The 'Star Trek' Trailer: Geek Nip or Geek Slip?

pouchy Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 07:29 PM EST

If Abrams and co intended to break or severely bend the established Trek continuity, then they should at least state clearly that they are doing so ( a la Ron Moore and the recent Battlestar Galactica series). At that point they can do what they like. Otherwise they should make some effort to work within the boundaries of their source material.

JD Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 05:34 PM EST

Enough with the "dudes". Stop writing like a dumb teenage boy talks. Its really annoying and not very professional.

Dan Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:54 PM EST

I have read a few of the replies and many are impressive and Treky, but for an engineering plebian like me, the sneek was visually raw and simply reflects the global ingenuity we hope to have as a collective (pun intended) and the nostalgic engineering prowess, the USA had established in the space era. In short, it's a couple minutes of a raw film amuse-bouche. Enjoy it and we wait until opening day. No I may not care to know every detail about the Star Trek universe, but I am a paying moviegoer. Long live ST: Voyager re-runs. Cheers.

Jeff Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:19 AM EST

How can you weld in space if there is no oxygen to ignite a flame?

Christian Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:05 AM EST

Who knows, maybe showing the Enterprise being assembled is more of a symbolic gesture that the series is being given a rebirth than suggesting that it's construction will actually be a part of the events of the film. If the Enterprise's construction is a part of the film's plot, then clearly the idea that the ship was around for 20 years before Kirk has been thrown out, and a new continuity has been created. After all, Abrams has said that his film will be more Star Wars than Star Trek. Heresy, I say.

Christian Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM EST

Perhaps a more interesting bit of continuity to explore would be the date of the Enterprise's assembly. Star Trek lore has it that the Enterprise was launched in 2245 as part of a series of 12 new Constitution-class heavy cruisers. It's first captain was Robert April and then by the 2250s Christopher Pike, under whom Spock served for 11 years. Only in 2264 did Capt. Kirk's five-year mission begin. So how can this film really be about Spock, McCoy, and Kirk going on their first mission after graduating Starfleet Academy? If J.J. Abrams adheres to the continuity, then Spock should already be an established Starfleet officer and the Enterprise should have already been launched nearly 20 years before the events of the original series. I know Bruce Greenwood is playing Pike, but will Capt. April get recognition and will Abrams act like Spock, Kirk, and McCoy were all just Academy chums who happened to continue their friendship in outer space? Hopefully, he will respect the continuity.

Christian Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:55 PM EST

It is true that in a zero-gravity environment it would be easier to do the heavy lifting, but it would be much harder to gain any precision over moving massive objects like warp nacelles into their proper place. Once you would get a warp nacelle moving, its inertia would be so great (considering its mass) that it could likely slam into and break the pylons on the starship to which it is connecting. So for the initial building it does make sense to assemble the largest pieces of the starship on Earth. Later on though, in 2271 when the Enterprise was undergoing its refit, Willard Decker accomplished that entirely in an orbiting shipyard, since it was just about upgrading what was already there. Showing how the Enterprise can be easily disassembled as well, the ship can in fact separate its saucer section from the engineering/warp section as suggested by Capt. Kirk in an original series episode. We never actually saw this happen, but it was later incorporated into Next Gen.

Christian Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:44 PM EST

I must say that comparing the construction of the space shuttles with the assembly of the Enterprise is a huge stretch. The space shuttles are the size of airplanes, while the USS Enterprise is a massive starship with a standard complement of 430 crew members. That's like comparing the construction of a rowboat with that of an aircraft carrier. It's also important to note that the USS Enterprise is capable of flying within a planet's atmosphere as was witnessed in the original series episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday." In that episode, the Enterprise was flung back to 20th century Earth and flew through the planet's atmosphere where it was detected on the US Air Force's radar prompting fighter planes to intercept it. The USS Voyager would also later be able to fly through a planetary atmosphere and in fact was even able to land on planet surfaces. An early plan for the Enterprise suggested that it would be capable of landing on a planet surface, although that never occurred on the series.

Christian Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:32 PM EST

According to Star Trek lore, the USS Enterprise was built piece by piece in San Francisco at Starfleet headquarters and then assembled in space. That might not make as much sense now, considering that we saw the NX-01 Enterprise from Star Trek: Enterprise being assembled in a spacedock one hundred years earlier during the pilot episode of that series. However, we can assume that pieces of it were built on earth, but then put together in space. Even later on, during the 24th century the Utopia Planitia spaceyards in orbit of Mars also built parts of starships on the planet surface. Yes, Mars was colonized and terriformed starting in 2103. It might not make the best sense why the whole saucer section of the USS Enterprise would be built on earth (since what would they use to get it in orbit? shuttles with tractor beams or tow cables?), but the continuity and the scientific feasibility has often been dubious, or at least flexible, to say the least.

dodacrazy Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:31 PM EST

If any was paying attention that Star Trek has not change it is the evils of the media and it has been goin on sence day one.The aliens are all name Cox slumbuckets and cares nothing about humans or space travels

dodacrazy Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:31 PM EST

If any was paying attention that Star Trek has not change it is the evils of the media and it has been goin on sence day one.The aliens are all name Cox slumbuckets and cares nothing about humans or space travels

Derk Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:31 PM EST

Thank you, Mike. Marc loses all geek points for not realizing massive objects are not easier to move in space. In fact, if you have to move it precisely, it's harder.

mc Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 09:24 PM EST

AAR-Is that perhaps a nod to another rebooted science fiction entity that dropped a ship into the atmosphere with dramatic affect?

AAR Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 07:37 PM EST

It's good to know your ship CAN sustain planetary pressure, should ever need to, say, jump into the planet's atmosphere, dead drop, and then jump out.

mike Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 07:04 PM EST

sorry, Marc, just noticed I spelled your name wrong

mike Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 07:03 PM EST

Mark -- if you want good science, then use good science. I'm not a trekker, but if a warp nacelle is massive (sounds like it must be) then it would still be plenty difficult to maneuver even in zero g because it would still have tons of INERTIA. The planet's gravity makes it heavy, but the object's inertia is what makes it hard to start and stop moving. If I tried to maneuver a massive object in space, the object would barely move and I'd just start drifting in the opposite direction. Space would NOT be an easier place to build the ship. You don't have any direct way of getting leverage on the things you are trying to maneuver.

Lucas Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 06:22 PM EST

But if you remember the first episode of Enterprise, the ship was still being constructed in space, not on earth.

Lucas Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 06:22 PM EST

But if you remember the first episode of Enterprise, the ship was still being constructed in space, not on earth.

Tom Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 06:07 PM EST

Click on the red dot next to "Under Construction" for a little easter egg.

You're all crazy Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:47 PM EST

Does it really matter!?! There's no air in space. You can't have fire w/o air. But that's besides the point. Like Nolan w/ Batman Begins and the crew behind the new Bond films Abrams has the right to make small changes to the backstory if it helps revitalize a stale franchise. From one geek to another Calm down and eat a cookie(it'll make you feel better).

Ames Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:40 PM EST

Can you weld in space? (I'm really asking -- I don't know much about blow torches)

Roberto Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:17 PM EST

Who is to say that they aren't building the ship on the surface of Mars? Just because the shipyard is in Mars doesn't mean it has to be in space. For all we know, Mars could be terraformed by then. And remember, they already have transporter technology at this point. They can assemble the ship on earth and then beam it out to space when it's ready to go.

Snarf Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:40 PM EST

Talk about opening a can of worms! Fanboys and geeks will cluck over this sort of thing endlessley like a bunch of old hens (or the ladies on The View but I digress)

J Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:18 PM EST

Moreover, it is my recollection that the original Enterprise was indeed built in San Francisco, according Gene Roddenberry.

J Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:08 PM EST

As you will recall, in Star Trek Generations, the Enterprise-D saucer crashes on Veridian III. The developers of the Enterprise clearly had to foresee the disturbing, but possible scenario, of an Enterprise crash landing on a planet, not simply floating in space. And most of the crew are injured. This is clearly a design mentality that would have been part of the Enterprise architecture, and therefore, it was built on Earth.

Rich Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:59 PM EST

Funny how Orci comments that they needed to update the franchise because his iPhone is more advanced than Kirk's communicator...and then they show the Enterprise being built using very 20th century welding techniques. It's a good trailer, but kind of silly.

Marc B Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:50 PM EST

I'm fine with the new Powers That Be making changes to the Star Trek universe. Really I am. I'm just trying to apply a little internal logic. (Granted, that, too, may be a futile endeavor given that we're dealing with a wholly fictional world.) But, yes, I would like my science fiction to have a little science in it. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.

T-Rex Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:28 PM EST

I'm in the "build it on Earth, assemble it in space" crowd. It makes no sense to have guys in puffy spacesuits floating around trying to do spot welds. Furthermore, The franchise was dead or dying, Abrams was brought on specifically to breathe new life into it. If he has to break with Star Trek lore in order to do so, so be it. Has it occurred to you that this could be a warning shot across the bow of the geekship lollipop that things are changing and Mr. Abrams isn't beholden to your lore?

Ep Sato Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:23 PM EST

The only way Abrams and Co can get away with taking so much liberty with the franchise is if they make a good movie.

As for their half assed attempts to explain their sudden change in lore that's now more than 40 years old, it's insulting but no worse than Eon Productions claiming Bond had a female boss on his very first assignment (as shown in Casino Royale). As Eon proved with Casino Royale, you can rewrite the lore and history of a series if your product is good. Episodes 1,2 and 3 of star wars on the other hand, demonstrate what changing the lore of a classic will do if the movie's not that good. To me this all seems like a BIIIG Gamble to restart an already past its prime series that's already had 10 movies and 5 tv series. To top it off, they plan to make all these changes in an odd numbered trek movie? I smell a potential stinker.

Jason in MI Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:05 PM EST

The real beef is this: That ain't the way it's supposed to be.

The creators of Trek made different decisions. A film maker of real talent could have made his vision in line with the original. That's the burden you accept when you say "yes" to a project like this.

Jane Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 01:14 PM EST

I know that interview with Roberto Orci said they were building it on earth, but it was the interviewer who thought that, and Orci went along with it. He didn't make hte statement himself. Maybe they are building at Utopia Planetia, but like all space stations on Star Trek, it has artificial atmosphere, so they could still be welding (fire requiring oxygen) and they could be wearing magnetic boots like during the murder scene in Star Trek VI, so that they could still be building in zero-g. It's not like there were such clear shots of the background that you could tell specifically where the ship was being built.

jcarla Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM EST

You have to remember that we have no choice to build the space shuttle on earth and because of this compromises and restrictons are in place, such as weight of payloads and time in orbit, to just launch the shuttle. If you can take launch and rentry out of the equation, things open up.

Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:52 PM EST

It make sense that parts of the ship would be constructed on earth and tehn put together in space. I think it makes complete sense.

Kevin Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:47 PM EST

I seems to me that the original concept of Star Trek was to mimick the adventures of an oceanic explorer but in space. The old wooden ships were made on land so why wouldn't their space travelling brethren?

Tim Lade Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM EST

I'm sorry there Marc, I have nothing but respect for you as an author but let's just throw something out there. Would it not be easier to build something, especially of that size and scale on a planet with gravity and air as opposed to floating in a spacesuit. Not that I expect a reply or that you'll even notice I rebutted your point but let's be honest...the space shuttle was built on earth but it's primary function is to be in space...but I dunno...maybe they just start repairing them at the space station.

Eric Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM EST

I don't know if your points are being too geeky, or if they're valid criticisms.

What I do know is the teaser was powerful because it evoked my real-world sense of the awe of space exploration, something I've lost after watching so many fantastical space dramas for so many years.

It wouldn't have worked the same way in space - by showing earth, it represented the passing from one frontier to the other.

OCab Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM EST

Why couldnt they be building the body of the ship on earth then send it to space for completion?

Nat X Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM EST

Ugh, I hate it when they leave the science out of science fiction. I think most sci-fi movie makers are just lazy. One of the best things about Firefly was that Joss Whedon made a conscious decision to make space silent instead of adding "whooshes" or "bangs" for the sake of people with no imagination or attention spans.

Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM EST

One thing to keep in mind - Star Trek operates in a world of its own in the sci-fi universe. There are certain terms and ideas that are common across the board. Star Trek has always chosen to rename those things. So they're operating on a different playing field from what normal sci-fi viewers are used to. Not saying it's right or wrong, it's just different.

Broadway Baby Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:35 AM EST

Love this! Marc Bernardin is quickly becoming 'must read immediately' status.