1st New Enterprise Exterior Image

[Images 0]

I'm a lot less talky on the subject.

 

"Meh, looks alright. Could have been worse."

 

What? Thats all I've got! :P

[Sam_SemaJ 0]

Wow, so many replies to this topic!

 

Just a couple things.

 

 

On the ship itself:

 

I can maybe see that this is the ship that 'existed' in TOS, now not limited by graphics technology, but then again, the proportions aren't really the same. I think that particularly the non-lit, plain deflector shield, then becoming the lit deflector array with particle emitter in later trek was a really nice tehnology point. What I like in the area of 'updating' is "Trials and Tribble-ations" Where they show the ship somewhat as is, but make an attempt - by showing people working in panels and dax talking about period styles - to make it looks like it was a functional starship, not just a bunch of colorful shapes on a set. I liked this convincing, content-based aproach to updating.

 

The new ship DOES look nice, but It's a far stretch to say that it's NCC-1701, orig, refit, or A. AND it's a far cry then to say that Excelscior Class (the NON ugly mercedes of the fleet in my opinion) was the next fancy new design. So yeah.

 

 

On the ST:TMP Enterprise Reveal:

 

I am not as old as some. I started watching voyager in middle school and expanded my trek from there. I did not get around to seeing TMP till this summer. I think one of the most marked changes in film is pacing. Each generation watches things at faster and faster paces. Go back and watch the original "Ocean's 11" or "Gone in 60 seconds", you (or maybe just me and my generation) cannot get over how SLOOOOWWW the pace is. This is how I felt about most of TMP and particularly the reveal of the beautiful ship. (I do really like the looks of connie refit). It just felt like it was never going to end. I realize it was iconic, but it was also super long. I'm hoping this does not happen in the new movie. And if people want to respond to the following in detail, save the people in this thread and start a new one. I did not really like TMP, it was slow (as said) and the plot ended up being kind of ridiculous.

 

 

Anyway, the real point I want to make is that I'm going to be judging the movie more based on content than design. So if it's absolutely necessary for the sets costumes and props to look like 21st century movie making, it better be a damn good representation of trek.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Sam_SemaJ

[John_Anderson 0]

Saw the new trailer, and I couldnt help but think of you all. I just want to say:

 

This... movie... will... be... EPIC

 

In the interest of full disclosure, when I heard about Abrams taking over, I was a little hesitant, but I always keep an open mind. I thought "Maybe this guy can do something amazing with this franchise." As much as I like to cling to stuff, the Trek franchise is in dire need of a makeover, and I think this movie will hook a new generation of people to the wonder that is Star Trek.

 

When I saw the new trailer in front of Quantum of Solace, you could not remove my jaw from the floor. I enjoyed the 2 mins of the trailer more then the new Bond movie (and yes, I actually did like the new Bond movie). My friends who were with me told me after "I'm not much into Star Trek, but that movies looks like it'll be damn good." May can not come soon enough!

 

Just thought I'd fly out of my years long limbo to throw some cents in the tub :P

 

::Goes back to his cubbyhole to play WoW::

[DrDMatthews 0]

I saw a bootleg version of the trailer online. Now I am really and truly upset. This is SO not fair!!

 

May is six months away!! I don't know if I can stand it!!

 

I agree with Mr. Anderson.......this film looks like it could very well be EPIC!

Edited November 16, 2008 by DrDMatthews

[Kansas_Jones 0]

I saw a bootleg version of the trailer online. Now I am really and truly upset. This is SO not fair!!

 

May is six months away!! I don't know if I can stand it!!

 

I agree with Mr. Anderson.......this film looks like it could very well be EPIC!

 

I had visited the local comics/magazine shop (embrace the deep inner nerd), and the owner and a couple of the regulars had me check out the trailer via the internet on a computer at the front check out area; very cool. Seriously, I did like the trailer. And the general consensus of those of us present was that it looked awesome.

 

**SPOILER** (Don't read any further if you don't want to know)

 

The race car at the beginning? Yeah, I thought it was a James Bond thing at first. :-P

[Sam_SemaJ 0]

Yes, the new trailer is quite awesome. In watching it I'm kind of more convinced toward this view of the new enterprise, updated 21st century sets and what not:

 

This is what the enterprise has always looked like, the filming/design technology of the era simply couldn't capture it. So this takes the enterprise as more of a concept than a literal iconic image. But supposing technology has advanced to the point of prolonged interstellar travel, it would likely look and feel much more pristine and "new agey" (maybe?) than 70s trek was able to recreate. I might be wrong, I'm just throwing it out there.

 

I did really like the Enterprise (show) set, kind of a meld between the more mechanical construction of the new technology, and the refined futuristic look it would later take on. It also reminds me of Undiscovered Country era trek where the military side of things was much more extensively explored, the enlisted ranks shown, etc. I like that kind of melding of worlds. It seems like the new trek movie will now be simply look like the Enterprise set with a bunch of decades of design advancement. Again, I'm just kinda throwing stuff out there.

 

What I am now worried about (based on the trailer) is that this will turn into a shameless action thriller with lots of cool flashy camera things and explosions of shiney sets and props and whatnot, without the foundation of trek-ideal content that actual Trekkies value. It will all come down to story telling and if it jives with what "real trek" should be.

[Images 0]

I for one didn't like the look of the trailer. Started strong, ended a bit hackneyed.

[Sam_SemaJ 0]

I totally agree Images. In fact, that aspect of the trailer is what gives me the fear that this will be a shameless sci fi action flick, emphasis on the ACTION!

[Grom 0]

The trailer officially moved me from the supporter camp into the nervous/skeptical camp. Don't get me wrong, visually it looks appealing, but I sure hope there's a good plot to go with the action.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Sci Fi action. This is a .... bad thing? The whole point of a trailer is to bring in an audience, so typically they go for the Boom factor.

 

The other Trek films also had sci-fi Boom action (Enterprise A getting destroyed, Chekov running from the 20th century MPs, the Borg boarding the Enterprise in First Contact) that coincided with the plots (again, some of the Trek movie plots are better then others), with the exception of The Motion Picture that went more for the sweeping sci fi slow epic types - like 2001 A Space Odyssey?

 

If there was no action, everyone would be saying "that trailer looks boring". Hey, at least we won't have to deal with chest bursting aliens.

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

I think it would be very good for many people to go back and watch the trailers for Star Trek II, Star Trek III, Star Trek V, Star Trek VI and Star Trek: First Contact. If you look at those trailers (especially the later ones that are more representative of modern day Hollywood's marketing formula), you'll see the trailers often focus a lot of action. Heck, from the trailer, Star Trek V looked like it could really be a good movie....never mind all the strikes that were going on in Hollywood at the time that seemed to murder it.

 

My point is I think people have lost some perspective. It has been said this movie is for fans, but it is also for those who are not fans. The reality is that it has to be. Without new people becoming interested in the franchise, it is doomed to die.

[Sam_SemaJ 0]

Sci Fi action. This is a .... bad thing? The whole point of a trailer is to bring in an audience, so typically they go for the Boom factor.

 

The other Trek films also had sci-fi Boom action (Enterprise A getting destroyed, Chekov running from the 20th century MPs, the Borg boarding the Enterprise in First Contact) that coincided with the plots (again, some of the Trek movie plots are better then others), with the exception of The Motion Picture that went more for the sweeping sci fi slow epic types - like 2001 A Space Odyssey?

 

If there was no action, everyone would be saying "that trailer looks boring". Hey, at least we won't have to deal with chest bursting aliens.

 

You're right on most counts (I don't think 2001 and TMP can be compared that way). All I mean is I don't want this movie to be full of pointless hollywood explosions. The kind of crap where all the lines really suck but cars explode everytime they crash into buildings.

[Images 0]

Look I'm not saying it has to be low on action. Far from it. Hell It is Star Trek not Space Friend Hodown. What I'm worried at is the overall over-bombastic style at the end of it. Not as bad as a Matrix sequel trailer I know. It just slightly irked me. Loved the beginning though, the car-cliff-chase? Leading to Kirk as some snotnosed punk on an Earth halfway between not too far from the present day and the stars? Superb.

 

But like I said, still irked.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Chris Pine Interview

 

Marc Malkin, eonline

Thu Nov 20, 12:50 AM EST

 

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.

 

Could the lucky lady be Rachel Nichols? Keep reading to find out...

Pine revealed he does get his "groove on" with Nichols, who plays Orion, in one

of the movie's two love scenes.

 

While Pine didn't mind the chance to "to make out with a hot girl," he didn't

exactly see fireworks. "It was a lot of fun, but I think that day actually was a

20-hour-day," he said at Tuesday's GQ Men of the Year party in L.A. "So by the

end, the novelty wears off. After many sandwiches and meals through the day, all

you want to do is brush your teeth and go home."

 

Pine also said that the much buzzed about scene in which Zoe Saldana takes her

top off will get mucho attention. "It'll become famous," Pine said of the

striptease.

 

"It's trying to be sexed up for a new generation that really isn't used to

seeing Star Trek," he added. "It's a whole new beast."

 

—Additional reporting by Dahvi Shira

© 2008 E! Entertainment Television, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

I really don't know how this works, whether this is truly how Chris "Captain Kirk" Pine feels about the scenes or whether he was told to comment like this for the sake of PR. I assume it's for the sake of PR and getting the word out.

 

Getting "sexed" up for a new generation that really isn't used to seeing Star Trek? I don't think so. Guys, we won't be seeing anything new.

 

First off, censorship has changed dramatically over the years, and every other movie you see (and TV for that matter) has full on frontal nudity and sexual acts going on.

 

So, really, if we do have crazed sex maniacs (Doctor McCoy better get some romantically boo yah screen time with that one cute nurse, that's all I have to say) running around on the new Enterprise, they really aren't doing anything new with the full on exposed steamy love scenes. I certainly won't be surprised, will you?

 

Second, before we go into "it hurts the integrity of the Original Trek" - the Original Trek has already been there and done this sexual appeal stuff.

 

Oh sure, we didn't see any full on nudity etc - the censors wouldnt leave it on the air, so we had a camera pan shot in "Bread and Circuses" go over to a red torch light to emphasize a romantic interlude between Kirk and a Slave Girl (who had practically nothing on) ::embraces her deep nerdly trivia self::

 

But, Kirk was stripping off his shirt every other episode, the female crewmembers wore mini skirts up to their necks, female guest stars had that see through dress and gossamer fabric thing going on, or in some cases an outfit that was barely there. This was considered pretty racy for the times, am I right?

 

And the part about "the striptease will be famous?" .... what about that three breasted cat woman that was dancing on the pool table in 1989's Star Trek 5? That is sorta a striptease, she hardly had anything on other then her tabby stripes...and she had the three breasty things! I'm sure the new movie will ramp it up, but still we've been there and done that again.

 

::shrugs:: ..... I guess I just don't get the relevance of this PR article, what with the history of the TOS, what we did see with the see through or short leggy cosume designs and Kirks libido, and the current modern films and what they consider romance.

 

TOS Kirk has already been pouncing the woman/alien leader woman/anything that moves and has a heartbeat before, the women were gorgeous, the costumes sexy, etc? Again, been there done that, the new film will just modernize it all with the current modern sci fi trends. Right?

[Sam_SemaJ 0]

TOS Kirk has already been pouncing the woman/alien leader woman/anything that moves and has a heartbeat before, the women were gorgeous, the costumes sexy, etc?

 

What do you mean before they were gorgeous? Most of the women in TOS are pretty attractive, plus they always get a softened lens so they look even cuter, even if it is a shameless camera trick. Above is an example of how this new trek probably won't be baring anything new, unless there is *actual* nudity. Kansas you are right on all counts :P