# New Star trek Trailer **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 17, 2008, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193 "2008-11-17T22:34:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/21 "2008-11-18T05:05:13Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > Despite what Internet rumors may be circulating, all information points to this being a REBOOT, not a prequel to TOS continuity. > > There _is_ no “third season” continuity to follow this film. Likewise, there is no “backstory” continuity as the background to this film. There is, apparently, a slight bone thrown to the rabid Trekkie fans, in the form of Leonard Nimoy’s appearance. That is all. I was being facetious. Whoosh! So, bras are new-canon, then? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/22 "2008-11-18T05:10:34Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > Despite what Internet rumors may be circulating, all information points to this being a REBOOT, not a prequel to TOS continuity. Actually the rumors are that its _both_. Elsewise why have Nimoy in the thing? > [@](#): > > There _is_ no “third season” continuity to follow this film. Likewise, there is no “backstory” continuity as the background to this film. There is, apparently, a slight bone thrown to the rabid Trekkie fans, in the form of Leonard Nimoy’s appearance. That is all. Sorry old man, but your wizard’s ways won’t work on me, I’m immune to your Jedi mindtricks. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/23 "2008-11-18T05:16:24Z")
I have feared this film since the first rumors came out. I know that trailers are usually mis-leading. If it turns out half as good as the trailer makes it look, I’ll be a happy trekker. If it turns out as bad as the rumors had me thinking, I’ll still be a happy trekker - it still looks good. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/24 "2008-11-18T05:31:43Z")
Oh God. I love it. I see about 2 movies a year on the big screen: this will be one. I don’t know why, but there’s a certain portion of my brain that is wired for James T. Kirk and Spock. Some people are Bond freaks; I’m a Kirk freak. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_C](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Captain\_C](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_C)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/25 "2008-11-18T08:27:24Z")
As my friend remarked after viewing this trailer, instead of recasting Kirk they should have jut put William Shatner in the role and then deadpan the entire movie. Never bring up the fact that young Kirk is played by old Kirk overacting at being young Kirk and just go with it. It’s something I would pay multiple times to see, and they couldn’t do worse than Enterprise. ---
**Author:** ![dbuzman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de0a6/32.png) [@dbuzman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dbuzman)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/26 "2008-11-18T08:38:04Z")
That’s not a Star Trek movie. That’s just your standard action flick set in space. Maybe the movie won’t be as bad as the trailer makes it look, but based on the trailer it’s a rental movie not a see on the big screen movie. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/27 "2008-11-18T08:52:18Z")
> [@dbuzman](#): > > That’s not a Star Trek movie. That’s just your standard action flick set in space. > Maybe the movie won’t be as bad as the trailer makes it look, but based on the trailer it’s a rental movie not a see on the big screen movie. Yeah, I hate seeing exciting space battles on the big screen. Man that sucks. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/28 "2008-11-18T09:16:17Z")
Previously I had been quite dubious of the concept, despite J J Abrams involvement. But this trailer has raised my interest to _one arched eyebrow_ level. There’s something about Simon Pegg as Scotty that is a fanboy’s wet dream. And man Sulu looks _hot_! John Cho usually gets comedic roles but I look forward to his future as an action hero. > [@](#): > > Looks good. I want a lot of action like it suggests, but I hope JJ doesn’t shake the camera as much as in the trailer. I didn’t notice so much because I expect this from trailers, but yes, whoever is training kids in film school to use shaky cam and 2 second cuts need to die a slow painful death. I want to _see_ the action, not just feel like there must have been action because my head is spinning from the editing/camera work. The only shaky cam work that I’ve seen work well is in Firefly and BSG. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/29 "2008-11-18T09:29:44Z")
I found the shot of the Enterprise (one assumes) construction on the ground to be a little jarring. Given all of the trouble that the ship went through in the earlier series every time it got into an upper atmosphere, it seems strange that they’d assemble it on the ground. A huge waste of energy, too. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/30 "2008-11-18T09:41:53Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > I found the shot of the Enterprise (one assumes) construction on the ground to be a little jarring. Given all of the trouble that the ship went through in the earlier series every time it got into an upper atmosphere, it seems strange that they’d assemble it on the ground. A huge waste of energy, too. That’s canonical, however. It was built on the ground, then the sections of the ship were tractored into space for final assembly. IIRC, there was even a prop in TOS which indicated this. The TNG ships were built in orbit around Mars. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/31 "2008-11-18T09:59:35Z")
I remember the partial assembly on the ground part from canon, but the image in the trailer clearly shows that the ship is essentially already put together on the ground. It is missing sections of its skin, and interior areas are clearly under work, but the hull appears already fitted together. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/32 "2008-11-18T10:10:47Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > I remember the partial assembly on the ground part from canon, but the image in the trailer clearly shows that the ship is essentially already put together on the ground. It is missing sections of its skin, and interior areas are clearly under work, but the hull appears already fitted together. Yes, well, as I’ve been explaining the last few pages of [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=492696), there seems to be a _lot_ of problems with doing things efficiently in the Trekverse for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/33 "2008-11-18T10:14:23Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Yes, well, as I’ve been explaining the last few pages of [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=492696), there seems to be a _lot_ of problems with doing things efficiently in the Trekverse for some reason. Yeah, I read that thread. I abandoned a post I was going to make about some of the completely automated Japanese assembly lines I’ve seen, since you’d made the point well enough. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/34 "2008-11-18T11:15:56Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > I found the shot of the Enterprise (one assumes) construction on the ground to be a little jarring. Given all of the trouble that the ship went through in the earlier series every time it got into an upper atmosphere, it seems strange that they’d assemble it on the ground. A huge waste of energy, too. Actually given that they appear to have anti-gravity drives it’s probably more efficient to construct it on the ground. Would you rather lift all the material into space or have it fly up under it’s own power? > [@Cerowyn](#): > > Yeah, I read that thread. I abandoned a post I was going to make about some of the completely automated Japanese assembly lines I’ve seen, since you’d made the point well enough. Not to quibble, but an assembly line attaches pre-made bits to a car or whatever. Constructing something larger and more complex than the Nimitz isn’t similar to what’s happening on an assembly line. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/35 "2008-11-18T14:55:26Z")
Well, I WILL say it’s… interesting. I could see the virtue in a reboot/retelling/parallel timeline approach. After all, I ask myself, haven’t the actual authorized people who own and run the franchise spent years now tacitly telling us all we can take the “canon” and shove it? Maybe those were NOT “mistakes”, my friends. Perhaps it’s time to give up the idea of an absolute “realistic” canonical continuity and look upon Trek as a “living document”. I mean, there are reiterated generational reimaginings in movies and TV of Batman, Superman, Captain Nemo, Dracula, the Count of MonteCristo and now James Bond, and some of those have actual literary originals, right? So this is **“a”** Star Trek. The Abrams Star Trek, as opposed to the Roddenberry(60s) Star Trek or the Roddenberry (80s) Star Trek or the Bergman/Braga Star Trek. I can live with that. Now, speaking of things seen in the trailer, a Spock that gets a bit overexcited would be an acknowledgement to the character of the “early” Spock from The Cage/Menagerie. As to a certain other delicate subject, y’know, I was kind of content with just knowing that Kirk got it on with the alien/yeogirl o’ the week somewhere off-camera during the commercial break, I never needed even PG13-level Jim-in-action, but hey, it’s not Shatner so maybe it was THAT I was averse to… in any case the last TV version showed us the value of a good decon rubdown 😛 OTOH, Heelllooooo, May issue of the Uhura’s Secret catalogue… 🆒 Damn, it’s 2008 and they figure you might as well feature that in the trailer: that’s the attitide, boys, nice tip of the, um, hat? to the multidecade loyalty of the horny geekboy demographic…😃 > [@dbuzman](#): > > That’s not a Star Trek movie. That’s just your standard action flick set in space. Not entirely unexpected. Consider that in the words of David Gerrold, the overall concept and most of the episodes of the original show were not in the SF genre at all but in the action-adventure genre, only told in SF tropes – just that in the mid-1960s, action-adventure was quite a bit slower paced than it is today. I guess one could say ten-cut-a-second exterior-to-interior-to-1stPersonPOV-to-overhead-to-somethingblowsup-to-reverseangle-to-bullettime-somethingelseblowsup-and-back-repeatX10 shakycam is to 2008, as tilting the camera, blowing out some sparks and having everyone fall off their chair is to 1967. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Rieux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Dr.Rieux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Rieux)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/36 "2008-11-18T17:02:31Z")
> [@dbuzman](#): > > That’s not a Star Trek movie. That’s just your standard action flick set in space. No, that was the abysmal _ST: Nemesis_. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/37 "2008-11-18T18:18:45Z")
Looks good and potentially very fun and exciting, which Trek has not been for some time. I want to see a Trek that “kicks some ass” space-cowboy style, and not some Troi character whining about emotional turmoil, some Data character yearning to be something he’s not, some Riker character’s rusty trombone, or some holodeck crap. The more I think about it, the more I am glad it’s a reboot. A wide audience can probably appreciate a reboot, and it’ll keep the nitpickers at bay on canon issues. “… but on stardate 12345.6, Kirk said ‘XYZ.’” “It’s a reboot. Get over it.” ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/38 "2008-11-18T20:53:17Z")
I’m surprised so many Dopers think this trailer looks good, or exciting. Really, to me it looks like that movie is going suck hard chucks of flood-slimed concrete. I admit that part of this is because I’m having trouble getting over Sylar as Spock. But the opening shots of the 'Vette and Kirk’s nearly flopping over the cliff, the numerous glimpses of yet more humanoid but alien races that were never seen before in any Star Trek iteration, the obvious presentation of the movie as a racier, sexier, harder action version of Star Trek … bleah. I have little hope. My guess is this movie will make Episode III look like a solid piece of Science Fiction. ---
**Author:** ![kasuo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8c91f0/32.png) [@kasuo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kasuo)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/39 "2008-11-18T21:12:04Z")
It looks really fun. After all the general disappointments with the ST movies in the last decade, this one looks like it could improve the franchise for a wider audience. Besides, a reboot is long overdue. ---
**Author:** ![Woeg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df705f/32.png) [@Woeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Woeg)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193/40 "2008-11-18T22:17:35Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > I admit that part of this is because I’m having trouble getting over Sylar as Spock. Christ, there is no pleasing some people, is there? Granted, I haven’t watched Heroes, so other than knowing that the guy playing Spock plays a character named Sylar, I have no history with him…but FFS, he looks damned near identical to a young Nimoy, to the point that a die hard Trek geek I know, seeing just a glimpse of him (especially from the side), thought they had edited in old footage. Really, there is no way this movie could not suck for you, is there? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-star-trek-trailer/473193.md?page=3)