The eagerly anticipated new Star Trek film is set to enthrall some and enrage others with a young, spunky cast, vicious fights and sex scenes. A new trailer and new pics from the forthcoming film were released online earlier this week, further fuelling the excitement of Trekkies around the world ahead of the film's release on …
The odd movies suck and the even ones are usually decent.
The eye-candy looks good, but given the "Cloverfield" credentials (damn... that movie was piss poor in spite of the very limited monster effects) I doubt there will be a real story. I'll go see it for the effects/space battles, but I'll stick with the lower expectations on story.
Problems I seem to have from the trailer:
1. All the young people. It's fine for porn, but not on a military/science vessel.
2. Why would Kirk almost get himself killed driving a car off a cliff? I would think a stint in juvenile detention would dash his hopes of command later in life.
3. Why build a SPACESHIP on the ground. Is it that much easier to self launch the completed thing over the parts?
4. Sex with your staff. I thought Kirk was smart enough to have sex only with non-crew members.
5. Too many story lines seem to be present (there's only so much 'teen' angst you want to see in a movie... before getting to the bad guy).
Why not just make a two hour movie of space battles without any people being shown. Just a nice, CGI budgeted eye-candy fest of some famous Star Trek battle(s). Does the Trek franchise feel the need to pull a George Lucas!
The original series was a little hokey at times (with some questionable acting) but overall, it didn't rely on special effects to carry it through.
As a casual fan of Star Trek...
...and a film fan in general, I think this looks fantastic. A big budget, special effects galore, Simon Pegg ( :D ) and coolness in abundance. What is there not to like? If you want to wank over plot lines and historical accuracy, go and watch your TNG DVDs.
I for one shall definitely be off to see this when it comes out.
it looks like the remake of thunderbirds..........
actually not nuff said......this is going to be fucking awfull. ive already had to labotimise myself to forget the new star wars's, i really hope i dont have to do it again....
It is all so overdone. The original STAR TREK series really said and did it all, although the sets were a little cheesie. Let it stand for what it was and die a dignified death. This is like looking through your own vomit to see what you had for dinner last and if any of it is salvageable SICK! Give it up! Boldly go where no man has gone before Good luck!
New Uhura not like the old.
The new Uhura's breasts are not nearly as large as Nichelle Nichols.
As a Trekkie
I was a bit disappointed to hear it was a prequel film originally, but this trailer has changed my mind.
Looks visually interesting, might stimulate a new series being created too.
Could the ravine not be the trench left by the big laser thing from the start of S2 of Enterprise?
For me, Trek is about what humanity can do if it sets aside its prejudice, bickering and greed-inducing monetary system, and then layered on that how human interactions change/remain in this new epoch.
I'll be happy with ships exploding realistically. A reworking of TOS with more TNG seriousness would bea good thing, not to mention modern effects. None of this "what is this Earth thing you call "kissing"" crap.
As for Cloverfield.. you barely get to see the only good character in it (the monster); The online hype-generating content was completely removed from the content of the film and the film itself barely touched upon the monster's.. anything. Near invulnerability, some parasites. No real motive for destruction rampage. Not very fulfilling. A follow on about the world living with monster attacks and survivors fighting back would be very welcomed.
hmmm silar plays leonard nimoy... dammit, spock... and everyone moans that they expect him to point his finger at people and instead of performing a vulcan mind probe he decides to laser their skull off and inhale their brains... whilst for me it was the other way around... watching heroes season one (episode 22 - landslide) and sweet little Hero, after breaking his sword, goes to find a sword repair shop (well - this is america, of course there is one nearby) and lo - isn't that dood in the back room a tad familiar - and all I could giggle was... 'beam me up'.
Bound to be rubbish
Anything that involves that over rated under talented egomanic JJ Abrams is bound to be utter crap...
If you want someone to arse a perfectly good story get this clown involved...
This twat is more interested in how clever he can make himself look and what a bunch of brain dead pimple faced sheeple thinks is cool - as opposed to what actually is...
re Star date: 6311.22
That scene had me thinking about something else but in a similar vein.
*IF* the world is so sophisticated by then (400+ years) how would a "brat" who stole a car ever make it to a captain of a stair ship? I am just thinking about the endless testing that you would have to go through just to get into the Star Fleet Academy. The record of stealing a car would be impossible to hide and would disqualify anyone to get into any service by then. To me that alone makes this film more gibberish than anything else.
I see the moaning minnies are out in force, complaining about things even before they see it. I used to run an ST fanclub. When TNG came out the original series' fans in the club panned it for not being Kirk & Spock. When DS9 came out the other series' fans panned it because it was a spacestation and so couldn't "boldly go anywhere". When Voyager came out it was panned for having a politically correct crew list (qua ethnicity). Enterprise was rounded upon for not being Kirk & Spock. Sigh.
I for one like the look of the trailer. I'm especially happy with Quinto who at least passes for looking like a young Nimoy and who seems to be happily running with the original interpretation of Spock (emotional - see the pilot).
Given that ST preaches tolerance for the most part, I'm always amazed that ST fans are so intolerant.
It may well turn out to suffer from the "odd-number" curse - that said Nemesis was desperately disappointing - but at least don't condemn it out of hand before you've seen it.
For a while I was slightly curious why this movie was the first in Trek history not to have an additional title, like 'The Wrath of Khan' or 'The Search for Spock' or 'The Voyage Home'. But I needn't have worried. Judging from this trailer it's 'Star Trek XI: Hooray For Boobies'!
Some real Heroes fans here then
You even see it in writing several times, it being the make of his watch.
James T was the only person in Starfleet academy to win the "no-win" scenario. He reprogrammed the computer. Does that ball of teenage angst look like the guy who pulled off that stunt?
And Spock would have calmed down a lot before joining a crew, he served under Cpt Pike before James T took over.
Also, after they qualified, they would not be given a ship and sent on their merry way. They would have been ensigned to other vessels and would have been learning there.
Its too teenage, but I will watch it regardless
Gene Roddenbery is spinning in his grave
Gene Roddenbery must be spinning in his grave. I have had trouble believing just how soon after his death that Rick Berman allowed Gene's vision to be so utterly betrayed, first with crap like Nemesis and then with this piece of awful box-office begging.
I truly resent Rick for what he has done. He may be god-awful, but at least J J Abrams has the excuse of not having seen Star Trek before starting to direct its films.
Burn Rick, Burn!
How the hell is Kirk a starship CAPTAIN at his apparent age? He looks younger than Wesley Crusher! Uhura is barely legal and Spock clearly hasn't started shaving yet.
Will give this a wide miss. Still got 40 hours of TNG on the Sky+ so no need to get out to see this.
F-ing GRAVITAS, bitches.
Re: New Uhura.
That comment reminds me of when "Enterprise" first aired. Once the first episode finished, I got a text from a mate saying:
"Great stuff. Nice silicones on the Vulcan"
My response, which got his phone a Stella Artois respray, was:
"Those aren't silicone. They're some advanced type of alien tit-enhancement technology that the Vulcans don't think we're ready for yet."
"Could the ravine not be the trench left by the big laser thing from the start of S2 of Enterprise?"
Ooh! Cunning!! I like your thinking...
Lost in space
"Lost" was (IMHO) crap. A load of make-it-up-as-you-go bollocks designed to string viewers along with a load of "mysteries" that even the writers didn't know the answers to. Cloverfield was a 10 minute short stretched well beyond credibility.
Given those two examples of JJ Abrams talent, I don't hold out any great hope of this Trek film satisfying either Trekkers *or* anyone who appreciates a good story. About the only people who will go for this are the suckers who were taken in by Lost.
As to Simon Pegg's Scottish Accent; well, James Doohan couldn't do a decent Scottish accent, either, so as long as Pegg's duff accent matches Doohan's then at least *one* thing will be 'authentic' to the original.
Can't really judge it from the trailer
I guess I will go and watch it and be disappointed. Like every Star Trek film.
Every Star Trek film apart from FIRST CONTACT! Assimilate this! AHAHAHAHA
Re: Big ravine thing
"Could the ravine not be the trench left by the big laser thing from the start of S2 of Enterprise?"
No, that was in Florida and points south.
[ http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Expanse_(episode) ]
So my question is just this: why is JJ Abrams still walking around alive?
I mean, I don't expect hardcore Lost fans to do anything about the four years of their lives they've wasted on that asshole's disjointed opium-and-crystal-meth fantasies; the fact that they've stuck with the show that long proves they're totally sad and can't be expected to act in their own best interests.
But what about the rest of us? You know, the people with taste? The people who won't allow any random self-enthralled Hollywood jerkoff to squirt his acrid asparagus-tasting load onto our tonsils, just for the privilege of pretending to be part of some big secret that would give our lives meaning if only it wasn't all made up in the dubiously competent brain of a rich twenty-something coke fiend while he was getting a blowjob from a $1000-an-hour call girl. Look at what our inaction has wrought! How did we ever let it come to this?
I'm sure I won't pass up seeing it, but I doubt I'll bother seeing it in the theatre. Shame to destroy a centuries-old Corvette--there can't be all that many of them left in the future. Sounds like Kirk would be paying that off for a long time. In the series, starships never landed, so as so many others have mentioned, why would they ever be built on the ground?
And a rollicking adventure is nice, but it's a shame that they've apparently replaced some of the philosophy and elegance of the series with 'shoot em' up' action. But that's the trend, isn't it? It seems that all video games these days are either shooters or driving games. Nothing new and creative there, and doubtful anything creative about the new Trek movie. Maybe at least it will turn some of the current generation on to the original two series', where they may go "Wow, it has a plot, I've heard about plots before but never seen one" All in all, an episode of Atlantis is probably better than this movie will be. (and they're ending this series, which pisses me off!)
I'm sure you could power a warp drive if you could harness the energy of Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave...
"And for a moment we forget that Simon Pegg couldn't even do an authentic American accent in Band of Brothers"
To be fair that goes for 2/3rds of the (predominantly British) cast of BoB - inc. Damian Lewis, who I see has managed to swing a major part in some new yankeee drama show I can't be arsed to recall the name of...!
Not a canyon, a quarry. Check out the sign on the gate as he bursts through it (youtube version won't clarify - try apple.com/trailers for HD).
Besides, just cos Kirk is from Iowa, doesn't mean that's where he was at the time.
What a load of bullseye (delete EYE insert HIT)
That kid definately says Siberius!
Well I think it looks awesome.
Every generation has it's own take on Shakespeare so why not Star Trek? The only niggles I have are that it's supposedly a time travel story (i.e. an utter cop-out) designed to shoe-horn Nimoy in,) and young Kirk destroying a Corvette. The rest of it looks like great fun.
As Tim Bisley once said...
"Sure as day follows night. Sure as eggs is eggs. Sure as every odd numbered Star Trek film is shit"
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but like many others, I'm reminded of Cloverfield.
It's a film by JJ Abrams
Why would anyone expect it to be anything other than awful?
Re: As Tim Bisley once said...
I don't get all the Cloverfield hate. I thought it was excellent. Couldn't give a shit for Lost though.
"I don't get all the Cloverfield hate"
I guess it's a question of taste, but I thought it was frankly crap, between whatsername blowing up for no reason, the fact that the monster itself was never even *slightly* explained -- I mean, okay, something goes unexpectedly smashing through New York -- no great loss there, by the way -- then I suppose I can see how, at least for a couple hours, things would be totally confused and everybody would basically just be running for their lives and not stopping to figure out anything. I can see that being realistic but that isn't the same as saying it'd make a movie I want to watch -- I mean, okay, verite and that, but let's try to explain *something* so I can feel like I haven't wasted my time on a bunch of painfully disjointed action sequences that not only don't make sense, but will *never* make sense, because the director didn't bother to provide enough information about anything to even *begin* to be useful.
And why is it necessary for every single movie that comes out of Hollywood any more to be peopled with these inhumanly perfect physical specimens? I mean, when was the last time you saw a movie where somebody had a mole, or, or a pimple -- *any* kind of facial eruption or asymmetry at all -- that *didn't* have an entire subplot revolving around it? Cloverfield loses points there too -- you don't go through a frantic escape, refugee pickup, friend-exploding bit, followed by more incomprehensible nonsense, and *still* have perfect hair. Unless, of course, you're in a completely crap movie.
Now, I don't want to sound like I'm just entirely out to run the movie down. True, I can demonstrate that Abrams has never in his miserable, misbegotten life ever even *worked on* anything that was better than "marginally watchable", with half a point's grace awarded in the case of "Regarding Henry", which frankly has to have been a fluke and was a long time ago besides. But I have to say that there are some good things about "Cloverfield", to wit: for one thing, it's a lot quicker to watch than "Lost", and the payoff seems to be about the same; they both seem to be about equally incomprehensible, and neither seems to have any characters at all who're even vaguely approaching the neighborhood of 'sympathetic', but at least it takes a lot less time to get through a feature-length movie than through four increasingly self-indulgent, reentrant, and frankly appalling seasons of what even those Wachowski assholes might recognize as a masturbatorily piss-poor attempt to take a brain-dead pile of limp story-spaghetti and tart it up with the cheap marinara sauce of a hard-core pothead's excuse for philosophy -- it's, like, totally deep, man, you just don't understand, you know?
There was probably another good thing I was going to say about Cloverfield, but I can't remember what it was.
Oh yeah! He somehow managed to leave out most all the stoner philosophy in that one -- no mystic mandalas or Yin-Yang symbols or trigrams or what-have-you, just good old...well, incomprehensible garbage, I guess. But at least it didn't drag into itself a bunch of innocently bystanding symbols which might actually at one time have *had* some kind of real significance, before being sucked dry by our modern reality with its rapacious appetite for anything and everything which might for one ephemeral instant afford it the illusion of meaning. And, of course, one of the chief leaders and standard bearers of this vampiric hologram in which we live is Hollywood, here effigied in the person of JJ Abrams, who has finally, after a long and effortful career working his way up to the top of Hollywood, managed to shit all over something that people other than Abrams and his drooling-moron fans care about -- the trailer linked into the article is sufficient evidence, I think, of that.
And that's why I don't like Cloverfield.
Re: "Well I think it looks awesome."
"Every generation has it's own take on Shakespeare"
...yeah, and those are pretty much all crap too, especially Baz Luhrmann's. Your point?
Obvious joke time
The previous captain was called Pike?
(I know, just couldn't resist)
Deep Space Nine the Movie
That's what we all want - make it an 18 - and let's have some Bjoran on Trill action.
Taking Trek in a different direction.
Ok, I am a big Trekkie, I have ALL of the DVDs and even had a uniform when a was younger. Been to the Star Trek Experience (RIP) in Vegas twice (I'm from the UK). I think you get the picture.
But I am looking forward to this film and hope it does not try to mirror the Star Treks before it. Enterprise was quite good, but as someone said earlier it sometimes fell over when it tried to fit into the jigsaw of holes that the other series' has made.
I really wouldn't mind a complete re-boot of Star Trek, using the same concepts but not stuck too ridged to the other story lines. And you do have to use your imagination... the design and effects used in the 1960s came from the 1960s, they look really out of date today "Toggle switches on Enterprise contol panels... what happened to touch screen". Thats why the technology seems to run in reverse!
I also understand that JJ Abrams is trying to recruit (forgive the phrase) the next generation of Star Trek fans. So this film has to apeal to a greater audience. Enterprise was cancelled because it wasn't very popular even amongst Trekkies. Hopefully JJ will generate enough interest in Star Trek as a whole and keep Star Trek going for another 50 years.
Who knows whether the next series will be based on the original crew (like this film) or will be set after Voyager. But it will be a lot of fun when it comes!
I have seen some of the New Voyages stuff and I must admit I was surprised how good it was coming from fans with too much time on their hands. Of Gods and Men was brilliant. Although the guy who plays Kirk in New Voyages is really annoying. Get rid of him (and the corny lines that they recycle from the TOS) then it will be worthy is Star Trek cannon imho.
I also wouldn't mind seeing a darker side to Star Trek. A horror film perhaps set in the Trek universe but will a real scary story and a few deaths (a-la Event Horizon). They have never really done that on Trek (although First Contact could be scary).
- BENDY iPhone 6, you say? Pah, warp claims are bent out of shape: Consumer Reports
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
- Shellshock: 'Larger scale attack' on its way, warn securo-bods