There’s a new Star Trek trailer and it looks terrible

It has a lot of punching, precious little "science fiction."


Read the whole story

 

[SixDegrees]

brutaltruth[/url]":38p8at8y]Star Wars > Star Trek. Always been that way, always will.

Firefly > Star Wars && Star Trek

 

[caustic meatloaf]

YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH PETER. JJ ABRAMS IS AMAZING.

1st new movie : large spaceship with evil mastermind running it, captures critical crewmembers

2nd new movie: KHAAAAAAANNNN!!!!

3rd new movie: The Enterprise is destroyed, kirk et.al stranded on alien planet with multiple ecosystems.


Seriously, Abrams is just making homage films to the TOS movies. The next one will likely involve time travel and large mammals.

 

[potato44819]

caustic meatloaf[/url]":2eho73jw]YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH PETER. JJ ABRAMS IS AMAZING.

1st new movie : large spaceship with evil mastermind running it, captures critical crewmembers

2nd new movie: KHAAAAAAANNNN!!!!

3rd new movie: The Enterprise is destroyed, kirk et.al stranded on alien planet with multiple ecosystems.


Seriously, Abrams is just making homage films to the TOS movies. The next one will likely involve time travel and large mammals.

At which point he'll blow up the probe after sexing the whales and killing them too, thus pissing off everyone from Trekkies to PETA.

 

[dhughes]

MythBusterJoe[/url]":2jgvwpdq]At least it looks like they've cured obesity in the 23rd century, everyone looks fit.

That's the after the Great Gluten War of 2135 to 2156.

 

[The Opinionaire]

I have come to accept the fact that the Star Trek franchise has been turned to shit. I prey that JJ Abrams doesn't do the same thing to Star Wars. Of course, George Lucas really lowered the bar on that franchise, so the only way is up.

At least there's a good chance this Star Trek won't be blasting endless lens flares into my annoyed eyeballs.

 

[HexRei]

SixDegrees[/url]":1yh5tuce]

HexRei[/url]":1yh5tuce]

Wickwick[/url]":1yh5tuce]

Operative Me[/url]":1yh5tuce]One thing I will say is that I think this move may be somewhat necessary. Not "good"...but necessary. I came to enjoy Star Trek later in life, and will freely admit I have not seen all the movies...but have any of the movies had to fully cover every bit of character development? What I mean is that for my memory, the other Star Trek movies have followed behind a television series where a lot of the more contemplative stuff can happen. You can learn about characters, have the world "breathe" from time to time. Attempting to shoehorn in the characters makes them come off as caricatures. But here, there is no such thing. In order to pitch it to be sold, it's necessary that it has that mass appeal. the problem is that this is ALL there is.

In some ways, one can imagine, this is a solvable problem. You look at the Marvel universe and they're doing a lot of cross-planning. With Star Trek you don't need that, but you could easily have a situation where Netflix puts out a 13-episode season in between the years of the movies. They could have done this with Star Trek reboot, having the movie introduce the characters and then have actual character development and space exploration in the series, building tensions for a few seasons before having the trope-y, fast-paced movie.

It'd be interesting, I think, to see how a person with zero knowledge of the TV show would view the movies alone. Would they hold up? Would they make sense? First Contact builds around a tension that stems from the show, does it not? As does Wrath of Khan.

I'm not trying to excuse the new movies, they are absolutely trying for blockbuster rather than introspective sci-fi, but they also don't have as much "space" to work with as the other movies did, where there was time to truly explore.

Were I in charge, I'd probably see about correcting that. Make a series for Netflix that gives the characters the time to do what Star Trek did. Sure, build up over the years to a blockbuster, but do so knowing that you're not trying to shove everything into a 90-minute punch-fest.

Imagine a season of Cumberbatch as a character, a season of heightened tensions with the Klingons, a sense of fear and dread on border worlds, explorations cut short by the necessity of encroaching war...all of which is exploited by ambitious people who want to see the war happen, and the slow reveal of Khan as the architect of much of the conflict in the movie, payoff for a season's worth of tension.

The problem with the current Star Trek, I think, isn't just that it's too action-focused. It's that the action focus is ALL there is, because there's no TV show to develop a deeper understanding of the world.

The only problem with that is usually people don't want to pay for stories or actors that are on TV (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptions). That's why, e.g. Pierce Brosnan was passed over as 007 when he was still contractually obligated to Remington Steele or the Star Trek movies were the old cast even though ST:TNG was out.

Really? I thought Generations and First Contact both came out while Next Gen was still filming or at least airing new eps.

Regardless, I think this whole thing is also changing because of high budget, big-cast series from HBO, Showtime, AMC, Netflix. Matthew McConaghey's movie career doesnt seem to have suffered from doing True Detective. Halle Berry's series Extant was cancelled but I'm pretty sure she was courting/filming movies around the same time.

I've read that the Hollywood studios aren't making nearly as many films as they did just a few years ago. Whereas in the past they would churn out maybe a couple dozen per year, now they're focused on putting out 3 or 4 major, huge-budget blockbusters. This, it's said, has led to a loss of work for a lot of the people who used to work on all those other films, and you've seen a migration of A-grade talent over to the television realm, where cable is starved for content and has the dough to produce it themselves. So we're seeing really high-quality television now in comparison to the past as it absorbs all that excess talent.

Speaking of which: looking forward to the debut of both The Expanse and Childhood's End on SyFy, which both seem like pretty huge steps up from Sharknado.

The Expanse (ep 1) is already available if you want to check it out, it's hard to say exactly where it's going but it seems to me like a blend of Firefly and BSG by the end of the ep.

 

[vishnu]

I won't be going to the theater. I was disappointed with (but mildly enjoyed) the first reboot. Into darkness was just plain boring. This one will get watched on netflix, if at all.

 

[weyoun_6]

I don't see the point in watching this when there is plenty of good Star Trek to watch. I just got through another watching of TNG. That's a great show, as is DS9. There are more than a few excellent Star Trek movies. I don't expect another good one to be made anytime soon. Though I would welcome being pleasantly surprised. I passed on Into Darkness, and will continue to pass until someone whose film opinions I respect actually says that it's *worth* seeing the latest Star Trek film.

Edited to add:

concluded that Insurrection is really the best TNG movie.

I think Insurrection was the last good Star Trek movie. It came out in 1998. That was a long time ago. So, no good Star Trek movies in the 21st century.

 

[FoneSkulker]

I loathed the OG series when I was a kid and it was a staple of re-run TV and, by natural extension, couldn't bear any of the "TNG" or big-screen regurgitations.

This, OTOH, I might actually rent based on the trailer. Go figure.

 

[NinjaNerd56]

adsfqwer[/url]":2xv29l56]

NinjaNerd56[/url]":2xv29l56]I'm ancient enough to have seen TOS first run in the 60's, and Star Wars in L.A. on opening weekend in 1977.

I like all things Star Trek and Star Wars for the most part, some more than others. I'm just glad we're seeing real money and real actors (well, maybe not Hayden Christensen) in science fiction films today.

When I grew up, it was pretty bleak. It was Star Dreck for the most part.

I'm good with the new movies, and I liked the trailer.

Is it "Roddenberry" Star Trek? Who cares! He was a deeply flawed guy who got a little lucky, not some modern day prophet. Canon, shmanon.

Good for you. You've basically stated that you are not interested in science-fiction, which is fine. You want lasers and punches and outer space. That's fine. Fortunately, that's not what the original Trek (or TNG) was about, and some of us would love to have a modern version of its themes. We're let down, and that's why we're bitching.

Oh, how funny you are!

I get your letdown feelings, but it's not the end of the world, which was my point. Enjoy it as much as you can; we could have more "Plan 9 From Outer Space" instead.

As for interest in science fiction, I'm guessing I'm the only Arsian to actually board the only Enterprise that's flown to date. Never got to space, but it did fly. I also signed up for Mars One, and I'll jump on whatever Musk does, assuming I don't croak first.

Quite the opposite...I LIVE science fiction. As much as possible.

 

[charleski]

Pegg ... simply exposes the laziness of film writers

But there's hope, surely? The trailer shows him hanging by his fingertips over a precipitous drop. Maybe he can't hang on and falls to a messy end so the crew can stage a tear-jerking memorial for him later?* You can't be a Trek-fan without believing that things will get better, after all.


*No, he doesn't -- Darn

 

[RT81]

My wife had an interesting theory; maybe Leonard Nimoy was the only entity keeping them from completely jumping the shark and, now that he's gone, all bets are off.

 

[SixDegrees]

HexRei[/url]":2pnhzgp2]

SixDegrees[/url]":2pnhzgp2]

HexRei[/url]":2pnhzgp2]

Wickwick[/url]":2pnhzgp2]

Operative Me[/url]":2pnhzgp2]One thing I will say is that I think this move may be somewhat necessary. Not "good"...but necessary. I came to enjoy Star Trek later in life, and will freely admit I have not seen all the movies...but have any of the movies had to fully cover every bit of character development? What I mean is that for my memory, the other Star Trek movies have followed behind a television series where a lot of the more contemplative stuff can happen. You can learn about characters, have the world "breathe" from time to time. Attempting to shoehorn in the characters makes them come off as caricatures. But here, there is no such thing. In order to pitch it to be sold, it's necessary that it has that mass appeal. the problem is that this is ALL there is.

In some ways, one can imagine, this is a solvable problem. You look at the Marvel universe and they're doing a lot of cross-planning. With Star Trek you don't need that, but you could easily have a situation where Netflix puts out a 13-episode season in between the years of the movies. They could have done this with Star Trek reboot, having the movie introduce the characters and then have actual character development and space exploration in the series, building tensions for a few seasons before having the trope-y, fast-paced movie.

It'd be interesting, I think, to see how a person with zero knowledge of the TV show would view the movies alone. Would they hold up? Would they make sense? First Contact builds around a tension that stems from the show, does it not? As does Wrath of Khan.

I'm not trying to excuse the new movies, they are absolutely trying for blockbuster rather than introspective sci-fi, but they also don't have as much "space" to work with as the other movies did, where there was time to truly explore.

Were I in charge, I'd probably see about correcting that. Make a series for Netflix that gives the characters the time to do what Star Trek did. Sure, build up over the years to a blockbuster, but do so knowing that you're not trying to shove everything into a 90-minute punch-fest.

Imagine a season of Cumberbatch as a character, a season of heightened tensions with the Klingons, a sense of fear and dread on border worlds, explorations cut short by the necessity of encroaching war...all of which is exploited by ambitious people who want to see the war happen, and the slow reveal of Khan as the architect of much of the conflict in the movie, payoff for a season's worth of tension.

The problem with the current Star Trek, I think, isn't just that it's too action-focused. It's that the action focus is ALL there is, because there's no TV show to develop a deeper understanding of the world.

The only problem with that is usually people don't want to pay for stories or actors that are on TV (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptions). That's why, e.g. Pierce Brosnan was passed over as 007 when he was still contractually obligated to Remington Steele or the Star Trek movies were the old cast even though ST:TNG was out.

Really? I thought Generations and First Contact both came out while Next Gen was still filming or at least airing new eps.

Regardless, I think this whole thing is also changing because of high budget, big-cast series from HBO, Showtime, AMC, Netflix. Matthew McConaghey's movie career doesnt seem to have suffered from doing True Detective. Halle Berry's series Extant was cancelled but I'm pretty sure she was courting/filming movies around the same time.

I've read that the Hollywood studios aren't making nearly as many films as they did just a few years ago. Whereas in the past they would churn out maybe a couple dozen per year, now they're focused on putting out 3 or 4 major, huge-budget blockbusters. This, it's said, has led to a loss of work for a lot of the people who used to work on all those other films, and you've seen a migration of A-grade talent over to the television realm, where cable is starved for content and has the dough to produce it themselves. So we're seeing really high-quality television now in comparison to the past as it absorbs all that excess talent.

Speaking of which: looking forward to the debut of both The Expanse and Childhood's End on SyFy, which both seem like pretty huge steps up from Sharknado.

The Expanse (ep 1) is already available if you want to check it out, it's hard to say exactly where it's going but it seems to me like a blend of Firefly and BSG by the end of the ep.

Got both queued up, but I may not get time to watch them for a couple of days.

 

[bugballou]

What with Romulan religious fanatics, and the Federation being sued for copyright infringement on the design of the latest Enterprise Class Starship, I doubt this one will make it into theaters. Sure hope they can do a little cut and paste to get Mr. Nimoy into a future episode.

 

[simonov]

Demani[/url]":2tq2ug8g]
You sir are pushing your luck. It could be argued that the Beastie Boys were the catalyst for bringing hiphop culture into the mainstream by virtue of it's quite white members. And given the effect that hiphop has had on modern pop culture, that is no insignificant feat.

It's sure as hell not something I'd want to put on my résumé.

 

[Clubsandwich]

"the new Trek film has some kind of popular music playing along. (The Beastie Boys, apparently.)"

...watch the first movie? Just a thought.

 

[Raptor]

Annnnnnnnnnd.........

I'm out.

 

[NetMage]

Can't believe no one suggested JMS as a better Star Trek steward.

 

[Cabusha]

I still remember the teaser for Star Trek. Just brief glimpses of an ironworker welding on a frame. Then slow pans and the music starting to cut in as you realize what it is. HOLY SHIT IT'S THE ENTERPRISE!!!

Where's the spark now, man?

 

[GwT]

OK. If the last one was a reboot of "Space Seed", this seems to be a remake of either "Arena" or "Gamesters of Triskelion".

 

[eatrains]

DrPizza[/url]":2yx41gwo]

boots[/url]":2yx41gwo]IIRC the song you heard ("Sabotage") was the same song young Kirk played when he drove his dad's Corvette off a cliff in the first JJ-Abrams Star Trek installment.

http://www.corvetteblogger.com/images/c ... 1708_6.jpg

So I'm told. I don't recognize it (or even remember it from the first film) so I guess the reference doesn't really work for me. I can sort of buy listening to 200 year old music when you're in a 200 year old car on earth. In a spaceship it seems kinda dumb.

You realize this is a trailer, right? Not a clip from the movie? The song probably won't even be in the movie. It's just music for the trailer. The whole "listening to music in a spaceship" might have even been invented for the trailer.

 

[Raptor]

This really was terrible enough to dampen my enthusiasm for Episode 7 and move me back from "Cautiously optimistic and excited" to "concerned and ready for disappointment."

That's how bad this trailer is.

Or put another way, I think I'd actually rather watch Voyager.

 

[Akemi]

cerkit[/url]":hoj30jwp]I agree that this does not look like Star Trek. However, it looks like a good movie that I want to see. If they would have called it "Space Junkies: New Ride", no one would know or care to see it. By abusing the Star Trek brand, at least they get massive recognition.

People keep saying this, and it's just not true. Both Ant Man and Guardians of the Galaxy were unknown by all but the most die-hard Marvel fans. Both did pretty well at the box office, and both are getting sequels.

 

[carlisimo]

WagonWheelsRX8[/url]":1l939c1b]So like over 150 comments posted and not one mentions the antagonist shown might be the Tholians?

The Tholians are crystalline, aren't they? Silicon-based. The wave of small spacecraft in the trailer isn’t that similar to the Tholian web. These guys are more likely to be... dunno, probably made up (which is fine). Or they could be reimagined Gorn (lizardmen), Orion pirates (which were green in TOS, but blue in the animated series – and more likely to be bad guys), or Andorians (blue, but with antennae).

MisterAlex[/url]":1l939c1b]Star Trek transporters don't work based on physical contact with the one being locked onto. That's been made pretty clear in a number of instances, particularly in cases where "I was only able to get a clear lock on so-and-so." It's not as if Beverly ever said, "Crusher to Enterprise—beam me and everyone I'm hugging directly to sickbay."

Counterpoint: Star Trek IV.

Wickwick[/url]":1l939c1b]So where are we on the "Even-numbered Star Treks don't suck" mantra? Are we now in a situation where everything is an odd number from here on out?

That streak ended with Nemesis, which is probably the reason Star Trek needed a reboot. That makes me realize it’s been a while since we had a villain with a plausible motivation.

 

[3rdalbum]

I hope they cancel the fourth movie. What we got back didn't live long - fortunately.

 

[Wickwick]

NetMage[/url]":1zcdx8jm]Can't believe no one suggested JMS as a better Star Trek steward.

After all the crap Star Trek did to ruin Babylon 5 I doubt JMS would want to be involved. Basically every guest star they could get interested was suddenly unavailable thanks to a Star Trek commitment.

 

[Wolfe Boy]

I realize I'm probably 7 pages too late, but did anyone else catch that G'Kar cameo? Wowzers.

 

[pkissel]

What's the point of hiring Justin Lin if Vin Diesel isn't going to at least make at cameo appearance in this movie!

 

[woodelf]

Ignoble Xenon[/url]":3gl2jwhi]It looks like plenty of fun, just like the previous entries in the reboot. That doesn't necessarily make it "terrible", just different.

So change the title. Remember that movie that had "Godzilla" in the title, but instead had some completely different monster in it, and did a 180 on the core theme of Godzilla (that is: you can't defeat Godzilla, all you can do is survive him; Godzilla movies aren't monster movies, they're disaster movies)? Or that movie that had "Highlander" in the title, but instead of being an action/romance/fantasy about immortal swordfighters was a science fiction movie about aliens exiled to earth for a failed coup?

When you claim a certain title or property, you need to either be true to the tropes and traits of that property, or meaningfully reinvent it in such a way that people who like the original will also like the new one. If your goal is to make something that the people who didn't like the original will like and people who liked the original won't like, then don't use that property. The first Abrams film just barely managed a successful reinvention (judged by fan reactions—I think it threw the baby (science fiction crossed with morality play) out with the bathwater, and therefore wasn't meaningfully "Star Trek"). The 2nd, and seemingly the 3rd, continue to excise elements that set Star Trek apart from "generic space adventure". They are not so much "Star Trek" as they are "some familiar 'Star Trek' characters get transported into a different universe" (and not a different universe that makes sense within the context of 'Trek, like the Mirror Universe, but more like Red Shirts).

 

[CatsRidingRoombas]

If I had my way, Trek would have moved into the future, starting with the resolution of the biggest Next Generation villain stories, the Borg vs the Federation and the Borg's reunification with the Caeliar.

But, since I didn't get my way, I'm cool with the reboot, especially because of the actors playing the main characters. Pine is Kirk, Quinto is Spock, Peg, is Scotty, Cho is Sulu, Saldana is Uhura, and Yelchin is Chekov.

Here's the thing about Star Trek, even if fans aren't super happy with the series current direction, Star Trek can easily reinvent itself again, as it's done so many times before. TOS reinvented itself, it became a cartoon, then a movie series which reinvented itself after the first movie, then TNG came along, DS9, and Voyager, and now the latest reboot. That's the true beauty of Star Trek and sci fi, they're only limited by the minds of the visionaries behind the stories and the fans in front of them.

 

[woodelf]

Serrin[/url]":1qwgimn9]The trailer looks terrible and I doubt I'll like the movie, but that being said...

It's a trailer. Scenes of Spock discussing moral dilemmas won't bring people into the theater.

Which people? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnrmWLp1Ub8

Now, obviously tastes vary, but IMHO the very best of Star Trek has aspired to the same sort of moral explorations that Doubt is all about. Very rarely achieved them, of course, but the Abrams movies don't even consider the possibility of considering such matters (or, at least, the previous 2 didn't). But it's a choice to go after people who want chases, explosions, and pretty people, instead of thought-provoking questions of science fiction, technology, society, and morality. (or, for that matter, trying to appeal to both—tough balancing act, but not completely unheard of.)

 

[Nick_L]

Personally, I think the choice of music is completely appropriate. If this isn't J.J. Abrams' and Hollywood's attempt at finishing off Star Trek for good I don't know what other explanation there could be.

 

[Shavano]

Serrin[/url]":1v9n9vdn]The trailer looks terrible and I doubt I'll like the movie, but that being said...

It's a trailer. Scenes of Spock discussing moral dilemmas won't bring people into the theater.

Yeah, can't judge a movie by its trailer. BUT, they're going to have to do better. That trailer does not sell the movie.

 

[The Ryan]

Wow. They finally found a way to make Star Trek V look good.

 

[GhostRed]

While I whole-heartedly agree with this:

"From the director of Fast & Furious" are not words that I want to see in any Star Trek trailer

This just simply wasn't at all what I saw in the trailer:

It has a lot of punching; precious little science fiction.

I'll agree, a Star Trek film it is NOT, but there were no punches and plenty of sci-fi activity, even if not at all faithful to the series.

Trekkies have a hard time when it comes to consistency in writing and directing, which is at the heart of why this looks to be so terrible.

Unfortunately, the previous writing hasn't been joined with good enough directing to sustain a consistent theme, at least as far as the movies go.

To be fair, though, the franchise has been farmed out to whoever can promise the financial backing, not the creative attention.

Star Wars has been fortunate enough to at least have had creative consistency, if only due to the influence of Lucas on the franchise, though where that left us with the last trilogy is certainly debatable.

That said, I've always enjoyed Trek TV more than film. This is no big surprise, nor were the last two.

It will be a great action movie, but not a great Trek

 

[Nick_L]

yosifcuervo[/url]":2h555hm2]of course it is filled with 'science fiction' - every single scene in that trailer was jam-packed with aliens and technology and could never be described as anything else!

I disagree. I have quite a few adjectives in mind, and they have nothing to do with science fiction.

 

[greenmky]

Wickwick[/url]":30g85td3]

NetMage[/url]":30g85td3]Can't believe no one suggested JMS as a better Star Trek steward.

After all the crap Star Trek did to ruin Babylon 5 I doubt JMS would want to be involved. Basically every guest star they could get interested was suddenly unavailable thanks to a Star Trek commitment.

JMS & Bryce Zabel wrote a Star Trek TV reboot plan, you can read about it here:

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/ ... _star.html

It's a little B5-ish (or really a little Crusade-y) but definitely more in the exploratory / adventure mindset. I'm a huge B5 fan so I'd love to see a big franchise in JMS's hands at some point.

As far as nu-Trek, I actually thought the first reboot movie was pretty well-done and a good jumping-off point (sorry any angry Trekkies I may offend with this statement).

Into Darkness, though, is full of awful scriptwriting/logical failures (magic blood, super transporter) and pointless homage, as well as being way too busy with both Khan and the other Federation villain guy. A total mess.

 

[Peevester]

Please to be not talking about it being all punching when there's exactly one punch in the entire trailer. Please to not be treating trek like a religion. Please to be removing stick from asses. Please to be bowing down before your Groaci overlords.

 

[Deseft]

"'From the director of Fast & Furious' are not words that I want to see in any Star Trek trailer."

Finally makes 1979's "From the director of 'The Sound of Music'" not look so bad after all...

 

[tsnow20]

"Apparently the team behind the new Star Trek movie wanted to ride the 20th century soundtrack wave, because the new Trek film has some kind of popular music playing along. (The Beastie Boys, apparently.) It doesn't feel very Star Trek-like."

Apparently the writer didn't watch the first Star Trek reboot film, because this is the song that was playing as Kirk drove his step dad's car into a ravine. Kirk's comment on the song being a good choice in the trailer is obviously a reference to that scene.

As for what defines and what doesn't define Trek, I think this is an old (and tired) argument. Look, there's no reason why Trek can't try to attract a new generation of fans. Copying the Trek of yesteryear isn't going to do that as well as trying something new will. I think treating Star Trek as a serial and letting different people have their own hand in molding what it is as a franchise can only benefit everyone.

And besides, c'mon, it's just a movie! If you don't like what you see, don't see it. I'll still go watch.