Originally Posted By oc_dean >>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.<< I think the theory they want us to think is: It became necessary to build it with Earth's gravity. Building it in outerspace (without gravity) would have been more difficult.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Still cannot believe they couldn't squeeze Shatner in there somewhere - seems kinda silly not to with the nod to the past.<< He was killed off in the Star Trek: Generations film. Any way of imposing him into the film would mean to go back into the past. (Before running in with The Nexus). But Shatner (since the Generations film in 1993 is quite the chunky one now!) Make-up could make him look younger ... but no make-up or CGI special effect can deal with Shatners' fat face! I think he's too comfortable with his big girth .. and would not trim down for a cameo in the film! Just my take on it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>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 think I take the cake though ..... Once it's built ... how is this ship supposed to get itself into outerspace?! Get a few "tugboats" like the practice used in ocean ships? And these "futuristic" tugboats lift it straight up .. out of the atmosphere? I can't wait to see what they do. Unless there's some hidden thrusters that are part of the ship's design. Should be entertaining to see what happens. Yes .... I'm a certified Star Trek geek! And if you think that's geeky .. here's one thing I'm concerned with: Is Paramount going to follow the original timelines used in the "Star Trek" world? The ship is launched in 2245. The time of the "5 year mission" begins around 2266. Kirk can't be any older or younger than his mid to late teens to be witnessing the Enterprise in construction. Which would place him about 38-40 years old by the time of regular missions (Seen in the 60s tv show). So .. I just hope they are following the original time-lines Roddenberry put in place.
Originally Posted By avromark Well I'm willing to overlook some of the flaws just for my Trek injection. If it takes a few liberties to bring Trek back (hopefully not just this one movie) so be it. Trek isn't Classic Disney, I can live with some distortion. But when it comes to some Disney remakes I just ignore the newer version (Ie. Freaky Friday)
Originally Posted By friendofdd Since the advent of string theory, all discrepancies can easily be exolained parallel universes in action.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<I think the theory they want us to think is: It became necessary to build it with Earth's gravity. Building it in outerspace (without gravity) would have been more difficult.>> Yet Archer's "Model T" Enterpise was assembled in orbit.
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^ Yeah .. that's a good one! Hopefully the movie will reveal a legitimate reason for building on an Iowan open field! My theory? They are having built on ground ... so the Iowan native James Kirk witnesses it's construction .. and thus .. he's driven to a life to command the ship someday. Short version of my theory: For "dramatic" film reasons.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Okay .. now this is funny: If you've watched the trailer several times .. and I mean at least 5 times. You know it very well .. and you've made some "observations" about it. Okay? When the human or robot cop asks the young boy his name - And young Kirk gives out his entire name including the middle ......... ........ isn't there another child of another particular film that doesn't just state his name .. but does it in a somewhat annoying style????? Think for a minute! The similarities are UNCANNY !!!! Watch the trailer again if you have to. And then watch this: BUT READ THIS FIRST - The joke is only funny if you know this new Star Trek trailer pretty good now. Otherwise you won't "GET" the inside joke. Here you go ........... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfv4hBXPzSM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...4hBXPzSM</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean Actually ... I thought this was more than funny ... I thought it was actually HYSTERICAL!!! I'M STILL LAUGHING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By BrnardM Ursula, in post # 20 echoed how I felt when I first saw the new trailer. There was so much squeaky clean flash and bang it kinda looked like a Buck Rodgers modernization. Then I started thinking of the older films and something occurred to me. While there is a lot of nostalgic love, the series of films is rather hit and miss. In fact, the last film was really poor and it brings to mind what warner brothers did with Batman following Batman & Robin. For the new Star Trek they’re clearly going with a bold new direction (more action oriented if the trailer is accurate). This is even more jarring because we’re revisiting characters that we haven’t seen in 18 years, whereas Bond and Batman had a shorter gap between their reintroductions. The conventions of the series are far behind and the newld Enterprise crew exists in the future proposed by Gene Roddenberry, but with the sensibility of 2008. I honestly don’t think JJ’s movie ought to be considered canon and those who try to include it will be frustrated (because I bet JJ doesn’t). So I am looking forward to a fresh take on this beloved series. I admit at times I do miss Q, but both reboots of other major series so far have been positive. The real question is how the new actors will fit into the skins of the crew we are so fond of. If they can accomplish that, I would guess that the series is made. And props for a story that finally features Romulans (Nemesis doesn’t count)!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm not getting your specific reference, oc_dean, but when I saw that scene of the kid being chased by the police, it reminded me of Jim in 'Treasure Planet' running from the police in that movie.
Originally Posted By Tiggirl I'm super excited to see this movie! I think the trailers look great. However while I enjoyed the original series and The Next Generation I am no where near being a Trekkie so maybe thats why this new "re-imagining" doesn't bother me. The problems that Ursula mentioned with the Star Wars prequals REALLY bugged me but these... not so much. It must be because I am more of a casual "fan". And "Syler" as Spock.... Amazing!!! ~Beth
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I'm not getting your specific reference<< In that god-awful acting of that little kid in Star Wars: Phantom Menace ... He tells Padme his name in one of his many annoying tones he has throughout the movie. When young Kirk says his entire name .. I immediately thought of that scene in Phantom Menace. So .. I was rolling when someone (seemingly) picked up on the similarity of the two ... and imposed the Star Wars montage over the sound and dialog from the Star Trek trailer. Even larger than that tid bit .... When you listen to the voice over in the trailer .... those same words applied to the life of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. They even got some of the other sounds down pat ... like the monster growl by imposing a different monster from "Episode II". Funny stuff!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Since the advent of string theory, all discrepancies can easily be explained parallel universes in action.*** Spoken like a true visionary (or SciFi geek..take your pic lol). Nice one, DD.
Originally Posted By beamerdog In all my years of geeky Star Trek watching, I never envisioned young Kirk as a blonde!
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Kirk can't be any older or younger than his mid to late teens to be witnessing the Enterprise in construction. Which would place him about 38-40 years old by the time of regular missions (Seen in the 60s tv show).<< This brings us to a continuity error. Kirks stated in "The Deadly Years" in the middle of the second season that he was 34 years old at the time.
