some sort of sense. Those are the only two options.

No - this is the third option - you go, you see him do 1, 2, and 3 and then you go and have a pizza and say "that bird had a set of cracking knockers" That's it.

Seriously Bond nerds who try and make his timeline work or try and explain why the actors keep changing make less sense to me than trek nerds. I mean he's an national icon here in blightly but nobody cares about that shit,beyond a group of people who need to get out more and Johnny Foreigner.

Judy Dench is playing the same role now, even though she started off playing the role with other actors in the lead...

Actually she's not - she's playing the first M - the writers just liked her performance and thought "fuck it, let's keep her" - I'll dig up the quote if you are really that bothered.

 

[Stegoman05]

Hey is the new trailer on xbox live? Can not seem to find it. Im not use to the new change they made on xbox live.

 

[M'Sharak]

Hey is the new trailer on xbox live? Can not seem to find it. Im not use to the new change they made on xbox live.

Supposed to be, although it seems to be US- or possibly US/Canada-only at the moment. People in the UK and Australia couldn't find it. See the thread about it here.

 

[AlanC9]

Anyone can have a "personal canon" on any issue... as is so clearly illustrated by the various choices to accept, or not accept, various subelements of any entertainment medium. This is not the same as saying "official," of course... hence the modifier.

Why is it that you guys choose to assault the verbage rather than addressing the points (yet again)?

Some people like sticking up for the actual meaning of words. I don't figure it's a big deal myself; even if your construct does violence to the meaning of "canon," what you meant was perfectly clear .

 

[AlanC9]

Prometheanism is a kind of belief that most woes can be solved with technology. Ben Bova's THE HIGH ROAD nf book goes into it a bit. It is something that doesn't completely work, but is a great starting point for rational minds (even ones that don't understand the mathematics of hard science.) I think it is a little naive to think everything can be solved with science, but it can get you a helluva long way towards a conclusion in many cases.

Thanks for the definition. I can't help but think that "anti-promethean" isn't a very good choice when you're trying to say something derogatory, though. Rhetoric isn't effective when the targets don't share your assumptions.

For instance:

TREK had some pinnings of actual SF and science extrapolation, but I see this new builtonearth thing to be a repudation of that, for very cheap effect.

And when I look at the same picture I don't see this at all.

That's for the promethean argument. For the spiritual mythical comment complaints in another post by somebody else, I guess I'd go with something like this.
For starships (I refer you to Probert's comments in the tech thread) I would say you can be prosaic and build on earth, or you can be prosaic and build in space. You can be lyrical and build in space, but I don't see the lyricism of building a fes starship on earth, no matter how pretty the liftoff.

That might have been me also. And all I can say to that is that I do see the lyricism in the trailer scene, and don't see how there would be more in a spacedock.

 

[trevanian]

Prometheanism is a kind of belief that most woes can be solved with technology. Ben Bova's THE HIGH ROAD nf book goes into it a bit. It is something that doesn't completely work, but is a great starting point for rational minds (even ones that don't understand the mathematics of hard science.) I think it is a little naive to think everything can be solved with science, but it can get you a helluva long way towards a conclusion in many cases.

Thanks for the definition. I can't help but think that "anti-promethean" isn't a very good choice when you're trying to say something derogatory, though. Rhetoric isn't effective when the targets don't share your assumptions.

I wouldn't expect them to, but I'd hope they might at least look into what I'm mentioning.

The easiest way I can sum up my feeling about the built on earth would be a reference to another Par franchise, the Jack Ryan ones. in HUNT FOR RED, we see a submarine being built as a throwaway, and it is done for real. It is impressive (though they overdo it by filming it in slomo a bit), but to me it is a squib compared to a later (also real) scene of a sub doing an emergency surface in its native element. Might also be like the difference between seeing a dolphin in a little marineworld pen or seeing him do the leaping thing out in the ocean, where he belongs.

 

[Star Treks]

By definition one can't have a "personal Bond canon" or a "personal Trek canon" or a "personal" anything canon. Canonicity derives from authority - what is the "personal canonista" doing exactly, forcing his/her right brain to accept the "authority" of the left or some such nonsense?

One can, I guess, have personal rationalizations that help one to endure the apparent cognitive dissonance of exposure to an evolving series of stories that by nature include inconsistencies. That's rather a bit too obsessive for my tastes.

This is a semantic argument. You are probably correct in terms of a dictionary definition of 'canon' but not as most fans understand it. If we take 'canon' to mean "what actually occurred in the fictional universe" (I know, almost an oxymoron), then anyone can have a "personal canon". As far as I'm concerned, the Star Trek universe for me includes the events of the Animated Series, regardless of whether or not this is "officially" canon according to whoever determines such things. So maybe the right word isn't "canon" but that doesn't change the fact that we are free to regard or disregard what we choose and interpret the construction of this fictional universe however we want.

 

[Ssosmcin]

(FYI, "Q" and "M" aren't just silly code-names... "Q" stands for "Quartermaster" and "M" stands for "Minister"... both significant positions within the intelligence agency. Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Iam Flemming understood this perfectly well.)

Actually, it's not clear what "M" stands for. Fleming seemed to imply it was a letter in the man's name: Miles Messervy in the books and the movies with Bernard Lee and McTarry in the original Casino Royale film. The recent CR had Bond discover what it meant, but M cut him off before he could finish speaking:

"I thought M was a randomly assigned letter. I had no idea it stood for--"
"Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed."

If it stood for anything as mundane as "Minister", I doubt there would be this mystery about it.

 

[Worf]

Early in trailer the voice that is talking about Young James Kirk sounds like Patrick Swayzee. Did anyone else think the same??? Qapla!!!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It's Bruce Greenwood

 

[AlanC9]

I wouldn't expect them to, but I'd hope they might at least look into what I'm mentioning.

Well, if you'll take the trouble to post definitions of your terms, I'll certainly take the time to read them, though I'm not sure where that gets us.

The easiest way I can sum up my feeling about the built on earth would be a reference to another Par franchise, the Jack Ryan ones. in HUNT FOR RED, we see a submarine being built as a throwaway, and it is done for real. It is impressive (though they overdo it by filming it in slomo a bit), but to me it is a squib compared to a later (also real) scene of a sub doing an emergency surface in its native element. Might also be like the difference between seeing a dolphin in a little marineworld pen or seeing him do the leaping thing out in the ocean, where he belongs.

So the ship is somehow more special if it's built in space, even when it is just sitting incomplete in the space dock? I'm going to have to quit here; your thought processes are so alien that I'll never comprehend this.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

(FYI, "Q" and "M" aren't just silly code-names... "Q" stands for "Quartermaster" and "M" stands for "Minister"... both significant positions within the intelligence agency. Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Iam Flemming understood this perfectly well.)

Actually, it's not clear what "M" stands for. Fleming seemed to imply it was a letter in the man's name: Miles Messervy in the books and the movies with Bernard Lee and McTarry in the original Casino Royale film. The recent CR had Bond discover what it meant, but M cut him off before he could finish speaking:

"I thought M was a randomly assigned letter. I had no idea it stood for--"
"Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed."

In the script for GoldenEye, M also stands for Judi Dench's M's real name (Barbara Mawdsley).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

(FYI, "Q" and "M" aren't just silly code-names... "Q" stands for "Quartermaster" and "M" stands for "Minister"... both significant positions within the intelligence agency. Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Iam Flemming understood this perfectly well.)

Actually, it's not clear what "M" stands for. Fleming seemed to imply it was a letter in the man's name: Miles Messervy in the books and the movies with Bernard Lee and McTarry in the original Casino Royale film. The recent CR had Bond discover what it meant, but M cut him off before he could finish speaking:

"I thought M was a randomly assigned letter. I had no idea it stood for--"
"Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed."

If it stood for anything as mundane as "Minister", I doubt there would be this mystery about it.

Your quote there is based upon my original point. "Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Ian Flemming understood this perfectly well."

The "mystery" exists only because the later filmmakers don't know what Flemming knew.

The title of the head of British intelligence is "Minister of Intelligence," and the title of the person responsible for outfitting the intelligence community is the "Quartermaster." Big M, big Q.

 

[ST-One]

(FYI, "Q" and "M" aren't just silly code-names... "Q" stands for "Quartermaster" and "M" stands for "Minister"... both significant positions within the intelligence agency. Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Iam Flemming understood this perfectly well.)

Actually, it's not clear what "M" stands for. Fleming seemed to imply it was a letter in the man's name: Miles Messervy in the books and the movies with Bernard Lee and McTarry in the original Casino Royale film. The recent CR had Bond discover what it meant, but M cut him off before he could finish speaking:

"I thought M was a randomly assigned letter. I had no idea it stood for--"
"Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed."

If it stood for anything as mundane as "Minister", I doubt there would be this mystery about it.

Your quote there is based upon my original point. "Later movie-makers have forgotten this, but Ian Flemming understood this perfectly well."

The "mystery" exists only because the later filmmakers don't know what Flemming knew.

The title of the head of British intelligence is "Minister of Intelligence," and the title of the person responsible for outfitting the intelligence community is the "Quartermaster." Big M, big Q.

The head of the SIS (MI6) for which Bond works is, in real life 'C'; the minister responsible for MI6 is the Foreign Secretary.
'M' is the head of the Secret Service in the Bond franchise and it's a reference to the persons name, not an abbreviation for the title.