The trailer for JJ Abrams' STARSHIP ADVENTURES is here! - Page 5

As someone who has never seen a single episode of Star Trek, I have to say that I really liked this new trailer. The first trailer felt rather small and campy. This one...I don't know if it's the music or what, but for the first time, the film felt big and grand to me. I still have reservations, but I suspect this new trailer will go over much better in theaters than the first, which garnered HUGE laughs the two times that I saw it theatrically. You would have thought it was an Apatow trailer.

It's the music. There is really nothing special about this trailer on a visual/acting level.

In the immortal words of Kerim Bey's gypsy friend, "Zank yo! Zank yo!"

Sorry, critch, after ST:TMP, Paramount had kicked Gene upstairs. That's a well known fact even the most die hard Trekker will acknowledge. As I stated before, Roddenberry had no creative control over ST except when it came to very specific canon staples that had already been established. If he did, ST's III thru VI would never had been made. He fought against/hated nearly everything Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer did. The main reason he lost was because of what I said in my previous post.

As for the T'pol thing, all I can tell you is what I experienced. Back in 2000 I was working in the Hart Building (where all the TREK series' creative staff were) with one of the producers (not Berman) on another project. A phone call came in and he, Berman, Lauritson, and others suddenly went scrambling out of the building. When he returned a few hours later, I asked him what was going on. He told me they'd all met with Paramount Legal because after Majel saw the proposed ENTERPRISE Writers' Guide, she had her attorney do some sabre rattling. Apparently T'pol/T''Pau was just one of the things she was upset about.

That scenario played out no less than 3 times that week. I heard and read Majel's name many times, but not Sturgeon's.

Well, critch, I'm not in this to "prove" anything. But the good news is that on two of your points, we didn't have to wait two months for the results.

Bottom line: don't believe everything you read/hear in press releases, conventions, or production notes. When Devin gets around to covering the feature films, I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

Yeah, the first trailer was met with a rather weird response the couple of times I saw it in a theater with an audience. This one was much better received.

That said, it was unquestionably a nerd friendly audience (midnight Watchmen showing), so that might've had something to do with it.

What I'm trying to figure out then is why, if Gene had little to do with anything from 2 on, would they be scared off of something with his wife? Why would she even matter? Besides your personal experience, there's no evidence that Majel had anything to do with the T'Pau incident. Every soundbite and evidence in existence today brings up the Sturgeon name, nothing about Majel. It's just proof that the Roddenberry family had and has nothing to do with Trek outside of one actress and her kid getting a free ride from a famous last name. To bring it all in, means that outside of her voice being in the movie, she nor 'Rod' had anything to do with it, or Enterprise, or Voyager, or from what you said anything else since the first movie.

The only point that's left is the nonsense of a reset button. If Berman/Braga were still in charge, sure, I could see that happening. But in regards to this, I would bet that it's not happening just based on of what a stupid story decision it would be, and invalidate the entire point of the the movie: To restart the franchise for a new generation of Trek fans.

The 3rd trailer has totally sold me on this movie. I think it looks awesome. I especially concur that the music adds a level of drama and intensity that was sorely lacking in the last few Star Trek movies.

The problem is, critch, is why have time travel at all if it's a simple reboot? Setting the clock back to zero in some form or another makes sense if you are still trying not to alienate the fans, and to a certain extent they don't want to because they're a vocal community. And the only reason to have time travel at all is to honor continuity. Though I guess this could concievably be faux rumor-spreading, that's not the sources this stuff usually comes from. But whatever, you think you know, and I would put stock in someone who said they were there.

Why would the Roddenberry clan be the people behind it? When you have very little control over things, sometimes the little you do control you micromanage.

I'm not too sure why they went time travel myself, although I suppose it's so they can finish up Spock's story, not piss off the fanbase that already exists too badly (Which got Nemesis to a profit, if only at DVD time.)

I'm placing stock in everyone that has seen any footage of this telling us how great it is, and yes of the creative staff saying what their goals are, versus someone saying something completely different that doesn't fit with anything else we know about the film.

I already said that the Roddenberries had nothing to do with anything on this movie.

I'm talking about the T'Pol thing.

Paramount may have spent what has been rumored to be over a $100 million to finish off Spock's story?

critch, Majel and the Estate always had more power over the TV series than the films. The reason ENTERPRISE was such a touchy subject for them is because in Majel's eyes, Berman and Braga were attempting to rewrite past ST history in their own image (which they definitely were). In her mind, that was Gene's territory; it was the only place other than TNG/TOS where he had enough power to challenge the studio.

BTW, remember the ENTERPRISE producer I was working with on another project? Well, he got fired halfway into the first season. The reason? Braga, who was never a fan of TOS, resented the fact that he was actually trying to stay true to the original ENTERPRISE philosophy by concentrating on adventure, character, and TREK contnuity. The whole Future War, Klingon crashing on Earth, visiting the Klingon Homeworld, tranporter and photon torpedoes being invented years before their time, and other blatant violations of established canon was not the show he signed up for. (He's actually a well known genre guy; watch the credits and you can figure out who).

The irony is that later on the studio brought in Manny Coto, who took the same "back to basics" approach of the departed producer. But they only did that because they already knew the show was going to be cancelled.

But the intent of the movie isn't to "restart" the franchise for a whole new generation of Trek fans. It's to introduce the old characters to a new audience in a young hip way. Abrams, Orci, or Kurtzman have never said in any interview they were "rebooting" the franchise. That came from the Internet. In addition, if what kept they do in this movie as canon, it would invaldaite 40 years of Trek history. Even Paramount isn't that stupid.

They don't.

Can't really say I like this trailer apart from the planet implosion and Eric Bana lines. I've seen the trailer twice with two packed audiences and everyone seemed pretty unmoved by it all. Problem is the trailer starts strong and then kinda degenerates into random action shots with ships flying about and explosions, rather than giving us anything more about the plot. I get that this is about how kirk becomes kirk, the last trailer hammered that home as well. But what else?

Well considering this Kirk isn't really the original Kirk anyway I can't even tell if it's about that anymore.

This is becoming like the trailer/film equivilant of what magic eye puzzles do to me - the closer I look at them, the harder it becomes to make out whats there.

...and I get the feeling if and when I do finally see the sailing ship or the pony or whatever the fuck this weird almost-reboot-but-not-really turns out to be, this is going to really irritate me rather than entertain.

I honestly hope Im wrong, but the more I hear the more this sounds like its going to be not enough canon for the trekkies and not enough reboot for the mainstream.

The problem with making it a simple reboot means you've gotta follow the other movies in succession. This isn't Bond where it's mostly procedural find out whats going on - fuck the chick - kill the bad guy type of movie. Nor is this Batman where you can change anything about the story other than the common mythology of the characters.

If this was a simple reboot, then what happened to TOS, Khan, etc. etc. If this was a simple reboot, it would be like remaking Star Wars. What's the point of remaking a movie to remake a franchise? We know what happens... shouldn't there be something new?

I like the idea of time traveling to fuck up canon. It screws it up with an actual plot point in the story and not continuing with canon we already know and love. However, if the canon doesn't get screwed up at the end, then we have the same thing.... stuff we've seen 40 years ago.

If this continues with canon from TOS and the movies, then will we see Javier Bardem as Khan? Or Karl Urban freak out about 20th century medical technology? Or Simon Pegg show off transparent aluminum? Or will we see Zachary Quinto and Greg Grunberg as half-brothers fighting over the Enterprise?

I'd pay to see that!

When did Farscape get their own movie? Because this thing just flew under my radar.

It was a TV movie. Peacekeeper Wars I believe it was called.

Edit: It was in lieu of an additional season I think.

But isn't that the point? Isn't this movie basically starting a new "alternate" timeline so they DON'T piss off fans? That way the filmmakers can go in any direction they'd like for future sequels and NOT invalidate 40 years of Trek history because now there are two separate timelines? This way they can have a sequel (Old Spock going back in time), a prequel (how the crew came to be) and a reboot (go in any direction they'd like for the sequels without having to worry about past continuity). I just don't see any sequel possibilities if everything is reverted back to normal at the end because then they have to stay strict to canon again for the sequels.

I was making a joke in lieu of the "Faster, sleeker, sexier" vibe that this new Trek trailer has.

Edit: That TV movie kicked all kinds of ass. Glad they could wrap up the series in such great fashion.

Hahahaha I swear to god I still just can't get my head around a studio, or a creative individual, thinking this is a good or worthwhile plan. It all sounds like the lowest form of fanboy speculation. But, Nimoy. Good grief.

If your primary goal when you make a picture like this is to "appease" the fanbase the war is lost before the first shot is fired. The "fanbase" isn't going to make this picture a success so why have their concerns at the top of the list? Focus on making a well made, entertaining movie first *cough* Wrath of Khan *cough* and everything else will take care of itself.

Yeah, we've had this discussion before.

These were some of my thoughts on the reset from a previous thread...

But that was when I still doubted the reset idea. I honestly don't know what they are thinking investing huge amounts of cash into a one-off film that just resets it back to original continuity by the end.

I have serious doubts this is intended to be "one-off". If anything, Paramount's probably going to try to have their cake and eat it too; keeping all that whacky canon so they can still push one revenue stream to the fanbase and this new, hip franchise to push to the general audience.

If this thing makes tremendous bank I fully expect to see two Trek's: Rodenberry's and Abrams'.

Crisis on Infinite Treks. Yeesh.

Money talks and the Anti-Monitor..err..what in the hell did the Anti-Monitor do? Be against Monitoring?

Not to go all Trek geek here but...if they do hit the reset button. There is plenty of ground they could cover/set their adventures in. And that's the time period set between the final episode of TOS and ST:TMP. The biggest issue would be ditching everything they've re-designed and ressurecting the ship and sets from TOS.

From my limited knowledge, this seems much, much, much more like TOS than TNG. Wasn't the old series a swashbuckling adventure story with more humor and interesting characters and battles than the more dull sequel?

I guess I haven't seen anything here that betrays what I know of Star Trek. Then again I've only seen the movies and a decent amount of TNG.

Well, if they're smart, Paramount will adapt it into a feature-length motion picture, like they did with IRON MAN the trailer.

Probably not, but there's most of a five-year mission to play with. Everything we didn't see the first time, presumably. Or maybe there'll never be another Star Trek movie after this.

And who the hell cares about canon anyway, other than in terms of character? It's not like a new timeline will make my Star Trek II DVD turn blank. For all you worry-warts out there, just think about how organic web-shooters didn't change your life one bit, and think about how many times comic book heroes have had their origins re-written. For me, I just want to see Jim Kirk fall in love with the Enterprise. I want to see him take the center seat, wiggle in it a bit, and say "Oh, my." I don't care if the bridge is made of plexiglass and chrome instead of pleather and styrofoam this time around, and while it's silly to build the Enterprise on the ground, it isn't important. This isn't a movie to chew on for three days or force you to watch Bugs Bunny cartoons to get the taste out of your head (Happiness), it's a roller coaster.

I gotta get something off my chest.

I love Simon Pegg, but receding hairline Scotty is really, really bugging me:

I'll see your balding Scotty and raise you an Uhura that is way Hotter than Nichelle Nichols ever was!