Faithful readers of DHD know I don't do geek. Nor does this site review movies. Instead, it does the biz of the Biz. So, with that in mind, I asked my Comic-Con correspondent Luke Y Thompson to attend today's unveiling by J.J. Abrams of 25 minutes of Star Trek XI footage. (New trailer here.) Here are his thoughts on whether the stale franchise can be freshened to add to Paramount's bottom line. SPOILER ALERT. SPOILER ALERT. SPOILER ALERT. SPOILER ALERT:
I have, like many fans, been very skeptical about the idea of this new TREK. It's one thing to do a straight up remake, like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, where you take the basic idea and character names, then do your own thing -- but to do that and then claim that it's actually still within existing continuity, by having Leonard Nimoy appear as a time-traveling elder Spock, just made me wonder, why? STAR TREK's future chronology is so convoluted and mapped out already that anything you do is bound to contradict something pre-established, and if there are any fans in the world who absolutely defined the concept of the nit-picking continuity geek, it's Trekkers.
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. Though he did say that when he started the project he didn't care much for Kirk and Spock as characters, but now he does -- that worried me, because Sam Raimi said the same about Venom, the villain he completely ruined in SPIDER-MAN 3.
Abrams came out to introduce four clips -- the same clips that I gather have been shown in England and New York already, but he said it was special for him to do it on the Paramount lot, as his dad, who used to work there, had taken him to the first studio screening of Robert Wise's original movie.
Abrams, on casting Chris Pine: "To play a character like Kirk, he couldn't fall back on the pointy ears like the other guy!" Abrams' speaking manner reminds me of Woody Allen, which isn't what I expected.
Please note -- these clips contained significant spoilers, and I'm not holding back.
SCENE 1: Our first glimpse of Kirk as a young man
A vast Iowa cornfield, the same one Kirk is driving through in the trailer on his motorbike, but at night. There's a bar, and we follow Uhura (Zoe Saldana) into it, as she orders drinks -- a "Cardassian Sunrise (geek alert -- the Cardassians never appeared till the Next Generation), a Budweiser Classic, and a Slusho (Abrams in-joke -- the fictional Japanese drink featured in CLOVERFIELD). There's an alien at the bar with a really long face, looking like a cross between a human and baboon.Then there's Kirk, one of the few civilians in a bar full of Starfleet cadets. He hits on Uhura, upon hearing that she's a linguist he says "You've got a talented tongue." Her fellow cadets get defensive, and start a fight; Kirk gets pushed into Uhura in such a way that his hands hit her chest just right. She kicks him hard, and he starts to get whupped until Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) shows up and sends his cadets out.
Cut to later in the evening. The bar's empty, and it's just Kirk and Pike. Kirk ahs a bloody nose; Pike is trying to get him to join Starfleet. Says "Your dad didn't believe in no-win scenarios." Tells Kirk he could be an officer in four years, captain in 8. "Your father was captain of a ship for 12 minutes -- Saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours. I dare you to do better."
Cut to the next day. Kirk drives his motorbike to the shipyard where Enterprise is being built, and approaches Pike's shuttle.
Worker on the lot goes "Nice ride, man!" Kirk tosses him the keys. "It's yours." Walks up into Pike's shuttle, tells him he'll be a captain in three years.
SCENE 2: An emergency space lightning storm is occurring on Vulcan. All cadets are assigned to rescue ships except Kirk, but there's a technicality -- a cadet who is sick can come onboard a ship if his assigned doctor is on its crew. So Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) has injected Kirk with a mild virus to get him on the Enterprise.
On the bridge of the Enterprise, which is a lot whiter and more digital-display heavy than any prior iteration, we meet ensign Chekov (Anton Yelchin). I'm a bit nervous about this portrayal, because he does the Russian accent so broadly -- and also because he doesn't have Chekov's trademark Davy Jones wig, which in the original series was supposed to make him appeal to girls. Instead, he has curly hair, that might be inspired by the young Justin Timberlake, I suppose. Anyway, we get a joke at the expense of his accent, when he has trouble saying "Victor" so the computer doesn't recognize his voice code.
Meanwhile, Kirk is having an allergic reaction to McCoy's vaccine, making his hands swell up like a Garbage Pail Kid. When he hears that the emergency is a lightning storm he runs to the bridge -- it seems that when he was a kid, a similar storm masked a Romulan attack that killed his father (this jibes with what we've heard that the plot involves Romulans time-traveling to kill young Kirk).
Kirk makes it to the bridge, and Uhura backs him up, but Spock and Pike are skeptical. Still, Uhura speaks "all three dialects" of Romulan, so she's assigned to communications. There's no response from ships near Vulcan, so they warp over there and land in the middle of a big debris field of smashed ships.
Now, everyone's been saying Zachary Quinto is the perfect Spock, but I remain a little skeptical -- his voice is too high, for one thing, and his sideburns look fake. Kirk, however, is the challenging role, and Pine really brings it. It's not like Kirk is just some character any actor can play -- his mannerisms and character are defined by those of William Shatner in real life. And while Pine, in what we saw, doesn't go quite to the level of sudden hand gestures and dramatic pauses, he gets the headstrong essence of the original captain.
SCENE 3: Abrams tells us that at a certain point, Spock becomes captain, and his first order of business is "get Kirk the fuck off his ship." Kirk is left on a snowy planet, where he encounters Future Spock (Leonard Nimoy).
We see them led into a Federation outpost by a gnome-like critter that looks like a cross between an Ugnaught and one of the fish-dudes in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Kirk and Old Spock enter and are greeted by Scotty (Simon Pegg, nailing it way better than I thought he would), who has been there for 6 months, punishment for testing out his transporter theories on "Admiral Archer's dog." Yes, Scott Bakula's cute beagle from ENTERPRISE…so what happened to him? "I'll let you know when it reappears," Scotty says.
Spock show shim what he's been doing wrong with his theories -- a nod to the fourth movie, where Scotty did the same for another inventor. Then he tells Kirk how to take command of Enterprise, via "regulation 619." If an officer is emotionally compromised, he can be removed. Spock says he is compromised, and Kirk must get him to show it, but must not mention he talked to future Spock.
Kirk: "Changing history -- it's cheating."
Spock: "A trick I learned from an old friend."Then he does that hand gesture. "Live long and prosper."
SCENE 4: The Romulan ship is a giant, spiny, tentacled Matrixy looking thing, running a power line all the way down from space into the Vulcan atmosphere, where it culminates in an air platform that shoots down a beam of fire, drilling into the planet core.
Enterprise's transporters are disabled, so a small team must do a parachute jump from the upper atmosphere, in space suits. The team are Kirk, Sulu (John Cho), and "Engineer Olson," who's wearing red. I suspect even the casual fans know what that means as far as his imminent fate goes.
Onboard the shuttle to the upper atmosphere, Kirk asks Sulu what kind of combat training he has.
"Fencing" replies Sulu.
They make the jump. As expected, Olson opens his chute too late and meets a nasty death. Kirk lands on the platform first, and pushes a button that sucks his chute back up into his backpack. He is then accosted by Romulans, who aren't exactly the classic or Next Gen kind. These Romulans are burly, bald, have facial tattoos, dress dirtily, and their leader Nero (Eric Bana) also has scarification bumps. Kirk brawls with a Romulan whose gun emits stray far, shooting holes in the chute of the still-falling Sulu. When Sulu finally lands, he draws a sword, and goes into swashbuckling mode, which is less cheesy than it may sound. He saves Kirk by stabbing Kirk's assailant through the heart, and I hope that somewhere, George Takei is happy that Sulu finally got to save the day for the captain he never liked much.
Without explosive charges (Olson had them), Kirk and Sulu simply grab the Romulan guns and start shooting the platform to bits. But the damage is done; the drill already got to the center, and the Romulans drop a depth charge that will create a black hole inside the planet and destroy it. Meanwhile, Sulu falls off the platform, and Kirk pulls a Keanu-in-POINT-BREAK move, jumping off in freefall. He grabs Sulu, but then the chute doesn't open.
Up on the bridge, Spock prepares to evacuate Vulcan and save his parents. Meanwhile, nobody can get a transporter lock on Kirk and Sulu, because they're moving too fast. Except Chekov, who has a radical new theory of some sort. He runs to the transporter room, takes control, and right as Kirk and Sulu are about to hit ground and die, they beam into the transporter room and hit the floor. The action pacing of this sequence was excellent.
That was it for the clips, but I should add that in the lobby, there were a few production designs, and I caught a glimpse of the classic Klingon cruiser…
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. (By Luke Y Thompson)
As a longtime Trek fan with the credentials to prove it, I can honestly say after reading this I am even less interested in seeing this movie than ever, and I wasn’t interested especially after they announced placing JJ at the helm of this. Other Trek fans I spoke with also voiced the same opinion, especially after seeing the trailer. Hardcore SF fans laughed at the sight of the Enterprise being built on Earth. as it was clear just from that alone that neither science or logic figured much in putting this story together. If there was one thing that separated the Trek fan from the Star Wars fan, it was this: Trek fans preferred the pseudo-scientific basis of the whole premise to the outright fantasy of Lucas’ galaxy far, far away. Classic Trek also preferred Roddenberry’s approach to Trek when he decided to go ahead with STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. They’d rather see something new in the playground than a reinterpretation. The online geek community already considers Pine not even fit to step in Shatner’s shoes, so why go there?
Better Paramount said to JJ or anyone else that they develop a totally new version of Trek, to boldly go where no one has gone before. But this is Hollywood, and we certainly can’t have any of that, now can we?
Comment by filmlover24/7 — November 19, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
I’m a little concerned about “Star Trek.” If it has any appeal to a mainstream audience and a good chance of doing well, there should be at least 100 messages of 15-20 lines of block text bashing the film, noting probable continuity errors, providing second by second analysis and accompanying harsh criticism of the trailer, etc.
Come on, Trekkies. Provide the warm contrarian fuzzies that the Daniel Craig critics do for his Bond films. No one is going to expect much gross from “Star Trek” if you don’t complain about it more.
Comment by Harold — November 19, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
I’m a “longtime Trek fan too” and I have to say that the online Trekkers are the biggest bunch of prissy whiners in the known universe. These wussies would hate the best imaginable reboot if it didn’t perfectly fit the canonical timeline. They’ll hate the plot, they’ll hate the casting, hell, they’ll even hate the sets.
It is at least partly due to their never-ending carping that there is currently no Star Trek series on television and if they have anything to do with it they will kill this movie. I will see it. I will enjoy it. They will whine and carp. It is meant to be entertainment, not a Bible concordance.
Comment by SurferDoc — November 19, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Long time Trek fan here, and I welcome this movie with open arms. It’s got just the right amount of new blood to make Trek relevant again. Sorry Trekkers, but Star Trek is a DEAD franchise, and this is the perfect way to bring it back to life. Abrams has always said he is NOT making a movie for Trekkers, but for EVERYONE. It looks like he has succeeded. This movie looks like its going to be outstanding. I cannot wait.
Comment by Juan — November 19, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Give it a chance. Can’t be any worse than the last two Trek films.
Comment by helenofpeel — November 19, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Regardless of the eventual quality of this film I’ll be there on opening weekend with the rest of my geek brethern.
But in saying that, I’ll eat my hat if this turns out to be an ‘Iron Man sized’ summer hit for Paramount.
I can’t help but feel that as soon as people see more of this film (ie Nimoy as Spock)they are going to be turned off as they realise that this is still (for better or worse) Trek. .
At the end of the day, despite all Abrams’ well crafted trailers and viral marketing tricks I can’t help but feel this film will do no better or worse than Cloverfield did at the US box office.
As much as I’d like to see it hit big and start a trend of sci-fi space epics from the studios I’m very skeptical.
But, as ever, we shall see.
Comment by Warner Borg — November 20, 2008 @ 2:53 am
It’s just another action flick. Exactly what I expect from JJA. The original STAR TREK was always about human interest: mystery, diplomacy, humor, courage, curiosity, friendship, romance, philosophy, leadership, wonder. It’s no wonder Abrams was never a fan. — CEC-Q
Comment by Chas C-Q — November 20, 2008 @ 5:55 am
As a Trek fan for decades, but a fan of great drama even longer, I’m thrilled someone like JJ Abrams is re-launching “Star Trek.”
He and his team understand its about characters (just look at LOST, one of the best TV shows ever.)
Every interview, clip, trailer, story I hear about this movie makes me even more jazzed to see it.
Sit back and enjoy it!
Comment by Paul M — November 20, 2008 @ 6:47 am
Really looking forward to this movie — probably more so that J.J. doing it than the fact that it’s Trek.
But one thing I don’t get: if you’re going to wink and nod about all kinds of events that come after the events in this film why not be consistent and call the drink an Andorian Sunrise and make the villain some new species?
There, I’ve said my peace. Still looking forward to it and I hope J.J. does broaden the audience for the franchise.
[/geek]
Comment by Steve — November 20, 2008 @ 8:02 am
The negative comments from Trekkers remind me of the negative chatter the Bond fanatics were throwing out…
Just before “Casino Royale” opened.
This film will probably open huge and finally free the Star Trek series from the Vulcan Death Grip of the rabid fans and make it a public-popular phenomenon once more.
Comment by anotherwgamember — November 20, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Jeeze, these early comments harken back to the SPIDERMAN and IRON MAN debacles … as someone said above, this was a DEAD franchise anyway, so give it a chance. I wish Shatner was back, but its not my vision.
My Dad worked for Decca Records, which had the original TRANSFORMED MAN album … and, I got to meet Shatner and have been a fan ever since … but, its not my vision. Maybe he’ll be in the next one!
Abrams is an original… yes, LOST is one of the best TV-ever … and, I’m taking another look at Zoe Saldana! Actually, i think Chris Pine is terrific and does remind me of JTK.
Let’s not kill it even before it opens in May.
C’mon … I don’t want to have send back my Geek-membership. And, Nikki … your column is Geek-inspired! Give it up!
Comment by daviddavid — November 20, 2008 @ 10:33 am
They can go crazy attempting to mollify the obsessive fan base, which can never be mollified anyway, or they can make their costs back. It’s simple.
Comment by TomF — November 20, 2008 @ 11:03 am
To those saying STAR TREK is a dead franchise yet look forward to a reinterpretation of Kirk and Spock just don’t get it. Real Trek fans are happy with the Kirk and Spock we’ve had, but we’d rather see something new from Roddenberry’s playground. That means cutting edge and fresh, not revisiting the past. All the above comments do is make me wonder if Paramount flacks are here defending JJ’s latest misfire.
Comment by filmlover24/7 — November 20, 2008 @ 11:18 am
With regards to Daniel Craig, how about all those hits he starred in that raked in the dough, eh? Boy, looking at all the promotional material for QUANTUM OF SOLACE, you’d be hard pressed looking at the billboards, posters or news ads to see if anyone other than 007 was starring in the film. Go ask the general public if they can even name even one actor in that film. Let’s see when it comes time to renew the contract if the producers don’t dump him ala Pierce and go for another nameless nobody. (The star is James Bond, don’t you know?)
Comment by filmlover24/7 — November 20, 2008 @ 11:26 am
If the film director isn’t much of a Trek fan to start with, why is he casting based on whether the actors have much in common with Shatner or Nimoy?
Does anyone cast Hamlet based on whether an actor looks like the actor who played Hamlet at the Globe?
Even if the writer and director want to throw out the original show bible and give the characters an entirely new history, fine.
I don’t care whether the Kirk in the new film grew up in Iowa and has a brother named Sam. I want to see the filmmakers know how to wrap the pain and terror of living 5 seconds from Armageddon in a sheath of low-key good humor.
Comment by A spouse — November 20, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Hey, I watched Star Trek when it was on *NBC* originally, OK?
I went to the NYC Star Trek Cons back in the 1970s.
Loved TNG once it really got going. Hated DS9 after its first half season. Hated Voyager. Hated Enterprise.
I’ve read the spoilers above. I’ve seen the second trailer.
Hardcores can go apeshit over the warping of continuity.
But guess what? This is a creation of human beings. To dot every i and cross every t would equal crap. (Which is basically what everything after TNG was!)
I see it as a reboot of the series, but less so than BSG. It at least gives a *nod back* to everything else, instead of wiping it all away.
I won’t be there opening weekend, because I don’t do that shit any more. But I like what I’ve seen and what I’ve read here and I’ll go see it. It sounds great.
Comment by Mike Cane — November 20, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Oh, and let me add one more thing.
Nikki doesn’t do geek. But she included this.
THANK YOU, Nikki!
Keep up the splendid work.
Comment by Mike Cane — November 20, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Anton Yelchin’s Russian accent is too broad? The kid was born in the Soviet Union. He’s knows Russian. His accent is probably dead on. Plus, he is a younger version of Chekov so it would make sense that he would lose some of his accent over time, having to speak Federation Standard (i.e.: English) for years as a Starfleet cadet and officer.
I am a fan of Trek, but not blindly so. The most of the last few films were horrible and not worth seeing - even for free. I like that they updated the bridge. If they could have made this new bridge back on the original series, they would have. The Trek franchise was dead and J.J. Abrams has resurrected it. All I know is this is the first time in about a decade that I am excited to see a new trek film.
Comment by BCT — November 20, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
I think the comments about how Star Trek is a dead franchise say it best. Star Trek is dead. And not just in the sense that Bond was dead when Advertise Another Day hit theatres. I mean it is dead in the sense that one could fling cat feces at a negative, calling that Star Trek, and nobody outside of an ever-diminishing group of hardcore viewers would care.
Star Trek is dead in the same sense that Doctor Who is dead. For too long, an uncaring, profiteering directive group was in charge. Fleecing the fans as hard as they could until finally the returns were too small, people like Rick Berman and John Nathan Turner have accomplished the impossible and killed science fiction franchises that adherents thought would never die.
This makes people like Abrams effectively carrion picking the pieces off the corpse. And the more I hear about this time-warp-not-remake Star Trek, the more I am reminded of feeding off a rotting corpse. The whole reason Casino Royale succeeded in relaunching the Bond franchise was not because it brought back a known character that was regarded by audiences, but rather because they dispensed with the constant shag-jokes and childish conventions, and did the kind of Bond film that they should have done right from day one. Sure, they may have alienated a few Roger Moore fans in the process, but who honestly cares what they think, anyway. It was a reboot in the sense that Bond was going back to what he was at the beginning, and shedding everything people came to expect of him.
Which is where the problem in this Star Trek “is it a reboot or a time travel schtick?” episode lies. All throughout the description of the seen footage, there is a very real sense that J.J. Abrams is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The entirety of Star Trek, the real Star Trek, depended upon the interaction between Bill Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley. Their constant micro-debates gave a real sense of military versus science versus general sentient interest that was missing from the updates and spin-offs. Especially the last two films. The Trek we have seen since then has been about White Hats versus Black Hats in space.
Do I expect Abrams to be able to put a clever twist on events, such as V’ger actually being one of our satellites come back to fulfil its mission, or Khan’s justifiable anger at being left on what became a dead planet without so much as a visit for a progress report? No. And therein lies the problem. The only reason Star Trek even continued beyond the 1980s was because an outsider director named Nicholas Meyer changed the conventions, keeping what worked, discarding what did not, and adding a few that gave the story more flavour. Is Abrams even going to dare to give us things like Humans who do not feel the Federation are the good guys? Or Vulcans who feel this whole alliance with the Humans is a waste of time? I doubt it.
Comment by Dean — November 21, 2008 @ 4:34 am
Star Trek is inherently cultish. What JJ Abrams is doing is pissing all over continuity as well as the ideals of Star Trek. Kirk and Spock did NOT know each as kids, WTF is this Space Kids, Kirk and Spock are professional officers who met in Starfleet and became friends. Remember the new thunderbirds? Oh and Simon Pegg has a nerve bangin’ on about maintaining the purity of Zombie films whilst he himself appears in this film… AS Scotty, so how much of a fanboy can he be? Star Trek belongs to the fans and NOT hollywood.
More tolerable for me -
Matt Damon as Kirk
Adrien Brody as Spock
Gary Sinise as McCoy (Truly Inspired)
Paul McGillion as Scotty
Just stop milking it for money, I’d be content if they just left it alone for ever.
Comment by Anon — November 21, 2008 @ 5:06 am
I’ve liked most of what I’ve heard about the movie up to now - but Chekov is already an ensign when Kirk is a cadet? Not only does that not make sense to me, I don’t see the point of it. Why have Chekov there at all if he has to make this convoluted twist to do it?
Comment by T.U.M. — November 21, 2008 @ 6:01 am
Venom was not ruined in the film. enom was pre-ruined. Venom is one of the stupidest and lamest characters ever created, which explains, i suppose why fanboys love him.
Venom is what i call a “Swiss Army Villain” - he can do *anything*, so writers can plug him into almost any story idea and use him as a deus ex machina to get them out of any holes they’ve written themselves into.
Comment by fairportfan — November 21, 2008 @ 6:01 am
I can accept that this can’t be the old show or the old films. Fine.
But this Kirk isn’t the Kirk I know and love. It’s that simple. Never mind that this isn’t the Star Trek vision of tomorrow. It’s generic. If Abrams wanted to make a film about a future that much like the present only with starships, he didn’t need to call it Star Trek. if he wanted to make a film about a tough young punk who needs to grow up, he didn’t need to name him Kirk.
But he did, and that tells me he just doesn’t get Kirk. Or what hardcore fans liked about Kirk. Kirk was a cowboy, yes. He was also serious about Starfleet and about making the galaxy a better place. He was like that his whole life. That’s part of the appeal of the character. And to leave that out and go for just another action hero makes no sense to me.
Yes, there have been reboots. But Batman, if anything, was closer to the original idea in the new films. And James Bond was restored to what he was in the earliest films and in the books. There is nothing in these descriptions that makes me think that we will see anyone close to the Jim Kirk of the old show.
All that said, there is also the problem of turning a TV show in a movie. Trek on TV had action but it was also cerebral and sometimes relied on avoiding the fight. Movies, especially blockbusters, can’t do that. Even Star Trek II, which I love with a passion, really wasn’t the TV show. So at some level, I don’t expect this movie to be what the TV shows were at their best. But it’s clear that Trek is now going to be a franchise instead a smart, occasionally challenging vision of what we could be in 250 years time. Which is kind of sad.
Comment by Simon DelMonte — November 21, 2008 @ 6:20 am
I tend to agree with Chas C-Q:
“It’s just another action flick. Exactly what I expect from JJA. The original STAR TREK was always about human interest: mystery, diplomacy, humor, courage, curiosity, friendship, romance, philosophy, leadership, wonder. It’s no wonder Abrams was never a fan.”
The danger with any re-interpretation of the source material is that the original integrity of the piece could be lost. I’m treating this a re-boot since, while it obviously gives nods to Trek’s history, it is its own beast. Lets hope that there is a movement towards more ‘Trek’ type stories in the inevitable sequel/s.
Comment by Marcusg — November 21, 2008 @ 6:32 am
Any Trek is good Trek
So I took what I could get,
Yes I took what I could get
And J.J. looked at me with those big brown eyes and said,
“You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
If the movie wasn’t being made some people would complain that a movie wasn’t being made. We have, what? A 1000 hours of Trek already and some whiners are gonna complain about this 2 hour movie?
Bring it on. Sequels. An Enterprise movie!
Comment by Richard Bachman — November 21, 2008 @ 7:48 am
All Fanboy gayness.
Star Trek has been in need of a reboot since the Next Generation took over the Movies. All, thats right, all of the Next Gen movies were god aweful. That includes the laughable first contact.
I welcome the change and hope it is good.
Remember, that is what a reboot is!!! Screw continuity.
Comment by Wile E Coyote — November 21, 2008 @ 8:00 am
And the people who are complaining the loudest will be the ones first in line for tickets…
Comment by BenPanced — November 21, 2008 @ 10:41 am
I just found a teaser trailer showing the construction of the Enterprise while historical space travel voiceovers play in the background. That trailer may be a little too reverent, but it’s fine. The sound design is especially good.
If the teaser trailer turns out to be a lot better than the finished film: why not give whoever made the teaser trailer a shot at producing Star Trek XII?
Comment by A spouse — November 21, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Hmm based on most of these comments it seems this Star Trek film is sure to prove at least one thing: Star Trek doesn’t need its whiny fans to survive. I love Star Trek, always have, but jeezy creezy, people! Do you realize how silly you sound when you say things like “all the SF fans are laughing at the idea of the Enterprise being built on Earth”? It’s ludicrous.
I want them to get it somewhere close to continuity, but frankly, I don’t care that much when we met Cardassians or where the Enterprise was built. These things are ret-conned every five years anyway. As long as they get the spirit and the universe right, I’m on board. Plus, it looks like fun.
Comment by Pat — November 21, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Like many of you, I’m a fan from way back. Watched TOS on NBC, etc. Loved TNG, didn’t like DS9 or VOY that much. I really enjoyed Enterprise.
I’ve seen the trailer, heard the blurbs about continuity, etc. Look - it’s a movie, intended to be fun and - not coincidentally! - make money. I’m not going to blast Abrams for “messing up” Star Trek. Let’s see what it is, if it’s worth it.
BTW - I frankly don’t think Nemesis sucked that much; again, a rowdy action flick - I liked it. Finally, my wife & I are HUGE ‘Lost’ fans - Abrams can’t be ALL bad!
Comment by ST-fan — November 21, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
I am old enough to have seen a few of the original series episodes and everything else trek since. I am a huge fan but not a fanatic like alot of the whiners who have already posted comments. This is a movie not Moses delivering the 10 commandments from God..though by some of the comments you’d certainly think it was. It reminds me of the SNL skit WS did almost 30 years ago lampooning all those ‘geek’ fans. Unless all you people who are whining about this are 12 years old then I suggest you act your age. Instead of the endless complaining, be happy there is something new in the Trek world to look forward to. Everything gets done again eventually. It is one reason why Shakespear, Sherlock Holmes, and Dracula are so popular. Everyone’s take is a little different but no less relevant than the first interpretation. Whew…lol. I feel alot better now…beam me up Scotty!
Comment by AWO — November 21, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
I have been a Trek fan just as much as I have been a Star Wars fan and a James Bond fan…
Star Trek has been in a DIRE need of a re-boot for quite some time. I loved TNG and loved the first 2 films of that era, “Generations” and “First Contact.” after that they lost me. Last 2 films were lousy and boring and that is being nice.
Going back and looking at this a whole different way is just what is needed. The writers themselves claim to be huge Trek fans and that is enough for me! The trailer looks fantastic and the so called fanboys can sit and sulk and delve into their DVD collections for all I care. I am looking forward to a GREAT Star Trek movie… first time in a long time I might add!
Comment by JohnfromFlorida — November 21, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
“I love Star Trek, always have, but jeezy creezy, people! Do you realize how silly you sound when you say things like “all the SF fans are laughing at the idea of the Enterprise being built on Earth”? It’s ludicrous.”
Sad to say, but when I first saw the welder in the teaser and realized he was working on the Enterprise my first thought was “Where’s his spacesuit?” Then I thought that, perhaps, they’re using force fields to keep a bubble of air around the ship, because obviously they HAVE to be building the thing in space. Then I realized that, no, it’s being built on Earth, and I could not stop laughing. Hey, and while we’re at it, why not build the International Space Station on the ground and use the power of transcendental meditation to raise it up into orbit.
And as for “Who cares about someone ordering a drink made by people we haven’t met yet?”, does that mean you wouldn’t brick in your pants if a movie about Napoleon showed him ordering his chef to whip up some burritos and taco salad, washed down with a Mai Tai or two?
Comment by SamLowry — November 21, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Dang, almost forgot about James Bond. As for Casino Royale…the one without Woody Allen…didn’t anyone else notice that Bond was a young guy, just starting out–James Bond Year One, more or less–thus explaining why he was such a dim athletic hothead who still had yet to realize that his actions have consequences? In other words, the James Bond we have seen in all the other movies was a MIDDLE-AGED guy who had learned from the mistakes being made by this agent who frequently proves that young and stupid go together like bangers and mash.
So say what you like about Casino Royale, but it isn’t a reboot or a reinterpretation or a hashish dream, it’s the same guy but merely younger….
…although…
The M we see in the movie is the same M who was the last Bond’s boss. When you combine that with the remarkably prescient observation in the first Casino Royale that “There must always be a James Bond,” perhaps this young Craig Bond is the replacement for the aging Brosnan Bond who may have retired, or was killed in the line of duty.
Hmm.
Comment by SamLowry — November 21, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
When I saw the teaser trailer I wasn’t excited. Now, I am. I have my favorites from Original Trek, but really, not all of those episodes were pure gold. The first of the films almost killed hopes of future films and then ST2: Wrath of Khan brought new life to the trek civilization…I enjoyed NextGen, DS9, Voyager, and sometines Enterprise. I can’t say I’m the type of fan that knows every episode name, but I do love Trek and been to several Cons. Sometimes, one must just have “suspension of disbelief” in order to watch a film. I didn’t see Cloverfield, so am a bit apprehensive about what JJ Abrams has done to to Trek. That said, I do plan to see this one even with the major tweaks to the Kirk and Spock stories. The non-Trek theatre goer won’t notice those tweaks and it may make this more fun for them. For the rest of us Trekkers, the whining needs to stop. The one NextGen film that did well appealed to non-Trekkers. Then there was Nemesis, the dark film. I liked it because I like “dark”. It didn’t have broad appeal and that was the end of the films until this new one. It’s time to let new actors play the characters from the Original Series so I hope this film launches this franchise again. Third star to the right, and straight on ’til morning….
Comment by Mombot — November 22, 2008 @ 3:51 am
Luke pointed out the thing about driving the car. It caught me as being out of place at first too since that scene in the episode “Piece of the Action” is one of the funniest and iconic in the original series. But after watching the trailer again, I think it just goes to prove that Kirk never learned to drive a stick shift. He either sends them off a cliff or shreds the tranny.
I grew up with the original series, but I always keep my mind open with these reimagined remakes. I was never a real Doctor Who fan until the relaunch. Now, David Tennant announcing that he was leaving Who soured Obama winning the White House for me since both things happened in the same week.
Trekkers and trekkies need to take a breath and enjoy this new film for what it is, another chance for Trek to live after Berman killed it.
Comment by Actor B — November 22, 2008 @ 5:51 am
I’m a fan who is more than willing to let a lot of the nit-picky stuff go and understand that a prequel presents many challenges for writers and directors. However …
I can’t forgive anyone who ignores the big gaffs and I need a story that basically makes sense. This isn’t a complete reboot and having a ‘future’ Spock come back supports that, so why have the Romulans involved when they never appeared before the orginal series? Why IS Chekov an ensign before Kirk is even a cadet? I’ll tell you why …
Because people like JJA love to get their hands on the toybox and pull out bits here and there because it interests them. But that doesn’t mean you’re going to get a good story and it takes fans out of the moment and less able to enjoy the film.
You say you want to weave an exciting adventure while taking advantage of the Trek universe’s rich history? If so, then you’re obligated to work within that history (within reason). Go ahead and reboot it … start all over if you want … I’ll be happy with that. But once you say it’s a prequel and bring back ‘future’ characters then you’ve set the bar high and lazy writing isn’t acceptable!
I mean … take the first few seconds of the trailer. The kid says he’s James SIBERIUS Kirk … Siberius!?! JJA cares so little that he either doesn’t care if the writer and actor got it wrong or his people have been so careless that it slipped through. That’s like calling Bruce Wayne … Bryce Wayne. Of course it doesn’t make any difference to the story but it irritates like a thumbtack on your theatre chair for the rest of the movie.
This project screams of failure and unfortunately this is going to kill off another Trek attempt for at least a decade (much like Doctor Who).
Remember JJA was the guy who wanted to reboot the Superman franchise and keep Krypton from blowing up so he could have a three-picture epic about a Krypton Civil War. He’s just a kid wanting to pick through the toybox and it sucks for the rest of us.
Comment by G. Solomon — November 22, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Whining? I don’t hear any whining. I hear something far worse.
Laughter.
We are laughing at the know-nothingness of this production, at the gross superficiality of a director who thinks that if you have a Kirk, a Spock, and an Enterprise then you’ve got the bases covered and everything else you can pull out of your ass. It’s like showing Lincoln riding a Harley to Gettysburg decked out in a bomber jacket and Wayfarers. Sure, it’s a cool image, but people will laugh their asses off nonetheless.
Comment by SamLowry — November 22, 2008 @ 10:01 am
I like Star Trek but I’m not a Trekke.
I enjoyed the original movies most of all, before TNG took over. Seeing the new trailer, has sparked my interest in star trek again and I hope that it will be a great movie.
I believe that stories have to be restarted or they will fade away, new generations will move on to stories that have a more current theme and style. If you want Star Trek to live on, you have to let and be open minded to a reworking of the old story.
Having said that you have to have the right man for the job, and thats not the actors, its the writers and director that have to have a want to do it right, a want to make a Star Trek movie. Like the new Bond movies, it just doesn’t feel like Bond, a great action movie just not a Bond movie, you have to leave the movie and know you watched a Star Trek movie not a SF movie and JJA dose not give me the idea he wants to make a Star Trek movie, he wants to make a movie that happens to be Star Trek.
I hope next year I will see a Star Trek movie and not a movie that happen in space.
Comment by Andrew — November 23, 2008 @ 1:10 am
i was never a star trek fan but i never had a problem with it. i used to watch the original on tv but i was never crazy about it. seems like the 2nd and 3rd movies were pretty good and everything else sucked. when the tv show progressed from kirk and spock the next dudes, it was dead to me.
about jj. everyone goes on and on about lost. there is nothing about that show that is remotely interesting enough to make me want to watch it. i watched the beginning of the 2nd episode to the first commercial and was too bored to keep going. a little while later i think i saw about half an episode at someone else place and left ’cause they wouldn’t turn it off.
didn’t they already make a show about a bunch of people stranded on a desert island - oh yeah, i was called gilligans island.
and then there’s cloverfield. i could tell from the trailer that it would suck and never saw it. everyone i’ve ever heard talk about it says it sucked.
jj did direct MI3 which was the only good MI of the lot.
the trailer for the new star trek looks bad ass. i’m glad it’s dissing all the geeks. it looks like it will the best serving of trek ever. i will see it the first weekend.
and now onto Bond. daniel craig kicks ass as JB. but the new casino royale sucked. half the movie was an f-ing card game. and was i the only one who noticed that after bond made the deal with the american CIA dude to buy back in for him that would turn over the bad guy, that the bad guy, who was just handed over to the CIA by bond, appeared in the next scene torturing bond. impossible.
and just for everyone who believes all the stupid critics out there, quantum of solace is probably the best bond ever. it totally rocks. and it’s got a nice homage to goldfinger.
when you’re dealing with something that’s been around since the 50’s or half a century, a reinventing is exactly what’s needed.
and hey, i heard they’re planning a bond vs the crew of star trek where they realize they have to team up just to survive the siege from spidey iron man and the hulk who have all learned how to fly through space using the force.
and as far as batman goes, i’d just be happy for someone to come along and make a bat man flick based on the old tv show. now that would be great. POW!
Comment by bj — November 23, 2008 @ 1:46 am
being a big fan of sci-fi and a casual fan of ST (i’ll get the dvd’s if they’re cheap)i really don’t see the point of all this bickering i hear. i dont know why people are complaining about it having action, the original show had tonnes of it! my only real reservation is J.J. i thought Alias was great, so was Lost for the 1st season, then it slipped into mediocrity (though it piched up in season 4, and i felt that Cloverfield thought it was better than it actually was. MI3 was crap. what i find funny is that all these ppl blasting it will no doubt be the first ones queing weeks in advance.
Comment by spanish-arch — November 23, 2008 @ 6:55 am
Ok, well, while you’re at home “laughing your ass off”, I will be at the theatre enjoying what looks like a thoroughly worthy addition to the Star Trek universe.
I have been a casual Trek fan through the years with an emphasis on TOS. When TNG first came out in the late 80’s, I was severely disappointed, but it got better in the later seasons. I despised DS9 because there was nothing to anchor to in the storyline. Voyager got lost in the Tech-speak, and Enterprise didn’t get interesting until they started tying in with TOS (right before it, too, got canceled). The best movies were ST2: TWOK and ST8: FC, by far. Then the rest of the TNG movies were an embarrasment because of the fanboy pandering (Data singing about scanning for lifeforms).
I think it’s definitely time for some new blood in the franchise after the absolutely poor job Berman did in his post-Roddenberry stewardship. The choice of Abrams is inspired as he is an outsider coming in to reform the broken franchise. In addition, he brings with him Michael Giacchino, who is possibly the best young composer in film music right now (potentially an heir-apparent to the likes of John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith). This will be GREAT!
On another note, to the poster that said Abrams changed Kirk’s name - he didn’t. Go back and watch the trailer again. The kid says “James Tiberius Kirk”, he just has a slight speech impediment, but if you watch his lips and listen carefully, he does say “Tiberius”.
Time for Star Trek to grow up…
Comment by DougM — November 23, 2008 @ 9:19 am
For Christ’s sake…will you people stop referring to the “whiny, nit-picky” fans of ‘Star Trek’ as “Trekkers!” Those guys (the hard-core fanatics) are known as “Trekkies…” Big, big difference!!!
Trekkers (such as myself) simply enjoy the show for what it is…but Trekkies live, eat and breathe it! They’re the ones whom you see roaming the Comicons, dressed as Klingons and Borg…lol
Alrighty then.
Comment by James K. — November 23, 2008 @ 8:03 pm