Jump to content
Tim Bradstreet

Star Trek - 2009

Recommended Posts

Guest AdminGuyX

Here are a few shots from the new trailer:

 

I really dig the look of this cop:

trekcop.jpg

 

trekent.jpg

 

trekkirk.jpg

 

trekspkir.jpg

 

I'm posting this one because I was pretty blown away just how damn much Quinto looks like Nimoy here.

 

trekspockpropscb9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Tim, my understanding is that this film basically resets the franchise from zero, and redefines everything, including who these characters are. This is alluded to in the EW article/interview with Abrams.

 

It's not a prequel, not meant to fit in before TOS, this is a familiar yet different reimagining.

 

I know how we all love those so much.

 

No, no, I understand all of that for sure. I just think it's kind of silly to include this glimpse into Kirk's maverick childhood, at least like this.

Certainly it's a reimagining, a reimagining with spot on character likenesses, and a spot on (for the most part) Enterprise.

So visually it's a reimagining of the TV series, it's actors, and it's tech, just with current acting talent and 21st century Hollywood FX.

The reimagining is aimed at making this material play to today's audiences (and yes, including the young seemingly hip crowd).

No way they can please everyone unless the film works on a lot of levels, then even the die hards could be converted into believers.

 

I'm sure the aim is to redefine the characters. I just don't think they are going to be that much different than the original ones.

I actually think a better word for this is "updating". Redefining or reimagining would seem like words that describe stretching a bit further than it looks like they have.

There's the rub eh?

They want to stay true to the show and to the characters but they also want to offer something new.

Where do you draw the line with that?

It's tough to do.

 

I've never been completely sold on Chris Pine but I was hanging out with a director last night who knows him quite well and went a long way towards giving me a better opinion of him. Visually I'm having a hard time getting past the Tom Brady-sized nugget, the hair that looks like it's sitting on top of his head instead of growing out of it ;) And the eyebrows. Brooke Shields ain't got nuthin on this guy.

By all accounts Chris Pine is a very cool cat and a very intriguing actor so I'm not going to let this little shit foil my enjoyment.

But they have to deliver something better than average.

 

I'm still excited about this, no question. I'll definitely give it the benefit of the doubt going in.

 

I just hate to see (as Noeland put it), this Michael Bay-style, Bruckheimer, young Kirk scene.

I just don't care to see it. Hopefully it plays better for me in the context of the film.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX
Visually I'm having a hard time getting past the Tom Brady-sized nugget

 

:) LOL. Yeah, I didn't want to say anything, but I noticed that too. Hard to miss it really.

 

No way they can please everyone unless the film works on a lot of levels, then even the die hards could be converted into believers.

 

On the prop boards I post on, and some of the costuming boards I read, folks like to use the word "abomination" in reference to this film, especially the design of the Enterprise. I think this could be the best film in the history of mankind, but some folks are not going to get over the fact that there are 2 barcode scanners featured prominently on the bridge set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there won't be any chance of pleasing every nerd on this planet, no way.

You gotta draw the line on nitpicking or how could you ever be able to sit back and enjoy anything ;)

When it comes down to complaining about the inaccuracy of technical readouts on a tiny screen we only ever get a brief glimpse of . . . Well that's just taking your entertainment far too seriously. Let's just hope it's no abomination.

So far I don't see anything abominable, not visually, insofar as my taste is concerned, and I'm both a Trek TOS fanatic AND not so easy to please.

But I also want this to succeed.

Proof is always in the pudding though.

If the movie blows I'll be at the head of the line condemning it.

Likewise if it kicks ass I'll be praising.

 

That future cop pic is pretty fucking cool. Neat design.

Funny how even something this designed still smacks of, and reminds me of the cops in THX 1138.

 

And Noe, ever notice how Hal 9000 seems to pop up in all kinds of Sci-Fi fare?

In the cop's left eye, the auto pilot in Wall E, and I just spotted the design somewhere else recently though I can't remember what film.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX

Chris Pine has a big head. Look at it next to Quinto's Spock there, and also take note of the fact that his entire face is below the halfway mark of his melon.

 

I say that only because I am the perfect example of manly men, and a shining beacon of good lookin' myself, and the only reason Hugh Jackman won sexiest man alive is because that magazine hasn't seen my tubby ass yet.

 

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and even Chris ain't got nuthin on Robert Patrick.

I met him very briefly at the Stander premiere and I was stunned.

That guy's melon is . . . well it's really fucking big.

I never really noticed it on screen, but up-close and personal-like, it was jaw-droppingly impressive.

It must weigh more than a box of Bernie Wrightson's A Look Back hardcovers ;)

 

As for Brady, he seems to have an abnormally large forehead.

The ladies say he's sexy but if I was a chica, I'd have to take exception to the proportions - nose to crown.

I can never take him real seriously with a helmet on, he just looks like a nimrod.

Doesn't stop him from reigning supreme on the field though.

 

I'm a Steelers fan so Big Ben is my man. I have a hard time taking him seriously though too because when he's in uniform with a helmet on I can't get past the fact that he looks like Will Farrell. So it's like I've got Frank Ricard from Old School leading my team every Sunday.

 

Sorry to go off topic ;)

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris Pine has a big head. Look at it next to Quinto's Spock there, and also take note of the fact that his entire face is below the halfway mark of his melon.

;)

 

 

I've always called these people "lollipop heads" - Christina Ricci is the perfect example. The intrigue of large heads has actually been proven scientifically. We find them "attractive" 'cause it reminds us of a baby's proportions. I would surmise it's also why the lasses are drawn to Pine. I just think he's goofy.

 

I'll admit that I'm a Trek TOS dilletante. I've seen every episode at least 5 times but all before the age of 15, thanks to Channel 20 in DC. But I have a hard time swallowing the premise of this movie. I can't see how this is NOT meant to be a comedy (kinda like the Brady Bunch Movie). But I guess it has been over 20 years since it was in heavy syndication.

 

I hate getting old.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! I see... The guy's got a huge dome! lol It's strange how those things "read" on camera. I've seen several "models" who looked downright ghoulish (to me) and looked wonderful in print with the right lighting and all that. Subtle features don't play as well in these venues, I suppose. ;-)

 

Anyway, as for the film itself (the trailer, to be precise); it looks really appealing and expansive in scope. I even enjoyed the "little Kirk" segment. I personally feel that if they are doing a re-envisioning of the property then it's only fair that they not assume foreknowledge of the franchise. While I realize how absurd that sounds in light of the prevalence of Star Trek in our culture... that's really the mandate for that particular approach- develop the material as if no one has ever heard of Star Trek (or only has tangential knowledge of the television show).

 

I hope the scope of the film transcends the delicate relationship between Spock and Kirk (who are both closet homosexuals as far as I'm concerned...uhhh, not that there's anything wrong with that! But come out of the closet, already for pete's sake!). lol

 

Spock:

"It would be illogical for me to penetrate your nether orifice Captain without adequate protection."

 

Kirk:

"Mr. Spock... meet-me...in-the-broom-closet...set your phaser to....stun."

 

So anyway, looking forward to this flick. It should at least be better than the one where they cloned Picard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know someone who's a friend of J.J's. He saw a rough cut of the flick last summer. He's a big STAR TREK fan. He said it needed a lot of work. His main problem was with some of the characterization of the classic characters. I can't go into details, but he said the fans would hate it and the general public would eat it up. He expects that it will do huge business.

 

I love the new trailer. And I love the intro of young Kirk. I don't get the criticism of it. What's not to love? Maybe the kid's head wasn't big enough, Tim, so when you saw Christopher Pine as Kirk, you were thrown off!

 

It was pretty funny hearing Tim go off about the size of Christopher Pine's head the other night. As Ben Affleck would say, he's got a fivehead, not a fourhead. Maybe I can talk to my friend and have him ask J.J. to digitally shrink Christopher Pine's head to normal human dimensions. Although, I think he looks fine.

 

I'm looking forward to the flick. I hope it's great without shitting on the TREK history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trailer looks freaking awesome, the car chase in the beginning was awesome, and the kid was awesome and if you didn't like it...well you're wrong.

 

I wil start with the FACT that Truly ANYTHING would be better than 80% of the Shatner-lead films, and the Next Generation films were VERY spotty.

 

The original Star Trek series of films and short lived TV series (with the exception of Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and The Undiscovered Country which actually had some emotional drive to them) are well....how can I say this in a way that definitely offends every Star Trek nerd intenionally....I always despised how the fans had to dissect details, collect information, and obsess about things SO much smaller than the viceral experience of escaping into a different world for a couple hours. In my opinion...those fans actually ruin the romantic idea of Star Trek.

 

These fans ruin it by dissecting EVERYTHING, drooling on themselves over the microscopic...they ruin it like George Lucas ruined The Force by explaining it. (Make fun of Star Wars fans if you like, but they are fans of a far more romantic space-based franchise and their fandom is lightyears away from being as irritating as the old school Star Trek nerds.) (I am of course opposed to Episode 1-3, so don't waste your time typing)

 

Star Trek fans are true "nerds", and do nothing to enhance my desire to watch more old Star Trek by horfing up episode names/ numbers or how some specific piece of the Star Ship works. Ideally they would convince me there was something good about those episodes or films by describing how good the story was...BUT...I don't think the stories are good, otherwise these nerds would talk about that more. Instead it's as if they are all wearing a decoder ring, gathering to nerd-worship false gods like Shatner... like strange, irritating, but ultimately harmless cult members.

 

Funny to me is how these Star Trek nerds want to be referred to as "Trekkers" rather than "Trekkies"....well, NO. I say no. They have not earned it. (at least the fans I'm talking about, which seems to be ALL of them) See... like a "hiker", "fighter", "racer", or "hunter" the fake word "Trekker" implies something exciting, viceral, movement, adventure, activity...it just plain sounds cooler. This word is completely undeserved as a description of these fans who live in the details , and forget the romance of science fiction...and no matter how much "Trekkie" upsets them to hear it... is far more accurate...like as in the word "groupie".

 

I cannot wait to see a new generation of Star Trek fans emerge, unhindered by the previous films and not tainted by the cult series turned mainstream film series. Captain Kirk is a joke in most cases, in fact there was SO much camp with that cast of actors it would be nice to see it all taken somewhere new. I pray they do not cater too much to old in-jokes and all that campy junk. Skip it. Take us where no Star Trek film has gone before...For once. PLEASE!

 

Next Generation is MY Star Trek, Sci-Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica is a better overall experience than ANY Star Trek EVER has been and...how come some campy old 60's show riddled with horrible acting gets this cult status, then all this fuss for years and years and something actually GOOD, with GOOD writing like Firefly gets the shaft? I dunno, but I hope JJ Abrams reboots this Trek series hard-core, let's get a fresh new view of these characters and a fresh audience for them FINALLY. As for you die-hard campy 60's nerds, or people who obsess about space ship crystals...well, sorry to say it...but I am going to enjoy watching you squirm next to me in the theater.

 

Pss--that's right, the old Kirk is a joke.

 

Psss-- Picard is much better.

 

PSSSS--oh also...nah-nah-nah-boo-boo ON YOU. :P

 

lol. ;)

--Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny to me is how these Star Trek nerds want to be referred to as "Trekkers" rather than "Trekkies"....well, NO. I say no. They have not earned it. (at least the fans I'm talking about, which seems to be ALL of them) See... like a "hiker", "fighter", "racer", or "hunter" the fake word "Trekker" implies something exciting, viceral, movement, adventure, activity...it just plain sounds cooler. This word is completely undeserved as a description of these fans who live in the details , and forget the romance of science fiction...and no matter how much "Trekkie" upsets them to hear it... is far more accurate...like as in the word "groupie".

 

 

Pss--that's right, the old Kirk is a joke.

 

Psss-- Picard is much better.

 

PSSSS--oh also...nah-nah-nah-boo-boo ON YOU. :P

 

lol. ;)

--Jim

 

:blink: Christ, I'm dying, choking on my beef pastie...just too well said! :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Daly III reinforces my joy at never having been a trekkie,..um...trekker...ahh..whatever. I never did understand all that.

 

I don't mind the total reboot, start from scratch, whatever you want to call it, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Daly! Snap! Oh no, he duhn't! ;)

 

I am a Trekkie and I admit it. Perhaps there is room in the Star Trek fan discourse to differentiate "kies" from the self-styled "kers" that do probably dissect the show a little too much and were accurately parodied on Saturday Night Live.

 

My Trek begins with the original series where you could hear the actors stomping around the floorboards of the set, the Trek of rudimentary gadgets that have been inspiration to actual technological developments and design, the "but I am black on the left, he is black on the right" Trek. In other words, the Trek of ideas is mine. And, yes, The Next Generation so beautifully expanded upon those seeds of ideas TOS humbly planted. Just because I loved the original, doesn't mean I didn't love the next as well ... :wub:

 

As for the reboot, revamp, reimaging, reimagining ... I have simply hit the saturation point in general on these types of films. But, I will definitely see it. I might even enjoy it. I will just have the luxury of being able to witness Star Trek over so many years, and in so many different incarnations. For this, I feel incredibly fortunate. (And old, dammit! Thanks alot!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a crush on Captain Jean Luc Picard....did I just type that...am I about to hit return?! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

Well, I'm glad I said I was a TOS dilletante - just 'cause I watched it all the time doesn't mean I worshipped it. I always thought the show was campy (but the saddest kind 'cause it didn't know it was funny) and that clip further proves it.

 

And yes, most "space" shows from that era were quite weak. That era's Battle Star Gallactica sucked as did Buck Rogers. Anyone remember Space 1999 with Martin Landau and Barbara Bain? Please don't let anyone remake that!

 

As for the reboot, revamp, reimaging, reimagining - I think it's their hope that ST2008 will legitimize TOS - pull it out of camp and make it respectable like the rest of the franchise. But the characters and tropes of TOS have their own vortex that's hard to repel and resist. Let's see if they were successful in tying themselves to a rock while the sirens scream "...I....am.....Kirk..."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, OK . . . I'll Bite - In RED

 

The trailer looks freaking awesome, the car chase in the beginning was awesome, and the kid was awesome and if you didn't like it...well you're wrong.

 

Coming from the guy who worships The Mummy you already have no credibility ;)

No, perhaps that's too harsh. Coming from a guy who worships The Mummy and is fully aware that it's a far cry from cinematic masterpiece I'm shocked, neigh stunned that you don't have a better understanding of how nostalgia works. Hypocritical bastard, I spit my last breath at thee ;)

In the case of young Kirk's new car chase, well, it's all relative. I think it sucks (judged solely on the trailer), you think it rocks. Well I like Diet soda and you like the sugary stuff ;) Neither one of us is wrong, it all comes down to personal taste and I would never begrudge someone that.

 

I wil start with the FACT that Truly ANYTHING would be better than 80% of the Shatner-lead films, and the Next Generation films were VERY spotty.

 

Treacherous dog.

 

The original Star Trek series of films and short lived TV series (with the exception of Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and The Undiscovered Country which actually had some emotional drive to them) are well....how can I say this in a way that definitely offends every Star Trek nerd intenionally....I always despised how the fans had to dissect details, collect information, and obsess about things SO much smaller than the viceral experience of escaping into a different world for a couple hours. In my opinion...those fans actually ruin the romantic idea of Star Trek.

 

"Ruin" is coming at it pretty high JMD3, Perhaps your issue is with the fans and not necessarily the show. I think it all goes back to Jr. high school when you were de-pansed by those Trek Nerds at the sock hop ;)

 

These fans ruin it by dissecting EVERYTHING, drooling on themselves over the microscopic...they ruin it like George Lucas ruined The Force by explaining it. (Make fun of Star Wars fans if you like, but they are fans of a far more romantic space-based franchise and their fandom is lightyears away from being as irritating as the old school Star Trek nerds.) (I am of course opposed to Episode 1-3, so don't waste your time typing)

 

I know it might suck for you hear this, but there probably wouldn't have been a Star Wars if it hadn't been for Star Trek. I see this as more of a generational issue. Plus the fact that you obviously despise those unfortunate souls who "live" in the Trek world. Yeah, from our perspective it's pretty silly. But for them it represents something else that we just don't fully understand, nor do we necessarily want to, But if it gives them pleasure than who are we to take a shit on them? Irritating? Certainly. There are degrees though. And you being a Star Wars nerd yourself shows your true colors in this equation mon frere.

 

Star Trek fans are true "nerds", and do nothing to enhance my desire to watch more old Star Trek by horfing up episode names/ numbers or how some specific piece of the Star Ship works. Ideally they would convince me there was something good about those episodes or films by describing how good the story was...BUT...I don't think the stories are good, otherwise these nerds would talk about that more. Instead it's as if they are all wearing a decoder ring, gathering to nerd-worship false gods like Shatner... like strange, irritating, but ultimately harmless cult members.

 

Perhaps it is time to educate you on this particular subject, my young open-minded friend. I would have to disagree strongly that the stories aren't good. Take for example Harlan Ellison's script for City On The Edge Of Forever, which won the Writers Guild Of America Award for Best Written Dramatic Episode in 1966. I guarantee that you will love that episode. ST TOS was also twice nominated for an Emmy as Outstanding Dramatic Series in '67 and '68. I'm pretty sure that shows with bad or questionable writing don't get nominated for many of those. It's my belief that Star Trek was ruined for you long before you took the time to seriously watch some of the episodes. You appear to have a slanted view of the series that doesn't necessarily seem like it's all that informed. I say "seem" cause I don't know for sure. But now I'm going to force you to watch a handful of the very best episodes. And then we'll see if you still stand where you stand now. Of course there will be no getting around that this stuff is dated, but I think quality will shine through. You have laid down the gauntlet Sir, and I am fully prepared to reacquaint you with something I believe you missed out on :)

 

Let me also mention some of the other series' writers, among them are Richard Matheson (the master!), Dorothy Fontana, Robert Bloch (also wrote Psycho), Roddenberry, Theodore Sturgeon, Gene L. Coon, and Norman Spinrad. That's pretty select company.

 

Funny to me is how these Star Trek nerds want to be referred to as "Trekkers" rather than "Trekkies"....well, NO. I say no. They have not earned it. (at least the fans I'm talking about, which seems to be ALL of them) See... like a "hiker", "fighter", "racer", or "hunter" the fake word "Trekker" implies something exciting, viceral, movement, adventure, activity...it just plain sounds cooler. This word is completely undeserved as a description of these fans who live in the details , and forget the romance of science fiction...and no matter how much "Trekkie" upsets them to hear it... is far more accurate...like as in the word "groupie".

 

I would classify myself as a Trekkie. I think Trekker is stupid. I am a proud Trekkie. Do you think me a groupie? As with any label it's a generalization, often throwing a group as a whole under the bus as it were. There are many levels of fandom. I consider myself to be of the discerning variety. Though I also understand the spirit with which these comments were intended, so I take this seemingly harsh appraisal with a light hearted grain of salt ;)

 

I cannot wait to see a new generation of Star Trek fans emerge, unhindered by the previous films and not tainted by the cult series turned mainstream film series. Captain Kirk is a joke in most cases, in fact there was SO much camp with that cast of actors it would be nice to see it all taken somewhere new. I pray they do not cater too much to old in-jokes and all that campy junk. Skip it. Take us where no Star Trek film has gone before...For once. PLEASE!

 

A new generation of the very nerds you claim to despise? New Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, it makes no difference. Fans are fans no matter the generation. The geek aquad will be out in full force. Don't delude yourself ;) I also put forth that most of the "camp" that you generously bandy is almost entirely limited to Star Trek's 3rd season, with a few other exceptions (mainly in season 2). Some of those episodes are downright silly and ridiculous, I admit. That's a byproduct of the show's budget being cut in half, and that trickled down to the writing as well. Some of those episodes are atrocious. And the actors in question would be the first to agree. When you are under contract you get fucked along with everyone else.

 

One of the first episodes I want to screen for you is Balance Of Terror, which stars Mark Leonard (later to play Spock's father Sarek) as a Romulan Captain every bit as crafty as Kirk, it's a one on one dog fight which is actually more of a sub chase. It harkens the taught drama of The Enemy Below (1957) The Romulan War Bird is the Sub and the Enterprise is the Destroyer. The suspense is top notch and the acting is tip-top.

As I mentioned before, you need to see TOS in it's prime.

 

Next Generation is MY Star Trek, Sci-Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica is a better overall experience than ANY Star Trek EVER has been and...how come some campy old 60's show riddled with horrible acting gets this cult status, then all this fuss for years and years and something actually GOOD, with GOOD writing like Firefly gets the shaft? I dunno, but I hope JJ Abrams reboots this Trek series hard-core, let's get a fresh new view of these characters and a fresh audience for them FINALLY. As for you die-hard campy 60's nerds, or people who obsess about space ship crystals...well, sorry to say it...but I am going to enjoy watching you squirm next to me in the theater.

 

Dude, Star Trek was the 60's equivalent to Firefly, and it got shafted too. And not for nuthin, but Firefly has it's very own cult status as well. It's just that Trek has been around for 40 fucking years building it's mythos. And comparing today's Battlestar Galactica to a 40 year old series is like comparing VHS to Blue Ray. It's rather pointless.

 

Pss--that's right, the old Kirk is a joke.

 

Them's fightin' words punk! ;)

 

Psss-- Picard is much better.

 

If you say so.

 

PSSSS--oh also...nah-nah-nah-boo-boo ON YOU. :P

 

- ;P

 

- TB

 

lol. ;)

--Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paramount screened more than 20 minutes of footage from J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie this week in Los Angeles, about which much has been written.

 

But the studio also previewed concept art that offered a glimpse into the top-secret story and the way Abrams' Trek universe expands the original series.

 

The art, which ran as a slide show on TV monitors placed around the lobby of the Paramount Theater on the studio lot in Hollywood, revealed designs for uniforms, ships, command bridges, sets, a Starfleet Academy lecture hall and weapons, including phasers.

 

Many of the drawings appeared to be based on the designs from the original series, particularly the uniforms of the Enterprise crew and the phasers they used.

 

Continue reading:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?c...=3&id=62337

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Los Angeles (E! Online) – The upcoming Star Trek is going to give a whole new meaning to "beam me up."

 

Chris Pine, who plays Capt. Kirk, confirms reports that director J.J. Abrams has steamed things up aboard the Enterprise

with a couple of love scenes.

 

One trailer for the flick shows an underwear-clad Pine climbing on top of a mystery woman in bed.

 

Continue reading:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20081120/e...x14ebnDsOAwFxkF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX

Be interesting to see if his opinion has any sway with the die hard old schoolers who have been non-stop bashing the new trailer.

 

Or, if they just turn on him.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...