New Star Trek Movie In 2009..

[Hurin]

Ironic or hypocritical? All things Georgish are grand but don't you dare touch my classic Trek?

Honestly, I don't see why people get so out of joint about this particular case of a reboot, since all the classic stuff is still around. There's a case to be made against Lucas, I suppose, considering that he won't make the classic versions available, but that's not the case with Trek. Are people lamenting that there won't be anything more added to the Trek continuity they've loved so far? Do they think a reboot somehow invalidates everything that already happened? To me, that would be like saying "woe is me, now I can never watch From Russia With Love again, because it's not part of the new continuity so it never happened!" I mean it's all fiction... none of it ever happened.

Perhaps I need to be more fanatical...

A reboot also has the quality (for those who can hold in their heads multiple iterations of the same property) that it need not affect your appreciation of the original in any way. Unlike, say. . . making some prequels that seem almost perversely intended to undo a lot of what many liked about the originals and fundamentally alter how we now view them. The obvious example among many: Once you see Vader in the prequels, it's hard to see him or appreciate him the same way in the originals. And the change is generally not thought to be a good one (thanks to terrible casting and worse writing).

Whereas here. . . no matter what they do to Kirk. . . it's not going to affect my thinking Shatner is a bad-ass in the original series. Nor will it make me think of Picard as less of a Commie wuss (certain bad-ass moments aside).

[bsu legato]

The trailer was attached to my viewing of QoS. Guess some theaters didn't get their copy in time? No Watchmen though.

When a trailer is "attached" to any given film, that often means that its physically printed onto the first reel of film, as opposed to other trailers that are just seperate reels that get spliced on. Which means that somebody may have physically removed it from the reel....for whatever purpose. So IF that's what happened...well I'm not going to get upset over Trek anyway, but that's still one of those "Why the hell would you do something like that" moments. This isn't the first time this has happened. There's been numerous times that Movie XYZ was to have a trailer on Movie ABC, only for that trailer to be missing in action, Canada wide no less. So it could be a distribution thing...or a theater chain thing.

But as I said...it's Trek. Instead of complaining, or seeking out some guilty party, I'll just watch it at home tonight while dinner cooks.

[UN Spacy]

HD trailer is delicious in 1080p.

[Uxi]

Ironically, it's some of the most ardent supporters of every little detail that Lucas went back and did to his franchise that are now calling the concept of a Trek reboot "rubbish."

Apparently they prefer that beloved intellectual properties be horribly mangled the old-fashioned way.

I much prefer what Star Trek is doing. In fact, Star Wars could use a reboot as well. But that will probably have to wait until Lucas goes the way of Rodenberry.* And of course, in my perfect world, it wouldn't be a full reboot. They'd just start up again after Empire.

It's not ironic, it's a little something called consistency, though I can't expect those of you with the traumatic raped childhoods to know better. Trek has always consistently mangled and continuity was never it's strong suit, unlike Lucasfilm which always enforced it's orthodoxy to its canon on it's authors, though they've always held a certain point of view clause. Of course, your ilk have always had their head in the sand and Empire turned out the way it was DESPITE the efforts of Lucas. You can thank the unlikely coalition of Marsha, Kasdan, Kirchner. Lucas wanted Empire as campy as New Hope and Phantom Menace... he just had to make some compromises to get that done. He doesn't have to make compromises anymore and hasn't for some time.

Best source on this was the "Secret History of Star Wars" but it's author apparently is trying to publish it or some such as it doesn't appear to be available to download anymore.

Your perfect world will fortunately never exist, however. Meanwhile Lucas will always be laughing his way to the bank.

Anyhoo, remains to be seen if this is indeed a reboot or not. If it's typical Trek, everything will be undone at the end and everything will be the way it was. Or not. Trek had already done this storyline supposedly (I think in Voyager?)...

[Uxi]

HD trailer is delicious in 1080p.

Yeah, I downloaded that, too. Better persective on the iBridge. What are those microphone / lava lamp looking things? They're red on the ship with Kirk and Sylar... but clear on the one with the corporate guy from iRobot in command. Maybe that's the red alert indicator?

[lord_breetai]

Ironic or hypocritical? All things Georgish are grand but don't you dare touch my classic Trek?

Honestly, I don't see why people get so out of joint about this particular case of a reboot, since all the classic stuff is still around. There's a case to be made against Lucas, I suppose, considering that he won't make the classic versions available, but that's not the case with Trek. Are people lamenting that there won't be anything more added to the Trek continuity they've loved so far? Do they think a reboot somehow invalidates everything that already happened? To me, that would be like saying "woe is me, now I can never watch From Russia With Love again, because it's not part of the new continuity so it never happened!" I mean it's all fiction... none of it ever happened.

Perhaps I need to be more fanatical...

Actually Lucas did put the original theatrical versions of the movies (even sans "episode IV" title on the first one) as extras on a more recent DVD set so they are available.

On the other hand, is there a an undedited DVD version of TOS? or just the version with the redone CG special effects and crap? I don't care much one way or another.

And I guess people like living universes... *shrugs*

Edited November 18, 2008 by lord_breetai

[Hurin]

It's not ironic, it's a little something called consistency, though I can't expect those of you with the traumatic raped childhoods to know better.

So, just to clarify. . .

Star Trek starting over and changing things without rendering all prior stuff moot = rubbish.

Star Wars going back to the prequel era and intentionally changing things retroactively within the continuity = good.

If that's consistency, you have a funny definition of the word. And to be honest, I'm not sure you understood the point since the rest of your post doesn't really address it. It's not about how consistent they've been in adhering to their own canon. It's about how inconsistent you are in judging them when they diverge from it or alter it. Now that Star Trek is rebooting and changing things in a more fan-friendly way than Star Wars did, it's "rubbish" to you. But just about any time anyone has used a word even approximating "rubbish" to describe the prequels and how they mangle the original films retroactively (much messier than a "reboot"), you appear in a puff of smoke to explain how it's all really wonderful and then immediately begin castigating anyone who dares to differentiate or discriminate between the wildly fluctuating quality level of those movies as being part of the "raped childhood" brigade.

Of course, your ilk have always had their head in the sand and Empire turned out the way it was DESPITE the efforts of Lucas. You can thank the unlikely coalition of Marsha, Kasdan, Kirchner. Lucas wanted Empire as campy as New Hope and Phantom Menace... he just had to make some compromises to get that done. He doesn't have to make compromises anymore and hasn't for some time.

You say this as though it's news. But it's nice to see that even you are now acknowledging that the movies got crappier as they went along as Lucas became less restrained. Welcome to reality!

Best source on this was the "Secret History of Star Wars" but it's author apparently is trying to publish it or some such as it doesn't appear to be available to download anymore.

I'll just take a moment to point out that you're still reading stuff like that after all these years (when you're not writing essays about midichlorians). Meanwhile, your only real "argument" always seems to boil down to stating that others are mal-adjusted uber-obsessed fanboys that are constantly screaming that Lucas raped their childhood.

Your perfect world will fortunately never exist, however. Meanwhile Lucas will always be laughing his way to the bank.

Uh. Okay. Lucas is rich. We know. Geez, could you try to fit a consistent point in between this stuff please? Otherwise, you're just saying "head in the sand. . . raped childhoods. . . Lucas is rich!". . . and I've heard it all before. Meanwhile, keep calling reboots "rubbish". . . Lucas's mangling wonderful. . . and then pat yourself on the back for imaginary "consistency."

I'll give you the last word so as not to derail this thread any further. I'll look forward to reading and then ignoring more of your taunts and arrogant dismissals of any varying point of view. Even as you seem to be gradually (it's taking long enough!) beginning to agree with them.

[taksraven]

Yeah, I downloaded that, too. Better persective on the iBridge. What are those microphone / lava lamp looking things? They're red on the ship with Kirk and Sylar... but clear on the one with the corporate guy from iRobot in command. Maybe that's the red alert indicator?

BEST RD JOKE EVER!!!

Rimmer: Kryten, go to red alert.

Kryten: Are you sure sir? It does mean....changing the bulb.

Taksraven

[bsu legato]

Just noticed that Kirk holds his phaser in a modified isosceles stance, in direct violation of established phaser-use canon. You do NOT use two hands to hold a phaser, Mr Abrams! Worst movie evar.

And EXO was right...Spock's ears are too small.

[taksraven]

Appropriate title for this movie.

Star Trek: Our last chance before the franchise is canned forever.......

Anybody else want to suggest an appropriate subtitle for this film.

Taksraven

Edited November 18, 2008 by taksraven

[Scream Man]

Thats not what the ladies say!

[lord_breetai]

okay, watched the trailer... I'm impressed by how un-star trek it is. Even though I LOST faith in JJ Abrams after the fourth or so season of Alias.

[electric indigo]

I wonder if the iBridge will also have the analog Trek wiring, i.e. when a part of the ship gets damaged in a fight, the appropiate console on the bridge blows up in the operators face.

[Mercurial Morpheus]

The trailer was supposed to be attached to Quantum of Solace (along with Watchmen), but instead all we got treated to was a bunch of garbage. Angels and Demons?! Frak that. And now the trailer is online on Apple's site, but I don't have Quicktime installed here at the office.

Yeah, I got that Angel dreck instead too.

I'm still on the fence with this. On one hand, it looks about right. They kept the movie look, which is forgivable, as at least the Enterprise still looks like the Enterprise. Though the bridge is just meh. Not sure about the casting. At least Kirk for the time being looks off the most. Though I knew the hardest will be accepting the new actors from the get go. Really in all depends on if they hold true to the vision of Star Trek. Their devotion to the look certain key facts (like Pike), and Nimoy's involvement give me hopes on this. Though my sister is naturally appalled. It still feels sort of prequelish from the little info I have.

I agree with Hurin on the reboot vs prequel thing. While still a tough pill to swallow, I have more hope for this than Enterprise. I fell out that show really quickly, yet must be forced to acknowledge it everytime something claims the NCC-1701 is the second starship to bear the name. At least as a reboot, one can ignore it as canon. It's alsdo sort of preferable to the CG makeover they pulled.

My HDD's too full to grab the trailer at the moment, though I did like the clips I caught on ET.

Okay, having seen it, I'm liking it. Though it seems the early pics are misleading on the Enterprise. It seems like a mix of the movie version with some of the one they did as concept for Ships of the Line. The nacelles are a bit too big for my liking, but at least it's still more 1701-A than NX-01.

I can't say I'm worried about Abrams, as I've seen none of his work anyway.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Mercurial Morpheus

[glane21]

Am I mistaken or in the trailer were they building the Enterprise out in a friggin field somewhere? I would think any vessel of that size and shape would have to be built in orbit due to laws of aerodynamics and gravity and all that crap.

[Mercurial Morpheus]

Yeah, it's rather odd, isn't it. Though in a world with warp drive, do aerodynamics truly matter?

Oh, and the above comments were before seeing the clear shot posted a few pages back. Having gotten a good look at her, I can't say I like her much. While I agree with David H that the little things are all the same, it's what I do like. I like that they kept it in the TOS look, and didn't get all Enterprise-like. It's a lot less angular than most new interpretations, and I like that as it keeps it simple in style with Jefferies. I don't think the refit saucer sticks out too much (I'll admit that the refit 1701 and A are my favorites period). Everything else makes sure of that. I'm still not liking the nacelles, but my main problem now is definitely the rear of the engineering hull. I just don't like how thin it gets and how the pylons connect. It does make the neck look too far back. In fact, it draws attention to the neck. The proportions are just bad... Like the secondary hull is too small. I sort of like the fan version better, even if it's a bit too close and more jaggy.

I'm hoping it's an unflattering angle. She looked pretty good in the trailer. She looks great from the front and the rear, but the profile shot just doesn't feel right (maybe I liked it in the trailer as the key part I dislike is obscured). I like the smooth details, the deflector section, saucer and even most of the neck. So pretty much the front. If the secondary hull didn't thin for half the length, she might be okay. I wonder how the shuttle bay fared.

Maybe something like this. Not perfect either, but somewhat better.

Still, at least it's not all angular and metallic.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Mercurial Morpheus

[lechuck]

Why is everybody calling this movie a reboot all of a sudden? Abrams has never officially stated this. I think he has said numerous times that he wanted to go back to the start of things and explore how the original crew came to be - meaning we are still dealing with the same continuity and not a new one.

If it really was a reboot then why bother retro refitting/designing things from the sixties. They could have just done complete new interpretations of things, for e.g. a completely new and different Enterprise, an iBridge without gauges and knobs or uniforms that are not based on designs from 40+ years ago.

[eugimon]

Why is everybody calling this movie a reboot all of a sudden? Abrams has never officially stated this. I think he has said numerous times that he wanted to go back to the start of things and explore how the original crew came to be - meaning we are still dealing with the same continuity and not a new one.

If it really was a reboot then why bother retro refitting/designing things from the sixties. They could have just done complete new interpretations of things, for e.g. a completely new and different Enterprise, an iBridge without gauges and knobs or uniforms that are not based on designs from 40+ years ago.

Q: What made you touch Star Trek?

JJ: I think it was the opportunity to tell a story that was based on a world and characters that I felt were just compelling and optimistic and the opportunity to treat that universe with a kind of energy and excitement and the resources we had. It didn’t feel like a classic reboot or prequel. It is a brand new thing inspired by characters that are poised to make a big comeback.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/11/abrams-sta...oot-or-prequel/

"inspired by" hardly sounds like "same continuity"

[lechuck]

We are probably not going to budge on are viewpoints but that Q&A excerpt neither denies nor confirms "same universe".

And still I'm going to lean out of the window and say Abrams is trying to fit this movie in somewhere in the time line.

Why else bother with all the retro designs? But come May 2009 and it is indeed a reboot then you won't hear me complaining.

[eugimon]

We are probably not going to budge on are viewpoints but that Q&A excerpt neither denies nor confirms "same universe".

And still I'm going to lean out of the window and say Abrams is trying to fit this movie in somewhere in the time line.

Why else bother with all the retro designs? But come May 2009 and it is indeed a reboot then you won't hear me complaining.

meh, from his quote it seems pretty obvious that Abram's take on this trek movie is like Singer's take on Superman Returns. Remain faithful to the original without being slavishly so and set it up for a new direction.

And while the designs may be retro, they're hardly TOS retro, completely different look and feel .

also, it's not just us here at MW calling this a reboot, every nearly every film media site is calling this a reboot.

[David Hingtgen]

Darn it, if some people here are not getting the Trek trailer with Bond, then I surely won't. My area is king of "not getting the cool trailer we're supposed to".

[Mr March]

If this new film is not a reboot, can it be called a continuation if it's a prequel film that ignores established background/continuity? I wouldn't think so, but there isn't much to go on either way.

Perhaps the media is too eager to label JJ-Trek a reboot/re-imagining given how often these reboots are happening these days (Bond, Batman, BSG). But at the same time, it's clear from the details released so far that this new Star Trek is not following continuity and talk of the characterizations from Abram & Co. indicates it is a re-imagining/reinterpretation of at least some sort. Perhaps it will follow some facts while ignoring others.

Look at it this way; if JJ-Trek is a monster success and spawns more films/television series with this cast reprising roles, do you really think they are going to follow continuity?

I'm not that hopeful for this new film, but I will say that I'm fine with a fresh start. Even if they throw out all Trek-lore, what does it really matter? Trek has run it's course and is at the lowest it has ever been; this new film certainly can't do any worse, IMO.

[lord_breetai]

meh, from his quote it seems pretty obvious that Abram's take on this trek movie is like Singer's take on Superman Returns. Remain faithful to the original without being slavishly so and set it up for a new direction.

And while the designs may be retro, they're hardly TOS retro, completely different look and feel .

also, it's not just us here at MW calling this a reboot, every nearly every film media site is calling this a reboot.

I dunno, seems like it is and it isn't... since it has Spock from the current universe travelling back in time it is somewhat of a sequal, that sets up a new splinter timeline. There are continuities that have a lot more twists then that with time travel (*cough* Legacy of Kain, Transfromers, Doctor Who *cough*) where the timeline gets re-written semi-regluarly.

Also, Superman Returns was designed to slot in perfectly with Superman II, the whole Superman slept with Lois then erassed her memory after leading to her confusion with the kid etc. (from the lester cut not the donor cut).

To me it dosn't seem like a reboot because, they actually would not let Shatner play future Kirk since he died on screen (despite Shatner's really wanting to do it, and have them validate his coming back to life novels to make it work), so they obviously care about the extended continuity, but are using a similar idea to Enterprise's Time Cold War, to circumnavigate some of the baggage.

And lastly, why should the Enterprise look exactly like it does in TOS? From the pilot/Spock Court-martial episode we know the ship underwent at least one major refit before Kirk became the Captain, So the look is justified I think.

[eugimon]

singer himself has said that superman returns doesn't follow 100% after superman II and that it's equal parts homage and sequel.

And the fact that abrams won't give a definitive answer on whether this is a reboot/prequel makes it pretty clear that this, like superman returns, is a little of both.

And the new enterprise doesn't look exactly like any previous enterprise, there are changes to every element... some, like the bridge and hull have extensive changes.

[lord_breetai]

And the new enterprise doesn't look exactly like any previous enterprise, there are changes to every element... some, like the bridge and hull have extensive changes.

Yes and there are differences between the Pike Enterpise in both hull and interior to the Kirk Enterprise, and difference between the TV Enterprise and the movie era enterprise. So tacking on one more refit to the ship dosn't really bother me. (then again purely aesthetic changes in other franchises don't bother me either like the mecha redesign between Sakura Taisen and the remake Sakura Taisen Atsuki Chishio Ni (which made the second generation mecha, almost look like the 7th (or 9th depending if you count the two anime-only generations).

Anyway, using time-travel like I said it can be a sequal and reboot at the same time, from future-Spock's and the Romulan's perspective it's a sequal, cause he still lived out his original life, but from the perspective of the TOS cast, it's a splinter timeline/reboot.

In a way, again it's much like say Doctor Who, where the history of the Dalek's in particular acticvly got re-written a few times, or Legacy of Kain, where Blood Omen 2 only occured because of a time paradox caused in Soul Reaver 2.

[eugimon]

Yes and there are differences between the Pike Enterpise in both hull and interior to the Kirk Enterprise, and difference between the TV Enterprise and the movie era enterprise. So tacking on one more refit to the ship dosn't really bother me. (then again purely aesthetic changes in other franchises don't bother me either like the mecha redesign between Sakura Taisen and the remake Sakura Taisen Atsuki Chishio Ni (which made the second generation mecha, almost look like the 7th (or 9th depending if you count the two anime-only generations).

Anyway, using time-travel like I said it can be a sequal and reboot at the same time, from future-Spock's and the Romulan's perspective it's a sequal, cause he still lived out his original life, but from the perspective of the TOS cast, it's a splinter timeline/reboot.

In a way, again it's much like say Doctor Who, where the history of the Dalek's in particular acticvly got re-written a few times, or Legacy of Kain, where Blood Omen 2 only occured because of a time paradox caused in Soul Reaver 2.

Well, when abrams says things like "It is a brand new thing inspired by..." I don't think people should expect a 100% continuity faithful movie. DS9 and TNG already showed they're perfectly capable or reproducing the sets and look and feel of TNG. And if it wasn't some sort of reboot, I would have expected Abrams or the studio to correct all those film sites that have been calling this one.

And yeah, I don't mind changes to the enterprise... I may not like specific details or certain aspects on this new design, but overall, it's still the enterprise.

[the white drew carey]

One thing I liked is that there are more people manning the bridge.

[Morpheus]

One thing I liked is that there are more people manning the bridge.

Bridge bunnies Add more female cadets in mini skirt and its all set to go. BTW, I think Kirk would agree with this.

[aerocombatpilot]

Just saw the trailer on youtube and to be honest, I don't know what to think. The special effects are great, but nowadays most special effects are, so I didn't go: WOW THAT'S AWESOME!!!! It looks great, but for some reason I just can't get excited about it (and I've tried). I'm not going to bash it, and I will go see it but I was more excited to see Narnia than this.

[the white drew carey]

Bridge bunnies Add more female cadets in mini skirt and its all set to go. BTW, I think Kirk would agree with this.

I don't know about Bridge Bunnies, but I saw an old dude.

[Keith]

Which brings up a damn good question. Why has american sci-fi ignored the potential for bridge bunnies?

[lord_breetai]

Well, when abrams says things like "It is a brand new thing inspired by..." I don't think people should expect a 100% continuity faithful movie. DS9 and TNG already showed they're perfectly capable or reproducing the sets and look and feel of TNG. And if it wasn't some sort of reboot, I would have expected Abrams or the studio to correct all those film sites that have been calling this one.

Well essentially my understanding is that it is and is not a reboot at the same time, because we have characters who are from the next gen era (this romulan and Ambassador Spock) travelling back in time and mucking with things. Their stories are uneffected by the mucking because they traveled back in time, but everything else is thrown into a rebooted timeline.

We have Romulans fighting the Federation less then 100 years before Kirk becoming Captain of the Enterprise? = Divergent timeline

If they actually see a Romulan's face = Divergent timeline

So yes it's a reboot in that sense, why would they deny it... it opens the stage for an all new TOS era series if they want, but from what I've read in interviews and stuff they are taking care to pay attention to the continuity for things that matter and even incorporated things from some of the books like Spock's World.

[Morpheus]

Which brings up a damn good question. Why has american sci-fi ignored the potential for bridge bunnies?

bridge bunnies on television

As mentioned above, Yeoman Rand from the first season of Star Trek. This contributer still doesn't know what her job was.

* Duh! Yeoman! (For those who don't know, "Yeoman" is the Navy job title for "clerk".)

o Which might explain her relative uselessness in the situations seen in the episodes- she's a top notch desk pilot, but paperwork occurs off screen. On screen, she is useful mainly for getting kidnapped and making coffee with phasers.

[eugimon]

Well essentially my understanding is that it is and is not a reboot at the same time, because we have characters who are from the next gen era (this romulan and Ambassador Spock) travelling back in time and mucking with things. Their stories are uneffected by the mucking because they traveled back in time, but everything else is thrown into a rebooted timeline.

We have Romulans fighting the Federation less then 100 years before Kirk becoming Captain of the Enterprise? = Divergent timeline

If they actually see a Romulan's face = Divergent timeline

So yes it's a reboot in that sense, why would they deny it... it opens the stage for an all new TOS era series if they want, but from what I've read in interviews and stuff they are taking care to pay attention to the continuity for things that matter and even incorporated things from some of the books like Spock's World.

right. I don't think it's reboot in the way that batman begins is a reboot... but again... like superman returns. Where they pick and choose what they want to stay faithful to but at the same time allow themselves to not be 100% burdened by what has gone on before.

They might give themselves an "in show" reason why there's changes, but at the end of it all, we're left with something slightly new.

Edited November 19, 2008 by eugimon

[Uxi]

So, just to clarify. . .

Star Trek starting over and changing things without rendering all prior stuff moot = rubbish.

Star Wars going back to the prequel era and intentionally changing things retroactively within the continuity = good.

You don't read too well these days, do you? I despise all reboots as unncessary and posted to that effect already. Didn't like it in BSG. Didn't particularly like it Batman, even (Batman Begins doesn't necessarily have to invalidate the other movies, either, Even the Dark Knight doesn't). Mostly, reboots are the results of lazy writers and producers who don't have the imagination to do an original concept but want to parasite a brand name for the marketing goons and bean counters.

I'm not particularly fond of retcons but find them preferable to a reboot for a variety of reasons (most of which I already listed). Your problem with SW has never been retcons as much as your self-described raped childhood. This isn't going anywhere, though, so there's no point in continuing a point by point.

You should probably tone down the defensive vitriol, though... it's unbecoming to someone claiming the name of the son of the House of Hador. Well maybe a whiner like Turin.

If they actually see a Romulan's face = Divergent timeline

Is Bana gonna be the only one? The tattoos have to be more defying than the odd forehead widget, so maybe they'll retcon Balance of Terror with a scene like "THAAAAT'S what that guy was!!11!one!1" He doesn't have the "V" brow that TNG and beyond? gave the Romulans? Did Enterprise do that to them, too? The only thing in TOS that made the Romulans different from Vulcans was the Roman-inspired uniforms, no?

Looks to me that since the corporate line is 'no reboot' then they're going to with some time travel adjustments (and possibly their undoing). new TOS series? No way they'd get half of the ensemble cast to do a TV show. Maybe a movie sequel or three clause in the contract depending on box office take...