Paramount isn't trying to get star trek fans into the theaters, they trying to get everybody else.
Can they not get both?
Paramount isn't trying to get star trek fans into the theaters, they trying to get everybody else.
It could be Cumberbatch's hand.Anyone considered it could be Uhura's hand?
Fingers look a bit dainty for Kirk.
Absolutely nothing about Cumberbatch playing something other than an entirely new character, that's for damn sure. They did, however, tell us that a first season character, and a fan favorite at that, would appear somewhere in the film. They weren't clear as to whether that character played a significant role in this story or not; merely that they'd "appear", which could easily be fulfilled with a mere cameo.And what did the producers say, exactly?Then again, he could be a new character (the theory I've had the longest).
That would go against what the producers have said.
Paramount isn't trying to get star trek fans into the theaters, they trying to get everybody else.
Can they not get both?
What's wrong with having a general audience see a Star Trek film?Paramount isn't trying to get star trek fans into the theaters, they trying to get everybody else.
Can they not get both?
Well, this is certainly more impressive than the trailers for any previous Star Trek movies.
There's really nothing in this trailer that suggests Cumberbatch is anyone we've seen before.
Period. Check, please.
Now, he may be an established character - no reason why not. But aside from an obsessive fanboi tendency to draw unjustified inferences from the tiniest bits of trivia, there is nothing to give one a clue in this 1:03 minutes. All one can do is take a stab in the dark and guess.![]()
If Abrams delivers another bit of solid movie entertainment here,
Then why not call it something else? If you want to base a movie from a popular franchise than have the movie be based on that, not a loosely related story with some iconic names to make you feel that it's Star Trek.
Then what would a trailer have to look like to make it feel like Star Trek to you?
Then why not call it something else? If you want to base a movie from a popular franchise than have the movie be based on that, not a loosely related story with some iconic names to make you feel that it's Star Trek.
Then what would a trailer have to look like to make it feel like Star Trek to you?
Been lurking for a while, but I felt the need to make this point so I dug up the account I haven't used in four years.
But to everyone saying this doesn't feel like Star Trek. What exactly is Star Trek meant to feel like. I mean, after 700 episodes and 11 films, I don't think Star Trek can have just one feel. It's been a deep philosophical tale (Measure or Man, Inner Light), A Die Hard style action film (Starship Mine, Empok Nor), War Story (the Dominion War), a time travel story focusing on the inevitability of fate (City on the Edge of Forever), a action time travel story (that voyage one- can't remember it's name-. First Contact, Generations), a comedy (Voyage Home), allegory for historical events (Undiscovered Country, Cardassian occupation of Bajor), horror story (anything with the borg, that one with the bugs in voyager -man, I am horrible at remember episode names for voyager) and a whole list of other stuff.
My point is that saying Star Trek has a particular feel is a major disservice to what Star Trek is and what it has the potential to be.
Blockbuster action adventure that gets a lot of arses in seats may be new for Star Trek, but that doesn't make it any less Star Trek. Star XI and STiD seem to contain all the hall marks of what has been in every Star Trek film and show so far- A tight nit crew, an awesome ship, alien worlds, The Federation and Starfleet, Klingons.
Saying STiD doesn't feel like Star Trek is really redundant because it implies Star Trek can only be one thing, or only one of a few things which obviously is not the case.
Also, Trailer looks bloody amazing, I'm spent the last four hours geeking out without stop.
As I said before in a earlier post. That ship has no secondary hull. It looks to be a larger version of the NX-01 style starship with the classic movie Enterprise nacelles about to crash into city buildings along the shore.Those nacelles and the struts don't look like the Enterprise at all
![]()
Would Abrams really destroy the Enterprise in the second movie before Kirk has even gotten the captain's chair warm?
As I said before in a earlier post. That ship has no secondary hull. It looks to be a larger version of the NX-01 style starship with the classic movie Enterprise nacelles about to crash into city buildings along the shore.Those nacelles and the struts don't look like the Enterprise at all
![]()
Yeah. Doesn't look like the Enterprise. Weller's character's ship? Weller said his character had a starship.
Whatever ship that is, it's hard to believe a crash like that isn't going to destroy it. Would Abrams really destroy the Enterprise in the second movie before Kirk has even gotten the captain's chair warm?
They look like the Enterprise-E's nacelles to me.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZhiIXGz0r8g/RZ-fTed37zI/AAAAAAAAAG0/zKCSfpPwsiE/s400/akyazi_class.jpg
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.