I'm thinking real.
Teaser trailer: Canon or Metaphor?
- Thread starter steveman
- Start date
Superman
Fleet Captain
Broccoli said:
I think people are looking waaaaay too much into this trailer. It's just a trailer. Probably, none of that will actually be seen in the movie. Lots of movies do that. Just to get the audience to go "ooh". Other recent examples that I can think of is "Transformers" and "Ratatouille".
The teaser for "First Contact" had a giant Trek logo appear in space with the Borg Cube flying through it. Is that canon? *
The idea of building the Enterprise was probably to send an idea out there that the story will be "the beginning" of Star Trek (in this case Kirk and Co first adventure).
* (the answer is yes)
The footage from the Transformers teaser was indeed in the film. It's in the scene when the Sector 7 guy briefs the secretary of defense on the TF threat.
\S/
View 1: "Its in the film!!!! Waaaaaaaaaaawww!!!! 
"
View 2: "Don't worry, its not. :thumbsup:"
I'll bet $1,000 that no one walks out when its shown in the film.
"View 2: "Don't worry, its not. :thumbsup:"
I'll bet $1,000 that no one walks out when its shown in the film.
I don't understand why people are making a big deal about this question being asked. It's not looking "too deep" into anything... at least no more than looking at (as I've stated before) hazy, ambiguous shots of the Enterprise and trying to decipher what part of the ship is being shown. This question is no different. Just trying to find an answer one way or the other. Metaphor or not.
All I simply asked was whether you thought the entire trailer was canon (seemingly suspect welders and all) or if you thought that just the Enterprise was real and the welders were merely a metaphor used by TPTB.
And as I don't buy into the weak excuse that "All teaser trailers are not canon, and that's that..." the end to this whole question is to determine whether we can, indeed, add the footage of the teaser trailer to what we know as canonical Trek (and therefore place the footage somewhere in between ENT and TOS) or if it was merely art, and therefore really isn't canon. It doesn't glaringly point either way, IMO, and that's why I asked.
It's a simple question that's been misinterpreted. Badly, by some. It's not baseless worry regarding whether the teaser footage will be seen in the film or not. Couldn't care less. I had hoped to get some well thought-out answers on this. Though some have been good, I honestly haven't, and coming from this board, that surprises me.
All I simply asked was whether you thought the entire trailer was canon (seemingly suspect welders and all) or if you thought that just the Enterprise was real and the welders were merely a metaphor used by TPTB.
And as I don't buy into the weak excuse that "All teaser trailers are not canon, and that's that..." the end to this whole question is to determine whether we can, indeed, add the footage of the teaser trailer to what we know as canonical Trek (and therefore place the footage somewhere in between ENT and TOS) or if it was merely art, and therefore really isn't canon. It doesn't glaringly point either way, IMO, and that's why I asked.
It's a simple question that's been misinterpreted. Badly, by some. It's not baseless worry regarding whether the teaser footage will be seen in the film or not. Couldn't care less. I had hoped to get some well thought-out answers on this. Though some have been good, I honestly haven't, and coming from this board, that surprises me.
See, this explanation makes even less sense than the original question (or at least what I thought the original question was). You don't care if the trailer footage is in the movie, but you're worried about whether or not the trailer footage is "canonical"? I'm afraid my response is still, why does it matter?
We are supposed to convince him that it is either canon or metaphor. We don't have enough information, so we can't tell him, and its driving him nuts. 
Well Orci has suggested that the Enterprise was indeed constructed (at least in part) on Earth.
But apart from that, I think the construction we see in the teaser is more metaphor than anything. Especially considering it's set at night, where it can be shot as mysteriously and evocatively as possible.
But apart from that, I think the construction we see in the teaser is more metaphor than anything. Especially considering it's set at night, where it can be shot as mysteriously and evocatively as possible.
Nowadays in navy yards, construction is done at night. :thumbsup:
Does anyone else out there get a Blade Runner type feel to the murk and gloom in the trailer, as if an alternate universe was being portrayed rather than the bright and shiny UFP centerpiece that earth usually appears to be in trek? (granted, this is the first ground based industrial facility depicted)
steveman said:
You guys...
All clowning aside, I voted for real. I guess the whole sticking point for choosing one way or the other falls upon how you feel about the tools the workers are using. There are some who feel the tools that they're using seem quite antiquated, and therefore signal to the fact that they, the workers, are metaphorical.
On the other hand, there are those who are in the "If ain't broke, don't fix it" category and can accept that workers in the future might use some of the same construction techniques that we use today.
Count me in the "If ain't broke, don't fix it" category; I can accept the workers using construction techniques that are, seemingly, antiquated for a future time period such as the one we are witnessing. Again, "If ain't broke, don't fix it"... and, of course, the tools being used might have some sort of futuristic tech intigrated into them that we can't see.
Ultimately, I think the whole "Under Construction" tagline is served well simply by the fact that workers are working on the Enterprise. Their task is evident. I don't think the workers necessarily need to be from the past in order for that point to hit home, even if sound bytes from the past are used in the trailer.
It's not just the tools, it's the fact that there are human workers at all. As was pointed out in a different thread, even today industrial welding is increasingly being done by robots. By the mid-23rd century I can only imagine more automation for this sort of work, not less.
Then again, maybe the construction labor unions made a big comeback in the intervening 200-odd years...
Didn't Roberto Orci confirm on TrekMovie that the construction scenes wont feature in the film?
Either way, as long as we see the launch, I can overlook the method of construction...
Although like in Star Trek V, I would like the construction of the ship to be evident after they launch, like corridors in a mess, with crewman dotted around fixing things and laying carpets, painting etc...
Either way, as long as we see the launch, I can overlook the method of construction...
Although like in Star Trek V, I would like the construction of the ship to be evident after they launch, like corridors in a mess, with crewman dotted around fixing things and laying carpets, painting etc...
^
^^Maybe we won't see the launch either.
I'm guessing the first time we see the Enterprise in the film it will be several years after launch, and Pike will be in command.
^^Maybe we won't see the launch either.
I'm guessing the first time we see the Enterprise in the film it will be several years after launch, and Pike will be in command.
"Does anyone else out there get a Blade Runner type feel to the murk and gloom in the trailer, as if an alternate universe was being portrayed rather than the bright and shiny UFP centerpiece that earth usually appears to be in trek?"
Translation: "Oh, my, god! It's dark! Blade Runner! Blade Runner! Blade Runner! Blade Runner! :sob: ""
Star Trek has done dark before:
Star Trek The Motion Picture
Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek III The Search for Spock
Star Trek IV The Voyage Home
Star Trek V The Final Frontier
Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek VII Generations
Star Trek VIII First Contact
Star Trek IX Insurrection
Star Trek X Nemesis
Star Trek Deep Space Nine
This along with: "Oh, my, god, They are using C G I :sob: "
leads me to believe some still can't get over the fact that its not 1966 or 1979 anymore.
Its 2008.
Besides, the Star Trek XI Enterprise design is what Roddenberry & Co wanted the Enterprise to look like since 1964.
The Five Stages of Grief:
1. Shock and denial
2. Volatile Reactions
3. Disorganization and despair
4. Reorganization
Translation: "Oh, my, god! It's dark! Blade Runner! Blade Runner! Blade Runner! Blade Runner! :sob:
""Star Trek has done dark before:
Star Trek The Motion Picture
Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek III The Search for Spock
Star Trek IV The Voyage Home
Star Trek V The Final Frontier
Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek VII Generations
Star Trek VIII First Contact
Star Trek IX Insurrection
Star Trek X Nemesis
Star Trek Deep Space Nine
This along with: "Oh, my, god, They are using C G I :sob:
"leads me to believe some still can't get over the fact that its not 1966 or 1979 anymore.
Its 2008.
Besides, the Star Trek XI Enterprise design is what Roddenberry & Co wanted the Enterprise to look like since 1964.
The Five Stages of Grief:
1. Shock and denial
2. Volatile Reactions
3. Disorganization and despair
4. Reorganization
^ Actually, I hope that is *is* dark.
I truthfully don't believe 'happy, shiny' is gonna work anymore. It might bring in the old TNG fans, but that's about it.
People (as in, the general public) want grit in their action movies these days - not sterility. They want badass enemies that are tough as nails - not aliens that can defeated with a 'good strong talking to' from the bridge of the Enterprise.
Look at all the most successful scifi films of the past few years - it doesn't GET much darker and grittier than stuff like The Matrix. And even stuff like Spiderman and Batman are dark.
I'm very good with dark.
I truthfully don't believe 'happy, shiny' is gonna work anymore. It might bring in the old TNG fans, but that's about it.
People (as in, the general public) want grit in their action movies these days - not sterility. They want badass enemies that are tough as nails - not aliens that can defeated with a 'good strong talking to' from the bridge of the Enterprise.
Look at all the most successful scifi films of the past few years - it doesn't GET much darker and grittier than stuff like The Matrix. And even stuff like Spiderman and Batman are dark.
I'm very good with dark.
So that's a "no" then.
P.S. There's some quality decaf out there...worth a thought.
tease: To vex with importunity or impertinence; to harass, annoy, disturb, or irritate by petty requests, or by jests and raillery; to plague.
I love that definition. And by that definition, we've all been teased and JJ Abrams is laughing his "oversized Enterprise" off.
It's a metaphor. A great, big practical joke of a metaphor.
I love that definition. And by that definition, we've all been teased and JJ Abrams is laughing his "oversized Enterprise" off.
It's a metaphor. A great, big practical joke of a metaphor.
I'm a big BSG reboot fan. The 70's version had more cheese than Wisconsin. Dark and gritty is the go these days and that's all fine and good. I certainly have no preference for a bright and shiny trekverse full of happy, shiny people (or ships).
Putting Blade Runner references aside (which is wise here, apparently), I made reference to an alternate universe previously in response to some comments floating around these boards about some possible timeline jiggery-pokery that may figure in the ST:XI plot. I just thought what we might be seeing in the trailer was "another road taken".
Putting Blade Runner references aside (which is wise here, apparently), I made reference to an alternate universe previously in response to some comments floating around these boards about some possible timeline jiggery-pokery that may figure in the ST:XI plot. I just thought what we might be seeing in the trailer was "another road taken".
Similar threads
