# New Star Trek trailer online



## reveal (Nov 17, 2008)

Apple - Trailers - Star Trek

When this scene hits the screen, I will immediately start playing this file: http://rpgcentric.com/files/audio/Star_Trek_Fight_Song.mp3


----------



## el-remmen (Nov 18, 2008)

Sweet!


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Nov 18, 2008)

Nice!  Hopefully they spend as much attention on the plot and characterization as on CGI eye candy.  It was the characters that made the original star trek great.

I'm really not feeling Chris Pine as Captain Kirk.  His performance in the trailer feels like "typical Hollywood movie brash kid", not like Captain Kirk.  Simon Pegg's Scotty is spot on though!


----------



## Traycor (Nov 18, 2008)

Exciting!


----------



## Steel_Wind (Nov 18, 2008)

So in the 22nd century...starships are so cheap and plentiful we put crews on them who are in their teens and early 20s, supervised by bridge officers who have reached the ripe old age of 25?  Did this reboot of the Federation replace the Prime Directive with the Law of the Age of Ascension from _Logan's Run_? 

What's the thought process here? _"The worst that can happen is they blow up the ship - and we got a million of those hanging around?"_ (Ok. The _worst that can happen is they start an interstellar war with some race who kicks Earth's collective ass_. But let's let that be for a moment).

Still - in their mid-20s?

That's the part I just can't get by with this restart. Stewart as Picard was a man who exuded maturity and authority. He was senior enough to be Captain the moment we laid eyes on him. I bought into that authority instantly.

Shatner as Kirk was at least in the range of believability, though on the young side. 

Are they seriously making this puppy Kirk Captain of the Enterprise? Or is this just a fresh out of the Academy first tour as midshipmen?

I'm groovin on SylarSpock. But this Kirk's not doing it for me. Maybe Matt Damon was a better idea after all.

This Kirk isn't showing up as a toy in a happy meal...he's SERVING the happy meals: _"You want fries with that sir?"_

Uh-uh. Not buying it.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 18, 2008)

What I am wondering is during the beginning of the trailer what are those large structures you see dotting the landscape in the distance they are barely visible against the sky. One is more prominent during the grown-up Kirk motorcycle scene.

Also, was it just me or did it look like that canyon was artificial, and that there was skyscrapers within that canyon.

As for Kirk being captain or not, I doubt he will be captain off the bat. Pike will probably be in command of the Enterprise, perhaps the manner in which he gives up command of the Enterprise will be different from the original series.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

Kirk isn't the real captain of the ship, as far as I understood. The events of the story lead to him temporarily being in that position.


----------



## Wombat (Nov 18, 2008)

Love me my old Trek, but I'm still in the "wait & see" mode...


----------



## Mark (Nov 18, 2008)

Seems like every new incarnation of ST from TNG forward has been primarily about trying to please the previous audience base (with varying degrees of success) until this one.  They are definitely looking to bring in a new, younger audience.  Let's hope it is not too late.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 18, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:


> Are they seriously making this puppy Kirk Captain of the Enterprise? Or is this just a fresh out of the Academy first tour as midshipmen?



From evidence in other clips that have been shown, it appears part or all of the classic crew are cadets on a training mission.  Kirk is such a washout that Dr. McCoy must use his authority as a doctor to get him on board the Enterprise.  There is also evidently time travel involved in the movie.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 19, 2008)

Rykion said:


> From evidence in other clips that have been shown, it appears part or all of the classic crew are cadets on a training mission.  Kirk is such a washout that Dr. McCoy must use his authority as a doctor to get him on board the Enterprise.  There is also evidently time travel involved in the movie.



Wow, what convincing happened in the last thread is out in this thread.  I must be getting old but give me a classic scifi story, not smallvile hit sthe big screen.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 19, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:


> Still - in their mid-20s?
> 
> Are they seriously making this puppy Kirk Captain of the Enterprise? Or is this just a fresh out of the Academy first tour as midshipmen?




Just for a moment, take note of the actors' actual ages...

Chris Pine - 28
Zachary Quinto - 31
Karl Urban - 36
Simon Pegg - 38
John Cho - 36
Anton Yelchin - 19
Zoe Saldana - 30

I don't necessarily think the movie goes this way, but feasibly Kirk may have been out of the Academy for ten years already...  Pleanty of time for an ambitious and adventurous man to have achieved the rank of Captain and his first command.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Kirk isn't the real captain of the ship, as far as I understood. The events of the story lead to him temporarily being in that position.






Rykion said:


> From evidence in other clips that have been shown, it appears part or all of the classic crew are cadets on a training mission.  Kirk is such a washout that Dr. McCoy must use his authority as a doctor to get him on board the Enterprise.  There is also evidently time travel involved in the movie.




Huh...  If true, it would harken back to Kirk being a "Horatio Hornblower in space".  A quite similar situation occurs in Forrester's book, _Lieutenant Hornblower_.  Though in the movie Kirk seems to be playing more the role of Lt. Bush, than Hornblower.

Honestly, it doesn't even have to be a training mission...  If something unexpected happens to the top two or three senior officers, Kirk, third or fourth lieutenant down the line of command and a slightly more believable station for someone just under 30 years old, may have to take command.


----------



## Traycor (Nov 19, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:


> So in the 22nd century...starships are so cheap and plentiful we put crews on them who are in their teens and early 20s, supervised by bridge officers who have reached the ripe old age of 25?




Seems like standard military stuff. In modern times, jets, tanks, and aircraft carriers are piloted by teenagers and early 20's most times. It would actually be unrealistic if they were older.

And captain Pike looks plenty old to me.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Kirk isn't the real captain of the ship, as far as I understood. The events of the story lead to him temporarily being in that position.



Yes, I believe Christopher Pike is the official Captain of the Enterprise in this movie.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 19, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:


> Shatner as Kirk was at least in the range of believability, though on the young side.



Well, according to Trek lore, Kirk was the youngest Starfleet officer to be promoted to the rank of Captain (age 34).

In a way, the young Shat is pretty close to the character's age (actually one year older than his character's), though his look is based in the 1960's. Pine could pass off as a guy in his early 30's.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 19, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> Just for a moment, take note of the actors' actual ages...
> 
> Chris Pine - 28
> Zachary Quinto - 31
> ...



Hmm. Can't imagine why they cast Chekov, unless he was awarded the privilege of being the first academy cadet to get field training. According to Trek lore, his first posting as an Ensign was to the Enterprise, under Kirk's command.

As much as I like Simon Pegg as a comedy actor, I wish they'd give him a full head of hair for his Scotty role. He's practically balding.

And why is the Enterprise being fully constructed/assembled on the groundside?


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 19, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Hmm. Can't imagine why they cast Chekov, unless he was awarded the privilege of being the first academy cadet to get field training. According to Trek lore, his first posting as an Ensign was to the Enterprise, under Kirk's command.




According to Memory Alpha, Chekov was 18 when he entered the Academy, and about 22 when he first appeared as the navigator in season 2 of the original series.  As far as age is concerned in Hollywood, he's close enough.



Ranger REG said:


> And why is the Enterprise being fully constructed/assembled on the groundside?




Precedent.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 19, 2008)

For those interested here is a link to the story about the clips that have been shown.  *WARNING: There are a lot of spoilers and the site is ad heavy.*
IGN: Star Trek Preview


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 19, 2008)

Rykion said:


> There is also evidently time travel involved in the movie.



*sob* Why do they hate... everyone?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 19, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> *sob* Why do they hate... everyone?




it is not everyone but it is a lot of us.  Time travel needs to be outlawed in every show but Dr Who!

Oh, and here is another version of the trailer...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4554623-post64.html


----------



## Rykion (Nov 19, 2008)

It seems I may have been wrong about the cadet thing.  Kirk at least is a cadet.
Here are some links to more descriptions of the 4 shown clips for those that want spoilers.
*WARNING: spoilers ahead!*
TrekToday - Abrams Introduces 'Star Trek XI'
TrekToday - Major 'Star Trek XI' Details Emerge
TrekToday - More 'Star Trek XI' Details



Arnwyn said:


> *sob* Why do they hate... everyone?



To be fair time travel, or contact from the future, is frequently used in Star Trek.  Unfortunately, it tends to be overused and usually not used well.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 19, 2008)

Rykion said:


> It seems I may have been wrong about the cadet thing.  Kirk at least is a cadet.




I suspect he's the only one who is a cadet, hence his lack of a red, yellow or blue uniform shirt over the top of his black undies.

In other words, Pike is the Captain of the Enterprise, everyone else is likely already established as crew on the Enterprise, and Kirk is the rookie addition to the crew.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 19, 2008)

Rykion said:


> To be fair time travel, or contact from the future, is frequently used in Star Trek.  Unfortunately, it tends to be overused and usually not used well.



People are probably still suffering from _Heroes_-time travel. Oh, and yeah, Temporal Cold War. *sigh*

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 19, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> I suspect he's the only one who is a cadet, hence his lack of a red, yellow or blue uniform shirt over the top of his black undies.
> 
> In other words, Pike is the Captain of the Enterprise, everyone else is likely already established as crew on the Enterprise, and Kirk is the rookie addition to the crew.



It's possible, but some of the others seem to have been just assigned to the Enterprise.  Kirk isn't even supposed to be part of the crew.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 19, 2008)

Rykion said:


> It seems I may have been wrong about the cadet thing.  Kirk at least is a cadet.
> Here are some links to more descriptions of the 4 shown clips for those that want spoilers.
> *WARNING: spoilers ahead!*
> TrekToday - Abrams Introduces 'Star Trek XI'
> ...




Thus I hate time travel.  All but one of the new generation of star trek shows had time travel in their series finale.  Two movies had to deal with time travel and this is a third. Its so overused. That's why i wished they would just stay in a time period and weave a story within there.   I just can't believe with all the great star trek novels out there we're back to time travel.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 19, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> I suspect he's the only one who is a cadet, hence his lack of a red, yellow or blue uniform shirt over the top of his black undies.
> 
> In other words, Pike is the Captain of the Enterprise, everyone else is likely already established as crew on the Enterprise, and Kirk is the rookie addition to the crew.




He's a graduate, not a cadet, but he hasn't been assigned a ship yet, so he's in black.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 19, 2008)

Vigilance said:


> He's a graduate, not a cadet, but he hasn't been assigned a ship yet, so he's in black.



One of the sources on the shown footage mentions that Spock refers to Kirk as cadet while on the Enterprise.  It's possible that the source's quote was wrong, that Spock's line was imprecise, or that graduates are still called cadets until assigned.  It really is a moot point on being a cadet or someone just out of training.  Either way, it really doesn't make sense for that person to be in command anytime soon.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 20, 2008)

Concerning the ages of the characters affecting plausibility of taking command...

After watching _several_ anime series in which 20-year old civilians, teenage girls, or civilian teenage pop-idols (this is the only one I couldn't understand) take command of sci-fi battleships, they could practically cast Kirk at _any_ age and I could accept him as captain without flinching. For this movie, it sounds like they might be going the Bright Noah route...


----------



## Rykion (Nov 20, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> Concerning the ages of the characters affecting plausibility of taking command...
> 
> After watching _several_ anime series in which 20-year old civilians, teenage girls, or civilian teenage pop-idols (this is the only one I couldn't understand) take command of sci-fi battleships, they could practically cast Kirk at _any_ age and I could accept him as captain without flinching. For this movie, it sounds like they might be going the Bright Noah route...



I watch a lot of cartoons too.  It doesn't make me think that what happens in them is a good idea for a movie.  Unless the movie's target audience is preteen boys.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 20, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> After watching _several_ anime series in which 20-year old civilians, teenage girls, or civilian teenage pop-idols (this is the only one I couldn't understand) take command of sci-fi battleships, they could practically cast Kirk at _any_ age and I could accept him as captain without flinching.



Macross fan, eh?


----------



## Rykion (Nov 20, 2008)

Rykion said:


> I watch a lot of cartoons too.  It doesn't make me think that what happens in them is a good idea for a movie.  Unless the movie's target audience is preteen boys.



Sorry that came out harsher than I meant.  I do like a lot of anime, but its important to remember that just about anything can happen in anime.  I don't think something happening in anime is necessarily a good precedent for a live action movie.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 20, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> According to Memory Alpha, Chekov was 18 when he entered the Academy, and about 22 when he first appeared as the navigator in season 2 of the original series.  As far as age is concerned in Hollywood, he's close enough.



Ah, but he was considered to be already onboard Enterprise during Season 1, because in _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_ he remembered Khan and SS Botany Bay, which first appeared in S1 episode, "The Space Seed."

While you can argue that he may have learned of it in the ship's log later, but the terrified look on his face in the movie suggested he had been there when Khan and his supermen hijacked the ship.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 20, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Ah, but he was considered to be already onboard Enterprise during Season 1, because in _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_ he remembered Khan and SS Botany Bay, which first appeared in S1 episode, "The Space Seed."
> 
> While you can argue that he may have learned of it in the ship's log later, but the terrified look on his face in the movie suggested he had been there when Khan and his supermen hijacked the ship.




I don't understand your argument.  

I wasn't saying anything about Khan or season 1 of the TOS.  Only that the age (and apparent age) of the new actor is pretty close to the apocryphal age of Chekov (by Hollywood) when he made his first appearance on the original TV show at the beginning of the 2nd season.  I made no claims as to when the character actually or supposedly joined the crew.

If, as you and many others suggest and I have no reason to disagree with, Chekov was on-board earlier, then that brings the age difference between character and actor closer and better supports my point above.


Upon re-examination of your original post, it seems I misinterpreted...  You were saying that Chekov should not appear in the movie at all.  I can't really argue with that, except that Memory Alpha isn't very good at sighting sources and it's hard to tell whether his first assignment being the Enterprise under Kirk is fact, apocrypha or surmise. He very well might have been aboard with Kirk as captain for the Kahn incident, even thought his first assignment wasn't technically under Kirk.

Either way, it's not going to bother most people.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 20, 2008)

I'm concerned that the time-travel plot, and the inclusion of Nimoy-Spock, will mean that this isn't as much of a reboot as it needs to be.  And of course the needless convolutions of plot that come with such a gimmick.  

I gotta say, as much as Quinto is a very inspired choice for Spock (so much so that I now really can't see anyone else in the role for this movie), I was even more taken by whoever is playing McCoy.  His line in the trailer and the look on his face was VERY Deforest Kelley; it was almost spooky (in a good way).


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 20, 2008)

EricNoah said:


> I gotta say, as much as Quinto is a very inspired choice for Spock (so much so that I now really can't see anyone else in the role for this movie), I was even more taken by whoever is playing McCoy.  His line in the trailer and the look on his face was VERY Deforest Kelley; it was almost spooky (in a good way).



That would be Karl Urban, been around for a while, played Ceaser in Xena, also Cupid, was the second in command of the Necro's in The Chronicles of Riddick.  Also, Pathfinder.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 20, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> That would be Karl Urban, been around for a while, played Ceaser in Xena, also Cupid, was the second in command of the Necro's in The Chronicles of Riddick.  Also, Pathfinder.



Not to mention Eomer in LotR.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 20, 2008)

Karl Urban for me was the biggest and most pleasant surprise in the previews of this film. I'll admit to having my doubts when he was cast, but I was literally blown away by how scarily he looks like Deforest Kelley in the promotional stills. And his line delivery in the trailer was incredibly spot on. I can't wait to say how he'll handle good ol' Bones in the final film.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 20, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Macross fan, eh?



[Nitpick]
Everything _but_ Macross, actually.
[/Nitpick]


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 20, 2008)

Oh yeah, Eomer - I knew he looked somewhat familiar somehow.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 20, 2008)

Rykion said:


> It's possible, but some of the others seem to have been just assigned to the Enterprise.  Kirk isn't even supposed to be part of the crew.




Good point...  Although on rewatching the trailer, I do notice that by the end of the trailer ("Buckle up.") Kirk does have his yellow shirt.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 20, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Ah, but he was considered to be already onboard Enterprise during Season 1, because in _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_ he remembered Khan and SS Botany Bay, which first appeared in S1 episode, "The Space Seed."
> 
> While you can argue that he may have learned of it in the ship's log later, but the terrified look on his face in the movie suggested he had been there when Khan and his supermen hijacked the ship.



Khan also remembered Chekov.  So Chekov pretty much had to be an Enterprise crew member during "The Space Seed."


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 21, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Macross fan, eh?



Actually, I have never seen a full Macross series. I was referencing Gundam and Full Metal Panic, actually.



			
				Rykion said:
			
		

> Sorry that came out harsher than I meant. I do like a lot of anime, but its important to remember that just about anything can happen in anime. I don't think something happening in anime is necessarily a good precedent for a live action movie.



I was more talking about audience expectations than creative precedent for the creation of something, actually. At the same time, I don't really agree with you here. I don't believe there is a real difference in how people process stories depending on whether it is live-action or anime, so I don't see how there would be a difference between the two mediums in whether suspension of disbelief is challenged by something or not.

In other words, I don't go into a movie expecting live-action to be any more realistic than anime. Well, I do if it is trying to portray itself as realistic and/or historically accurate, but I would hold an anime trying to be realistic to the same standard.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> I don't believe there is a real difference in how people process stories depending on whether it is live-action or anime, so I don't see how there would be a difference between the two mediums in whether suspension of disbelief is challenged by something or not.




There may not be a different for you, but you'd be the only person I've heard say that. I know that for me, and for everyone I know who watches anime, there are _huge_ differences of expectation and of suspension of disbelief. I can think of _lots_ of things that I'll accept in an anime that I will not accept in a live-action show (or certain American animated series, for that matter).


----------



## Rykion (Nov 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> I was more talking about audience expectations than creative precedent for the creation of something, actually. At the same time, I don't really agree with you here. I don't believe there is a real difference in how people process stories depending on whether it is live-action or anime, so I don't see how there would be a difference between the two mediums in whether suspension of disbelief is challenged by something or not.



I think for the vast majority of people there is a major difference to what they accept in cartoons, even anime, compared to live-action.  I think some of the popularity of anime in the US is actually based on the bizarre storylines/names/conventions to be found in the shows.  Most of these would not translate well to a live-action movie.

It is also important to remember that a lot of anime is created with pre-teen to early teenage boys as a target audience.  That is why lead characters tend to be people unbelievably young to be purposefully put in situations they are in.  The amount of blood and sexual situations tend to make Americans classify anime programs for audiences older than the actual Japanese target audience.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 22, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> There may not be a different for you, but you'd be the only person I've heard say that. I know that for me, and for everyone I know who watches anime, there are _huge_ differences of expectation and of suspension of disbelief. I can think of _lots_ of things that I'll accept in an anime that I will not accept in a live-action show (or certain American animated series, for that matter).



You really weaken your point with that last sentence. There are things you will accept in Japanese animation but not American animation? Doesn't that just mean that what you accept is based on how it is presented, rather than the actual medium?



			
				Rykion said:
			
		

> I think for the vast majority of people there is a major difference to what they accept in cartoons, even anime, compared to live-action. I think some of the popularity of anime in the US is actually based on the bizarre storylines/names/conventions to be found in the shows. Most of these would not translate well to a live-action movie.



I will just disagree with you and Mouseferatu in this regard. Most of the truly suspension-of-disbelief-challenging things I can ever recalling in anime have equivalents elsewhere, and often there are aspects of Hollywood live-action film that are far stranger that what you see in anime. If nothing else, I will cite the existence of musicals (_especially_ Bollywood musicals) and superhero crossovers. 



> It is also important to remember that a lot of anime is created with pre-teen to early teenage boys as a target audience. That is why lead characters tend to be people unbelievably young to be purposefully put in situations they are in. The amount of blood and sexual situations tend to make Americans classify anime programs for audiences older than the actual Japanese target audience.



I am well aware of this already, and I have no idea how it relates to the "suspension of disbelief" question.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 22, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> You really weaken your point with that last sentence. There are things you will accept in Japanese animation but not American animation? Doesn't that just mean that what you accept is based on how it is presented, rather than the actual medium?




Not at all. Some of it is presentation, some of it is medium.

There are things I will accept in certain types of movies, but not others. There are things I will accept in certain types of animation, but not others. But there are things that I will accept in animation that I will not accept in live-action.

It doesn't "weaken my point" because this isn't a debate. You say that the medium makes no difference to you in terms of SoD. That's not up for debate; it's fact. Similarly, I'm saying that for me, it makes a _huge_ difference. That's also fact. For me, and for most people I know, medium makes a _huge_ difference.

The only potential "debate" is whether either is true for all people, and I'd say that this conversation alone proves that it obviously and patently isn't.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> Concerning the ages of the characters affecting plausibility of taking command...
> 
> After watching _several_ anime series in which 20-year old civilians, teenage girls, or civilian teenage pop-idols (this is the only one I couldn't understand) take command of sci-fi battleships, they could practically cast Kirk at _any_ age and I could accept him as captain without flinching. For this movie, it sounds like they might be going the Bright Noah route...




Different genres have different rules, I don't expect spoof antics in a dramatic historic movie no more than i expect anime antics in a live action sci-fi film.  A curious point is why does any series need rebooting? Isn't this akin to saying that every few decades classicial books should be rewritten for the modern audience and if so, at what point is the series not the essense of the original writer.  It seems to be a wildly accepted thing now to do.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 22, 2008)

Ive been a fan of trek since the 70's, watching the original trek, which was shown on Saturday mornings in my town right after the cartoons. It was the first show I was ever actually a fan of.

And I gotta say, returning to TOS is *awesome*. This might be the best idea they could have had, and Abrams really nailed a lot of that old trek feel for me in the trailer.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 22, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Isn't this akin to saying that every few decades classicial books should be rewritten for the modern audience...




You need to read more books.    It happens all the time.

It has to happen, because as a generality the cultural background of the audience at large changes over time.  Eventually, you end up with an audience that largely isn't interested in the story as written, and couldn't understand the subtext of the story even if they were interested.  You have to rewrite the story into a context, setting and style that your new audience can understand.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 22, 2008)

Also, books don't have to worry about the special effects looking outdated, or the acting being cheesy. Moby Dick has crystal clear HD in my mind, and the characters deliver their lines however the hell I want them to.

This is why (says the writer) books stand superior to all other forms of storytelling media.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 22, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> It doesn't "weaken my point" because this isn't a debate.



You turned this into a "debate" the moment you claimed that my perspective was the unusual one using your anecdotal evidence, framing this into a conversation in which you claim my perspective is unique and yours is the default. In other words, you are trying to say my claim is not widely true, and that your perspective _is_. Don't start a debate and then try to say that "it is not a debate" in order to avoid a rebuttal.



> You say that the medium makes no difference to you in terms of SoD. That's not up for debate; it's fact. Similarly, I'm saying that for me, it makes a _huge_ difference. That's also fact. For me, and for most people I know, medium makes a _huge_ difference.



Well, I would not go so far to say that either of our claims are _fact_... Just because we think something is true about ourselves and claim it to be true does not necessarily mean that it _is_ true...



> The only potential "debate" is whether either is true for all people, and I'd say that this conversation alone proves that it obviously and patently isn't.



This doesn't make any sense. As I said above, there is plenty of room for debate about _whose perspective is more true for the greater number of people_. For something like this, trying to make broad generalizations about _everyone_ is indeed absurd, but it is not the only form of discussion.

Still, I suppose that unless you actually want to talk about what _specific_ things you think only work in animation or only work in live-action, rather than make broad assertions that they exist, I don't think that this conversation really has anywhere to go. It is off topic anyway.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 22, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Different genres have different rules, I don't expect spoof antics in a dramatic historic movie no more than i expect anime antics in a live action sci-fi film.



Anime is not a genre...

Besides, if Shakespeare can get away with off-color jokes and bawdy slapstick comedy in the middle of historical tragedies like _Macbeth_, _Hamlet_, or some of his _Henry the (insert number)_ plays, then I don't quite think you can easily make hard rules like that.



> A curious point is why does any series need rebooting? Isn't this akin to saying that every few decades classicial books should be rewritten for the modern audience and if so, at what point is the series not the essense of the original writer.  It seems to be a wildly accepted thing now to do.



This has been happening forever. _Le Morte d'Arthur_ was hardly the first King Arthur story, and it was certainly not the last. Chaucer's _A Knight's tale_ steals its plot and characters from a contemporary work. Shakespeare was something like the third guy to make the story of _Romeo and Juliet_. Don't even get me started on how the ancient Greeks weren't even interested in anything they hadn't heard a hundred times. Just because something is the "original version" or part of the "original continuity" doesn't mean it is any good. Just because something is a remake or a shamelessly stolen plot doesn't mean that it is bad.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 22, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> You need to read more books.    It happens all the time.



Especially if you go to the theatre occasionally. They always re-interpret the original material.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 23, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Thus I hate time travel.  All but one of the new generation of star trek shows had time travel in their series finale.  Two movies had to deal with time travel and this is a third. Its so overused. That's why i wished they would just stay in a time period and weave a story within there.   I just can't believe with all the great star trek novels out there we're back to time travel.




You can like it or hate it, but time travel was a very integral part of the original series: Naked Time, Tomorrow is Yesterday, City on the Edge of Forever, A Piece of the Action, Patterns of Force, Bread and Circuses, Assignment: Earth, Spectre of the Gun, All Our Yesterdays either involve literal time travel or contact with cultures/events so similar to Earth's past it's the same thing (Piece of the Action, Patterns of Force, Bread and Circuses, Spectre of the Gun).

Even if you remove the four that aren't literally time travel that's five episodes.

Compare this to Romulans (two episodes), Klingons (five episodes), Harry Mudd (two episodes), I think you'll see that time travel was a huge part of trek from the beginning.

I bet if you look at the number of times other things recur (the Borg, Q, and so forth) you will see this trend continues, that time travel is one of the core elements of trek throughout its history. 

It might not be to everyone's taste, but it's hard to argue that the movies should ignore something the TV show featured heavily.


----------



## Mark (Nov 23, 2008)

Rykion said:


> Khan also remembered Chekov.






Ding, ding, ding, ding.  Winner.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 23, 2008)

Vigilance said:


> You can like it or hate it, but time travel was a very integral part of the original series: Naked Time, Tomorrow is Yesterday, City on the Edge of Forever, A Piece of the Action, Patterns of Force, Bread and Circuses, Assignment: Earth, Spectre of the Gun, All Our Yesterdays either involve literal time travel or contact with cultures/events so similar to Earth's past it's the same thing (Piece of the Action, Patterns of Force, Bread and Circuses, Spectre of the Gun).
> 
> Even if you remove the four that aren't literally time travel that's five episodes.
> 
> ...




FYI: A list of time travel episodes.

Altrnate timelines and parallel univarses are slightly less popular, but just as iconic to the Star Trek Universe.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 23, 2008)

Time travel goes hand in hand with FTL travel, so I suppose that it is not totally unreasonable, but that _is_ a lot of time travel episodes... Wow...

I suppose any complaints I may have had about them featuring time travel in the movie just went out the window.  I guess I may as well just hope that they do it well.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2008)

Rykion said:


> Khan also remembered Chekov.  So Chekov pretty much had to be an Enterprise crew member during "The Space Seed."



Yes, but he wasn't part of the bridge crew, AFAIC.

Though you could argue that he was a third-watch bridge crew, not there when the Captain is not on the bridge. After all, Kirk has to sleep sometimes.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 25, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> After all, Kirk has to sleep sometimes.




I'm not sure thats what Kirk is doing (or should that be who he is doing)


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2008)

Vigilance said:


> Ive been a fan of trek since the 70's, watching the original trek, which was shown on Saturday mornings in my town right after the cartoons. It was the first show I was ever actually a fan of.
> 
> And I gotta say, returning to TOS is *awesome*. This might be the best idea they could have had, and Abrams really nailed a lot of that old trek feel for me in the trailer.



Really? Cause from I got from the trailer is too much actions, and not a single pro-wrestling action that _TOS_ portrayed.

I'm afraid that old _Trek_ feel may be less like Gene L. Coon or Harlan Ellison style of _TOS_ screenplay and more like the guy who wrote "Spock's Brain" episode.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 25, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Yes, but he wasn't part of the bridge crew, AFAIC.
> 
> Though you could argue that he was a third-watch bridge crew, not there when the Captain is not on the bridge. After all, Kirk has to sleep sometimes.



Funny that you mention other crew watches.  I was thinking that if the new movie does well, I'd like to see a TV series set in the original series time period.  I figured that it might be hard to get the movie actors all to do a series, so I was thinking of a series based on a ship besides the Enterprise or based on one of the Enterprise's alternate watches.  Either would allow for guest appearances by the movie actors, but some could be regulars on an Enterprise based show.  It also opens up humor based on the actions of the primary watch.   Like having the TV crew complain about the mess the Captain got them in, or the damaged engines they have to fix because Scotty stressed the ship too much.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2008)

Rykion said:


> Funny that you mention other crew watches.  I was thinking that if the new movie does well, I'd like to see a TV series set in the original series time period.  I figured that it might be hard to get the movie actors all to do a series, so I was thinking of a series based on a ship besides the Enterprise or based on one of the Enterprise's alternate watches.  Either would allow for guest appearances by the movie actors, but some could be regulars on an Enterprise based show.  It also opens up humor based on the actions of the primary watch.   Like having the TV crew complain about the mess the Captain got them in, or the damaged engines they have to fix because Scotty stressed the ship too much.



I don't know if the audience would open up to another prequel _Trek_ series, even if takes place in the same timeline as _TOS._

Most of us would rather move forward ahead of the _Voyager_ timeline.

And though it may not possible if Paramount want more of Abrams or the new franchise movie direction, I'd want a well-written, well-directed 24th-Century _Trek_ movie that features almost all of the contemporary _Trek_ characters, from _TNG, DS9,_ and _VOY._


----------



## Rykion (Nov 25, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> I don't know if the audience would open up to another prequel _Trek_ series, even if takes place in the same timeline as _TOS._
> 
> Most of us would rather move forward ahead of the _Voyager_ timeline.



I won't claim that my wishes apply to most people, but I doubt we would be getting the new movie if someone didn't think there was still an audience for stories set in TOS timeline.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And though it may not possible if Paramount want more of Abrams or the new franchise movie direction, I'd want a well-written, well-directed 24th-Century _Trek_ movie that features almost all of the contemporary _Trek_ characters, from _TNG, DS9,_ and _VOY._



I would like to see such a movie, but getting together all those actors would be hard.  It would also be hard to write a movie with all those characters without most of them just endig up in brief cameos.
Edit:  You'd also run in to the problems of the movies that used TOS cast.  The actors are getting old, and it doesn't make sense for them to be in the same assignments for so many years.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2008)

Rykion said:


> I won't claim that my wishes apply to most people, but I doubt we would be getting the new movie if someone didn't think there was still an audience for stories set in TOS timeline.



Someone being from Paramount, and the guy who proposed happens to be the hardest working producer of this generation, JJ Abrams? Who wouldn't say no to JJ Abrams in Hollywood? Maybe JK Rowling but JJ Abrams shouldn't be involved in the _Harry Potter_ film franchise.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 25, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Someone being from Paramount, and the guy who proposed happens to be the hardest working producer of this generation, JJ Abrams? Who wouldn't say no to JJ Abrams in Hollywood? Maybe JK Rowling but JJ Abrams shouldn't be involved in the _Harry Potter_ film franchise.



Right so if JJ Abrams feels there is an audience for a story involving TOS characters, then his track record shows he is probably right.  Thanks for helping to reinforce my point. 

Personally, I don't really care when within TOS to post TNG period they put the next series.  I just want a well written series with interesting characters and some drama.  It's time Star Trek moved away from every episode ending with the same status quo it began with.  If the new movie does well, I think it would make most sense for any new series to be set in the same era.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 25, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Most of us would rather move forward ahead of the _Voyager_ timeline.




Do not assume.

I, for instance, would prefer to see a new Original Era series, and _never_ see another Trek series move further ahead than the ones we've already got. I can think of several other friends who feel the same.

You _might_ represent the majority here--it's certainly possible, maybe even probable--but I see no hard evidence of it.


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 25, 2008)

There's a new version of the trailer up that has NimoySpock at the very end of it:

AICN Exclusive!! You Know That New STAR TREK Trailer?? We Have An Even Cooler Version (In Glorious QuickTime)... -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2008)

Eridanis said:


> There's a new version of the trailer up that has NimoySpock at the very end of it:
> 
> AICN Exclusive!! You Know That New STAR TREK Trailer?? We Have An Even Cooler Version (In Glorious QuickTime)... -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.




Thanks!

And you guys can complain, critisize, and point out all the flaws, when I see the trailer (despite that car crash scene), I can only think this movie is going to be good.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 25, 2008)

SPOCK!!!

Glorious to see Mr.Nimoy adorning the pointy ears once more.


----------



## Mark (Nov 26, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> You _might_ represent the majority here





Maybe not.  We might need a poll.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 26, 2008)

I am mixed on this. I am someone who always likes to "see what happens next". So seeing more Trek stuff either movie or series that goes more into the future I will be glad to see.

But I also would love to see some of the stuff we have heard happened in the past brought to the big or little screen. There are so many conflicts and such that we haven't seen. 

Hell, why not a mini-series dealing with the Enterprise C from launch to the events of the TNG episode. We could also have a series dealing with Enterprise B (hello Sulu as captain).

A movie or mini-series I would love to see (I think either in this thread or the other I mentioned it already) but the Earth-Romulan war be great to see. It be neat to see old-Earth ships and Romulan ships engaging each other with nuclear weapons.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 26, 2008)

> I'm groovin on SylarSpock.




I share some of the concerns about the age of the cast, and despite his appearance/build and skill as an actor, I see Zachary Quinto as yet another one of the problems.

At 31, he's fully 5 years younger than Leonard Nimoy was when he originally got the role...and he _really_ looks it.

Simon Pegg as Scotty, though...


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 26, 2008)

Rykion said:


> Right so if JJ Abrams feels there is an audience for a story involving TOS characters, then his track record shows he is probably right.  Thanks for helping to reinforce my point.



Not really. It can make for a new _TOS_ films series, like MGM rebooting the James Bond franchise with a new leading actor.

My skepticism regards with the TV series.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 26, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> You _might_ represent the majority here...



Here?!?!!!!

Hahahaha. 

Doubt it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 26, 2008)

Mark said:


> Maybe not.  We might need a poll.




I am torn between "reimagination" that fixes any plot holes and continuity issues, and a new series set further into the future, preferably with an Enterprise of a Federation that also includes Romulans, Cardassians and Klingons (either as members or very close allies) that goes to explore a new Galaxy.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 26, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:


> We could also have a series dealing with Enterprise B (hello Sulu as captain).



When I read some time ago that George Takei was pitching the adventures of Captain Sulu on the Excelsior (i.e. around the Undiscovered Country timeframe), and that it was rejected, I was sad.

And what did we get instead, IIRC? Voyager. _Voyager_.

*sob*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 26, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> When I read some time ago that George Takei was pitching the adventures of Captain Sulu on the Excelsior (i.e. around the Undiscovered Country timeframe), and that it was rejected, I was sad.
> 
> And what did we get instead, IIRC? Voyager. _Voyager_.
> 
> *sob*




What makes you believe that the people that botched Voyager wouldn't have botched Excelsior? I agree it could have been a very good show - but so could have been Voyager. You just need the right team, people with a good vision of their show.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What makes you believe that the people that botched Voyager wouldn't have botched Excelsior? I agree it could have been a very good show - but so could have been Voyager. You just need the right team, people with a good vision of their show.



Hope and (possibly misplaced) optimism?

Plus I like the original cast movies better than... most other ST series, so it would already be getting a head start.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What makes you believe that the people that botched Voyager wouldn't have botched Excelsior? I agree it could have been a very good show - but so could have been Voyager. You just need the right team, people with a good vision of their show.



Yeah. Voyager had a cool concept (Federation ship all by itself in a distant and unexplored part of the galaxy, mixed crew, scarce resources). It's just that the execution sucked.


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 27, 2008)

Soo... If I bump in and say I actually liked Voyager, you guys are going to stone me to death right? Okay, just to make sure... I'm not going to do that then... Or did I just do it already...

I'm actually becoming more and more thrilled about this movie. When I first saw the new looks of the bridge I was horrified, but the more I see now, the more accepting I become for all the retcon. I'm still not sure about most of the cast, but McCoy and Scotty are atleast spot on


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am torn between "reimagination" that fixes any plot holes and continuity issues, and a new series set further into the future, preferably with an Enterprise of a Federation that also includes Romulans, Cardassians and Klingons (either as members or very close allies) that goes to explore a new Galaxy.



More like rewriting history, IMHO. Unless you consider the _Star Trek Universe_ is set in an alternate reality that run parallel our own, the Eugenic War was supposed to have happened in 1999.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 27, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Soo... If I bump in and say I actually liked Voyager, you guys are going to stone me to death right? Okay, just to make sure... I'm not going to do that then... Or did I just do it already...



Well I don't know about stoning you to death, unless I have a soundproof dungeon... 

The first few seasons were better, IMHO, if only for the simple fact that Brannon Braga didn't run the show. He took over during the third season on, casting his future (now ex) gf, wrote many episodes spotlighting her and ignoring the starting cast.


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 27, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> More like rewriting history, IMHO. Unless you consider the _Star Trek Universe_ is set in an alternate reality that run parallel our own, the Eugenic War was supposed to have happened in 1999.




Wow... I had already forgotten it was... You are absolutely right. Infact, Khan was supposed to be "absolute ruler" of quarter of the world in last decade .


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 27, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Soo... If I bump in and say I actually liked Voyager, you guys are going to stone me to death right?




Not at all.

You've obviously already suffered enough trauma in your life.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 27, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Soo... If I bump in and say I actually liked Voyager, you guys are going to stone me to death right? Okay, just to make sure... I'm not going to do that then... Or did I just do it already...



You're lucky I don't use my Ignore List lightly... 
But really, I can only congratulate you for your honest. Now you just need to repent, and everything is fine again. 



Ranger REG said:


> More like rewriting history, IMHO. Unless you consider the _Star Trek Universe_ is set in an alternate reality that run parallel our own, the Eugenic War was supposed to have happened in 1999.



Continuity with our reality doesn't matter to me. I am pretty sure there was no Klingon Bird of Prey in San Franscisco in the 80s and no Whales mysteriously appearing. It's okay with me if the timeline strongly diverges around 1999 or earlier. Doesn't really matter.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 27, 2008)

I've always wanted something that happens after DS9 where we pick off after what happened after the Dominion War on Cardassia.  But I don't think it's very likely that's going to happen.

Unless someone wants to reimagine DS9 with Samuel L Jackson instead of Avery Brooks.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 28, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Soo... If I bump in and say I actually liked Voyager, you guys are going to stone me to death right? Okay, just to make sure... I'm not going to do that then... Or did I just do it already...



Really depends on your opinion on Threshold.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 28, 2008)

> Well I don't know about stoning you to death <snip>




Not even Cheech and Chong and Nate Newton have _that_ much weed.

Oh wait...you mean "stone" as in "rocks"...nevermind!

Anywhoo- there were things I liked about Voyager (and Enterprise, for that matter).  Unfortunately for both series, they were both too inconsistently written in comparison to both their predecessors in the franchise and other sci-fi series that were airing at the same time to really have any success or fan loyalty.

Voyager actually features my single least favorite moment in all of Star Trek- there was an episode (1st season) in which they encountered humans who had been abducted by aliens but who had since built up their own civilization.  At the end of the episode, they invited Janeway to see their city.

Instead of actually showing us the city- even in the form of a walkthrough a simple town square set, a bluescreen/greenscreen or a painted backdrop which any other show in the franchise would have given us- we get a direct transition to Janeway sitting in her ready-room post-visit going "Wow, what a fantastic city!"

ARRGH!


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 29, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Soo... If I bump in and say I actually liked Voyager, you guys are going to stone me to death right? Okay, just to make sure... I'm not going to do that then... Or did I just do it already...



You're not the only one who liked Voyager. I liked it, but I can understand why many people don't like it. There are parts of it I don't like. Voyager is set in the Star Trek universe but it isn't really Star Trek.


----------



## Mark (Nov 29, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:


> You're not the only one who liked Voyager. I liked it, but I can understand why many people don't like it. There are parts of it I don't like. Voyager is set in the Star Trek universe but it isn't really Star Trek.





I think some people just have a more narrowly defined ST universe than others.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 30, 2008)

Mark said:


> I think some people just have a more narrowly defined ST universe than others.




While this is undoubtedly true, I feel constrained to point out that this is _hardly_ the only reason to dislike _Voyager_.

I didn't dislike the show just because "it wasn't Star Trek." I disliked it because it was (IMO) a bad show.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> While this is undoubtedly true, I feel constrained to point out that this is _hardly_ the only reason to dislike _Voyager_.



Another problem was not only tromping outside the ST universe, but twisting things from the ST universe into strange things, while discarding the pretty deep history built by three shows and several films.

And then, on top of it, it was basically a Monster of the Week show with a lot of average stories and not-so-engrossing characters. Which sort of defeated the point of tossing out the previously known ST universe - they basically did that without gaining anything from it. If you have this whole lost in the nowhere going on, then you have to capitalise it, like _Farscape_ - they played out the weirdness angle very often (and had interesting characters and good story arcs).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mark (Nov 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> While this is undoubtedly true, I feel constrained to point out that this is _hardly_ the only reason to dislike _Voyager_.
> 
> I didn't dislike the show just because "it wasn't Star Trek." I disliked it because it was (IMO) a bad show.





There were reasons to dislike each of the series.  The original was fairly poorly acted.  There was a definite self-righteous streak in TNG.  DS9 added in a strong metaphysical/religious component that some people did not feel was in keeping with ST's tradition of a more scientific focus.  Enterprise broke some of the canon without apology. Voyager overused deus ex machina relative to the other series.  There are more reasons for each of the shows to be disliked and it is pointless to get into a pissing contest with anyone, particularly if they have a favorite, so let's not start in on that, mouse.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 30, 2008)

Mark said:


> There are more reasons for each of the shows to be disliked and it is pointless to get into a pissing contest with anyone, particularly if they have a favorite, so let's not start in on that, mouse.




Whoa, whoa, whoa. No pissing contests here, nor was I trying to start an argument about which show was worse. All I was saying is that some people might dislike Voyager for reasons other than it "not being Star Trek." Nothing more, nothing less; didn't mean to imply anything more than that.


----------



## Mark (Nov 30, 2008)

Easy there, mouse.  My post wasn't fueled by anything other than reason and the wish to avoid protracted ST debates (STDs? ).


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 4, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I didn't dislike the show just because "it wasn't Star Trek." I disliked it because it was (IMO) a bad show.



Yeah, the overall story execution of the series really sucked for the most part.


----------

