Originally Posted By Mr X Trailers are OUT, looks pretty cool... <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/large_trailer.html" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/trailers/...ler.html</a> <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/large_trailer2.html" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/trailers/...er2.html</a>
Originally Posted By DAR The beginning of the second trailer looked a little to Michael Bayish to me, and I say that as a person who likes Michael Bay films(I will not apologize for my love of Bad Boys 2) but the rest of the trailer was pretty cool. It certainly looks good, I've read the budget is 150 million.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Beam me up, Mr. X!!! That second trailer looks AWESOME!! (Though, I always thought that the Enterprise was built in a drydock in Earth's orbit.) Still, very coooool. This might be just the shot in the arm that could relaunch the Star Trek franchise. Too bad the Star Trek Experience is gone from Vegas now. They could have had a great tie-in with the film!
Originally Posted By fkurucz For some reason I don't like the "welding" of the Enterprise, like it was a boat. I guess it just seems so low tech, so un 23rd century. You would think that by then there would be a better way to assemble a starship.
Originally Posted By ecdc I want this to be good. I really do. And the references to the original Star Trek bode well. But I don't trust J.J. Abrams any farther than I can throw him (and I'm out of shape). I'm not completely nitpicky; I can suspend belief for films. But Abrams takes this to a whole new level. He thinks he can shock me or throw twist after twist at me and I'll be so blown away that I won't care about the why's or how's behind it.
Originally Posted By avromark I read an article that a mall in LV wants to reopen the STE. I hope this is good. I'm a die hard Trek fan (Own ALL season sets from ALL series including Animated and ALL the movies) heh. BTW my office has a Star Trek TNG poster up along with a "Star Trek life" plaque.
Originally Posted By knightnfrees Yes, Neonopolis (Fremont Street Experience) wants it and wants to open up STE by the time the movie is released.
Originally Posted By avromark I wanna watch the movie right now? Wasn't it supposed to be out by now? Was it a marketing or technical delay?
Originally Posted By brotherdave Like Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Star Trek was supposedly delayed due to marketing reasons and the writer's strike. Not that the strike affected HP & Star Trek directly, but that neither Warner Bros nor Paramount had big summer movies available for 2009, thus the delay for these films.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I am looking forward to this one, but I am always a little nervous about Star Trek films (they always seem somewhat lacking). But ironically a film made by someone who is not a fan of the series makes me a little more nervous. But I definately cannot wait to see it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Still cannot believe they couldn't squeeze Shatner in there somewhere - seems kinda silly not to with the nod to the past. As much as I like the Star Trek universe - the movies never quite seem to get all the way there
Originally Posted By hightp Like Brotherdave said, I believe the Enterprise was manufactured in orbit, the ship was never designed for atmospheric flight (yes, I'm a geek). I don't know much about Chris Pine, but he didn't seem as 'William Shatner, Kirk-like', as Zachary Quinto was 'Leonard Nemoy, Spock-like'. I did enjoy the gratutious, Uhura undressing, scene, though.
Originally Posted By Mr X Okay, maybe it's just me, but when Scotty came on screen while I was watching again I suddenly thought.."Muppet Babies". *shudder*
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I guess I have this question to ask after seeing a trailer this A.M. I am trying to decide if I want sex scenes in my Sci-Fi ? I have absolutely no issues with sex scenes in movies - however in an established universe like Star Trek- do I want that changing dramatically ? I certainly don't want to sound prudish here- it's just that I really get into my Sci Fi- and the scene I saw this morning I think uses a different part of my brain- so to speak. Does that make any sense? I kept thinking- I love the Lord of the Rings Movies- into the mysticism / story line etc- if Aragorn was nailing Arwen would that have taken away from the movie- and I think the answer is yes. I think Dr WHo handled this well- left Dr Who to be more pure Sci Fi - little 'adult' content' -yet created Torchwood to take the Sci Fi to an adult level- same general world.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think the movie looks really good. Enough nods to the past to bring along fans of the original, yet definitely reimagining the franchise, along the lines of Batman Begins/Dark Knight.
Originally Posted By Ursula Husband showed me one of the trailers last night and that's just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong all over the place!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I think I know what Ursula means. And I'm far from a Trekkie. I'm all for re-imagining a franchise, but this seems a bit forced. Opening action sequence - check. Overuse of CGI graphics - check. Insane pacing and fast cuts - check. CGI monster that looks like the one from 'Cloverfield' 'War of the Worlds' and 'Starship Troopers' - check. The look and sound and pacing of the preview seem so out of the realm of what the 'Star Trek' franchise is about, that I wonder why it has to be Spock and Kirk and Scotty and the rest of them.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Ohhhhh... I was waiting for someone else to post this! I've been paying attention to this development for months! I CAN HARDLY WAIT! Just ashamed the original opening date of this December got pushed to next summer! For the record - It became Paramount's wishes to hold the film back to a "Summer 2009" opening, since the strike put a damper on Summer 2009 releases for Paramount. They want Star Trek to do big numbers to make up for the shortfall of films to be released for that time. So .. the movie is done. And the best we have now ... is the trailer.
Originally Posted By Ursula Well, I'll tell you. It suffers from Episodesonetwothreeitis. Meaning, the prequel parts don't match up with what we already know to be in the canon. The prequel to what we know to be true from the 1960's Star Trek should not look like it is newer. People shouldn't be acting like they are in a 2000's feature film. They should be acting as if they were in a film set prior to the 1960's TV series. James T. Kirk would not say his full name like that as a boy. He'd say "Jimmy" or even "Jimmy Kirk." What 12-year old says their full name like that when caught rebelling? Uhura would NEVER be shot taking off her top. Sure the character DID take off her top daily in the series, but NEVER would it be shown to the audience. Things are best left behind shussshed doors. And yes, exactly what Jim says about the overuse of CGI, they didn't have that back then, so guess what? Show me you are worthy of this, J.J. and get a little more creative. How about not using CGI at all and do it old school. Oh, wait, you're not that clever.
