New Star Trek Movie for '09 - Here's the 1st Trailer

[whippersnapper]

.....

know there are some fellow Trekkies in the community. (big BSG fan too. hope they make at least one feature after this final 5th season.)

a prequel - as in when Kirk and Spock where kids. man at the helm is J.J. Abrams of "Alias" and "Lost" fame. here i thought ST was
dead after "Enterprise" failed and was canceled. might be a winner and resurrect the franchise..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZCCsW9 ... 67129.aspx

.

[psychopompos]

its prolly another sexed up, hollywood rehash to make people go "ooh, pretty flashes".
still, looks far more interesting than other recent trek offerings.
it would be to much to hope a new trek would take any major stabs at current society the way OST did.
even bab 5 mocked the way religion is used & thoughtless morality.

found some epic sci-fi vs battles though
Battlestar Galactica Vs Star Wars Vs Star Trek Vs Babylon 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXnPG19npW8

Star Trek vs. Babylon 5 - The Final Fight ( Part I )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLk0hhWBhEE
Star Trek vs. Babylon 5 - The Final Fight ( Part II )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PucduOfLkvI

[fisk0]

I did love TOS and Deep Space Nine, I wouldn't call myself a trekkie since I though the majority of the episodes of most of the shows where pretty silly, but there were several really good exceptions (mostly in DS9 and late TNG). I don't have too high hopes for the new Star Trek movie, but I do love the visual style I've seen on the trailer and IMDb images so far - just look at the image over at imdb where you see the phaser turrets on the saucer section with wonderful details on the ship's paint and all - if nothing else it will certainly be pretty to look at, something the recent Stargate SG-1 movies didn't manage to achieve (ok, those were direct-to-DVD stuff, but still I had hope for effects at least comparable to BSG).
I too have an issue with the cast seeming a bit too young and sexed up, but not as much as some people seem to have over at imdb.
The Battlestar Galactica remake had a mostly rather young and 'sexy' cast (with lots of sexual references in just about every episode) and that ended up as being the best sci-fi show I've ever seen.

I doubt it will be as bad as Star Trek 4, 5 and Insurrection anyway, and this is a film I'm planning to see at the theatre.

[whippersnapper]

..

i try to keep an open mind inspite of the usual over-hyping and often disappointing end results. i go for story, character and acting over
CGI FX. The last 3 Lucas SWs movies had state of the art FX but otherwise sucked for me (i think the KOTOR game was better than the whole 2nd trilogy as a satisfying experience). i was definitely not a fan of the original BSG but it's current incarnation is for me one the finest Sci Fi ever brought to the screen and will be a high-water benchmark for years to come. there are episodes of STNG, DS9 & Voyager that still hold up as memorable dramatic art for me. i also have an enduring fondness for "Firefly-Serenity".. the new ST movie will be released right after the final BSG episode of the final season is broadcast and i'm hopeful that it will help me get over the hump of no more BSG to look forward to. talk about going cold turkey - not, i'm hoping.... Then again i'm also a big fan of fantasy and the new "Legend of the Seeker" has been very enjoyable so far.

.

[Tiberian]

i've always wondered how ST would look with flashy, new effects and uber 3D action.
but i always loved the original, simple incarnation.
perhaps this will turn out well, i'm not holding my breath, though...

[Chojun]

Heh thanks for the link to the ST vs B5 videos. They were really well done Most of the ST vs SW vs BSG vs B5 videos are campy, at best

I had no intention of seeing the new Star Trek movie until I found out it has JJ Abrams at the helm (I am a fan of LOST).

The problem that ST movies have had is a limited audience, mostly fans that are loyal to the series and genre. I never saw any of the movies (esp the TNG movies) as anything more than a really long episode (where the state-of-the-art Enterprise always gets messed up in 1 shot) as a treat for the fans. I don't really think any of the movies had the substance to draw out people who were unfamiliar with the show (I think Serenity is a great example of success in drawing an audience). I hope that Abrams is able to draw out a bigger audience, especially since ST is much more than space ships, aliens, and laser beams.

George Lucas I think has already shown us what it means to have style without substance. I really hope that Abrams can turn that trend around, especially for ST's sake because I am a fan (a far cry from a Trekkie though).

My boys and I like to watch Star Trek, and we're on DS9 S5 right now. I was looking forward to taking them to the new movie but after watching the trailer, I think they'll stay home. DS9 has a lot of subtle sex references but the kind of overt stuff I don't want my 10 and 7 year-olds to see Yes we all know that Kirk is hot for Uhura. Oh well

I would like to see a new series start up again. How long will we have to wait? Our parents had to wait a long time between TOS and TNG

[whippersnapper]

.

Yup.... J.J. Abrams is the ONLY reason I have any hope for the new ST movie.

back in 2004-05 when "Enterprise" had clearly failed and was then canceled... the franchise had gone through 18-year run of back-to-back new Star Trek shows beginning with Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1987. The 2 guys principally in charge as producers (and often directing the writing it self) Brannon Braga and Rick Berman said at the time of cancellation that they were going on hiatus for a few years to basically digest the failure and figure out how to revitalize the franchise. well what i think they came up with is J.J. Abrams. if the new movie is successful i predict that within a year there will be a new weekly show on the air, in syndication.

could be that JJ Abrams does for the cinema side of the ST franchise what Bioware did for the SW Game franchise with KOTOR..

.

[Chojun]

I watched TNG when it was in it's original syndication run but I never watched DS9 and Voyager when it ran, and that includes Enterprise, too.

I thought TNG had great character dynamics. However, being into S5 of DS9 I think the writers have done a great job on the show. So-far I'm equally impressed with it as I was with TNG.

I've heard that Voyager wasn't so good and that Enterprise was abysmal.

I guess I'll find out why when I get there, unless anyone else who has experienced it might care to elaborate why it was rated so badly.

[lav_coyote25]

because it wasnt like the original ... i thought it was an excellent prequel.

[fisk0]

I watched TNG when it was in it's original syndication run but I never watched DS9 and Voyager when it ran, and that includes Enterprise, too.

I thought TNG had great character dynamics. However, being into S5 of DS9 I think the writers have done a great job on the show. So-far I'm equally impressed with it as I was with TNG.

I've heard that Voyager wasn't so good and that Enterprise was abysmal.

I guess I'll find out why when I get there, unless anyone else who has experienced it might care to elaborate why it was rated so badly.

Voyager's weakest points where that while they had an pretty interesting premise there were too many 'stand alone' episodes which just didn't fit in, had no real meaning and didn't advance the plot, and except for the first a last season you really didn't get an impression of them trying to get back to Earth most of the time, things like that the writers didn't care about limitations you'd get in a ship that is alone in another galaxy didn't help either, there were lots of people who were introduced and killed off for a episode, and they had so many shuttle accidents that you'd have a hard time to believe that they couldd actually fit that amount of shuttles on the ship.

In my opinion Enterprise got really good after the first season (which was pretty weak). Yeah, the writers didn't care at all about federation history that had been established in TOS and TNG, Enterprise was supposed to take place more than 50 years (maybe even a 100, I don't remember) before the original series, but still the crew had access to technology that was beyond what you saw early on in TOS (and I don't mean the computers, which I think it is obvious that they would have to change given the evolution of computer technology since the 1960's). They had phasers, photon torpedoes and saw holodecks (which otherwise wwasn't introduced until TNG), even though star trek history stated that the human-romulan war that occured between TOS and Enterprise used lasers and standard nuclear weapons.
But there really wasn't much to complain about when it came to acting and such things, and it had less of the obvious filler episodes than most of the Star Trek shows (maybe except for DS9).

[whippersnapper]

.

i liked both Voyager & Enterprise. as much as i was into TNG i was initially resistant to the other shows, making comparisons and such. for me Voyager hit it's stride with the introduction of the 7of 9.character in the second season, after which i watched every episode till the series wrapped-up quite satisfyingly, for me any way. the 7 0f 9 character had been assimilated as a child into the Borg hive and many a story revolved around 7 of 9 incrementally regaining her humanity and thus what it means to be 'human' which i found endlessly fascinating. IMO, there were episodes as well written as the best of TNG. Having a female captain was also the source of much that i found interesting in the group dynamics. Second in command, Chackohtah, was of Native American ancestry and another fascinating character. Chief of engineering, female half human and half klingon was another fresh characterization. The whole crew were fresh characters, portrayed convincingly, and compelling in their individuality..

as for Enterprise it too came out of the gates slow but hit its stride in the second season. good ensemble cast, fine actors, interesting characterizations, good storytelling for the most part. were it went wrong, i believe, is in going too far back in time, to first contact with the Vulcans. i say that was a flawed premise for a series because you had some 40 years of back story that encompassed a universe of life forms, cultures, history, wars, tech, etc... that fans had in their heads and then with Enterprise because of its time frame you render all that richness irrelevant. you take an epic scope and shrink it to a mere fraction of what it was and expect the majority of the fan base to be over-joyed.... i'm just guessing on this last. myself, i enjoyed it for what it was, even with lowered expectations.

.

[whippersnapper]

.

Alas, it's out and it definitely lives-up to ALL the pre-release hype unlike most Sci-Fi budget blockbusters (the 2008 remake, "The Day
the Earth Stood Still" being an example of the opposite outcome - pure dreck.)

regards, whipper
.

[EvilGuru]

It is out indeed. Half of our floor (consisting of medics, physicists and chemists) went to see it last night.

Very well done, I thought. The acting was strong with an interesting -- if somewhat exaggerated -- plot to back it up. As with most of the feature films time travel is used quite extensively -- but it works.

I think the only downer was at the end -- while we were leaving -- a couple of the medics started saying "may the force be with you". Gotta love people mixing the two up.

Regards, Freddie.

P.S. And yes, the guy in red does die.