New 'Star Trek' trailer: Fan treasure or fan outrage?

Captain Ekin Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 08:53 AM EST

Just saw the newest tv spot/trailer...looks more and more sick! Can't wait!

Captain Ekin Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 05:02 PM EST

RE: River... I'd have to agree with ya! Worf did get slapped around by some Gem H'dar soldiers. River on the other hand spanked 20-30 Reavers all at once. Plus...she's way hotter!

Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:59 PM EST

re: River or Worf?

River hands down. Worf has been defeated by every other character that ever walked on STNG. He has been beaten by Ferangie, Diana, Riker, Data, Tasha Yar and an 80 old man. Time to hang up that Batlet guy.

Robert Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:55 PM EST

I like the look of the trailer and I HOPE it will not disappoint to much. Trek has had a very poor history with the time travel story lines. That is what killed Enterprise and it isn't helping here.

Toast Erickson Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 09:07 PM EST

While a lot of Trekkies do follow every single aspect of lore and continuity, they shouldn't have the right to say anything about this. If you look at Trek's history it is full of continuity errors. Montgomery Scott thinking Jim Kirk saved him when he was stuck in the Transporter beam in the TNG episode (Scott saw Kirk die in Generations), Kahn recognizing Chekov in Wrath of Kahn (Chekov was a new crewmember at the beginning of Season 2, wasn't around for the Space Seed), and Troy claiming "I've never kissed you with a beard" in Insurection, which is completely false.

Point is, Star Trek is completely ripe with inaccuracies, continuity errors, and plain shortsightedness when bringing past characters to the present. So if people really have a problem with things changing for this movie, they should go back and watch the rest of the films, because this isn't that bad.

Andrew Greatbatch Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:27 AM EST

I have just been reading through all the comments about the new Trek movie by JJ Abrams.

All those people who keep banging on about the original series and how this film isn't the same, you're right! Because it is now 42 years since the first Star Trek tv series hit the airwaves, and quite frankly it needed to be renewed. I personally, as a fan who grew up watching the original Kirk and Spock, realize that the old Star Trek is exactly that...OLD, in fact, even TNG is now TOO OLD to continue it's movies. This applies to any franchise.
You can't maintain a franchise that is over 40 years old without keep injecting something new. Everything must change. I think the MAJORITY of Trek fans or sci-fi fans in general understand that and are willing to give Abrams movie a chance to get them excited about Star Trek again.

So called fans of the original who are against this film, you will find are the minority who dress up in Trek costumes & make-up because they are nut cases! Get a life.

macgooner Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 05:53 PM EST

This blog is why sci-fans like me are ridiculed because your devotion to "Canon" and continuity makes us look like obsessive geeks. Gene Roddenberry had a vision but he had to make compromises due to budget and censors but he created a great show and he himself is quoted that he hoped that in the future someone would re-make it with a new kirk and spock, it was his idea and he wanted remade. nuff said

Captain Ekin Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:07 PM EST

@ C Eddie: Yea man!! I think it would be awesome to put Mal on the Enterprise and Kirk on Serenity. Look out Inara!! oh and 1 more thing..who would win...River or Worf? God I can't wait for this flick to hit the theatres!

C Eddie Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 09:26 PM EST

Eye, eye Captain! More Firefly!!

What a bright shiny world it would be if we got another movie from THAT universe.

Natalia Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 07:59 PM EST

Ok it's just a movie, everyone should relax and enjoy it for what it is! It can't be compared to TOS or TNG but also it can't ruin Star Trek's legend. So just sit back in the the theatre and have fun!

Captain Ekin Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:30 PM EST

More Firefly anyone?

C Eddie Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:32 AM EST

This comment board is hilarious.

I love how the real hard core fans are claiming what Star Trek would NEVER do. Let me observe the precious and sacred Original Series with some objectivity.

The Original Trek took young, good-looking actors and made them deliver over-the-top monologues about the fate of humanity. Then they blew stuff up and used all the special effects their budget could afford. Oh, and then they threw in lots of sexually charged situations, like Kirk flirting with sexy alien women every other week (We all know the "green lady" episode).

Sound familiar? Sound like what MIGHT be in this new movie? Don't be so quick to put the old series on such a high pedestal. It was great fun, and got us thinking... but it's not Shakespeare.

And who said something about the current "cheesy sets" or "cheap CGI?" The uber-snobs need to take a long look at The Original Series. Look at the SETS. Did you care? Did you love it anyway?

Give yourselves permission to enjoy this.

Dionysus187 Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM EST

Gene must be rolling in his grave. And if you don't know who i'm talking about I'm sure you think this trailer is 'omg wtf awesome!!!11111oneoneone'

Joe Howard Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:20 PM EST

Chill out dudes - this looks like a fun ride. I am just glad they are making any new Star Trek movies. It looks like a nice explosive romp without too much talking - I loved the originals series and will be there day one for a good time with some old buds. Dots and raisinets please.

Grendel Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:05 PM EST

The reboot idea is great, but I think they should have done it differently. Instead of re-doing the past (the way it looks, and I'm a bit of a purist), reboot in the future. Everybody (even the Dominion) has had run-ins with the Borg. What if the Borg actually invaded enmass? Go through 20 minutes or so of grand space battles and the wiping out of Federation, Klingon, Romulan, etc. nations with few survivors left and their task is to rebuild, re-explore, etc. Bring things back to the basics they way Gene Roddenberry first started it.

Adam Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:43 AM EST

I liked TNG, liked DS9 as it was the most realistic and disliked Voyager. I'm not a trekkie, an approached this movie with an open mind. Based on the trailers, it looks like crud. Not because Kirk finall bangs on screen or Uhura get's her gear off (hot stuff!), but because it looks like a bad film for any film. Cheap sets (the birdge looks like Fisher Price built it), crap acting and fairly cheap CGI.

Some have said that people bashed the Batman and Bond reboots. Sure, some will dislike them but they are better and more refined than the originals. They're wonderfully shot with great acting. This, oh it looks so kiddy.

Chris Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:13 AM EST

They are ruining Star Trek. What a disappointment. Just goes to show you how rare people like Gene Roddenberry are.

Why didn't these jerks just make the movie they wanted to make, without building it around Star Trek? They wanted to capitalize on the franchise, without respecting it. They used it, and then just made the movie they wanted. Just because you use the Star Trek name, doesn't make it Star Trek. They are devaluing the real Star Trek. Having Uhura take her top off? They have NO CLUE what Star Trek was about. Utterly clueless. I'm certainly not going to pay to see this movie.

Commander_Jodo Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 07:53 PM EST

You know i was thinking the other day about something. In Bob Justman's book, he said that when they made "next week on star trek" trailers for the end of every episode of TOS that it was a contest to see how many explosions they could put into each one. I think Errand of Mercy won. So Star Trek was founded on big exploding trailers to get people to watch.
And honestly the only piece of canon i'm conserned about is... Where did learn how to drive a stick? In "Piece of the Action", Spock has to explain to him what a clutch is.
I can't wait, it looks like fun.
As fun as Kirk amplifying the sound of heartbeats by 1 to the power of 11.

Jonny W Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 03:04 PM EST

The new Trek Trailer looks fantastic. Most of you trekturds have been crying for years for a new movie. Now you get it and your crying all over again. I've been a fan since the 70s and sadly I hated the last couple of movies and Enterprise. This is exactly what Star Trek needed.

JW

bad romanbutt Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:24 PM EST

james tiberius kirk...tiberius was one of the last of the roman emperors

the villain in the upcoming "star trek" movie is called nero...and leads the romulan empire in the destruction of the planetary civilization of vulcan...

wasn't vulcan one of the major roman gods?

nero was said to have fiddled during the near total destruction of rome by a great fire

romulan...romulus was one of the twin mythical founders of rome

taking the burnt out roman empire of today into the burning furnaces of the stars...?

hopefully there won't be more british naval/shakespearean spooge

from the hell's heart that is my parent's basement, j.j., i stab at thee

Adam Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:45 AM EST

Jeez.
I've been a fan so long I can't even remember why I started watching Trek. After reading through most of these comments, a few thoughts occur to me.
1. For those critical of things like visual effects and space battles, you are apparently unfamiliar with the purpose of a movie trailer. Close-ups of Spock in a quiet moment debating the virtues of human vs Vulcan will not get people interested in this movie. Check out the trailers for 'The Undiscovered Country' and 'First Contact'--plenty of action there, and those were arguably the best of the movies.
2. For those upset with altered canon, different uniform textures, etc., I have two words and one phrase: 'Battlestar Galactica' and 'Get a life'. Before BSG came out, there was plenty of angst about a reboot that wasn't being managed by series creator Glen Larson--and yet look at what happened. There are new characters (Roslin)! Starbuck's a woman! And not all Cylons are metal machines (Holy violation of canon, Batman!)

Lou Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 06:28 PM EST

I was a HUGE TNG fan, not really a TOS fan but this trailer has me excited. I'll definitely be there opening weekend.

To all the complainers, if Insurrection and Nemesis sucked a big one and I hate to admit it. This was the only logical step. Blame those guys who ruined TNG.

$tar Trek Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:56 AM EST

I'm glad he identified himself as James Tiberius Kirk because I had mistaken him for Anakin Skywalker. My bad...

No More Please Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:22 PM EST

Like I said you have the right of Free Will and choice. It your right and responsibility as a human. You are however Little boys who never gre up living in a world run by little boys who never grew up.

Spoc now shows the emotion of hate and the only African American I see is a High School girl that all the little boys wanna tag.

Get a clue fellas. The world is changing, can you deal with it or will you stay in your Cage Fighting T&A world? I already know the answer so let the flaming continue...

Alvin Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:47 PM EST

Oh, and like JustaGuy said, Cory Edwards got it right... except he left out the fact that the Superman franchise was rebooted into a television series that is a HUGE hit. Kudos to J.J. Abrams.

Alvin Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:44 PM EST

I'm excited. I always felt like there was no where for the series to go from where they were. What a better way to continue the saga than by introducing new characters who are young and are going to be able to continue the movie franchise. I think it's fantastic. I think it will bring a whole new generation of fans along for the ride, and I couldn't be happier.

fan1701 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:49 PM EST

NOT GONNA WATCH THIS GARBAGE . WHEN PARAMOUNT MAKES A REAL TOS MOVIE ONLY THEN WILL I WATCH

Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:23 PM EST

hi

Justaguy Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM EST

Hey Bobtruth don't hold back on the big words like derogatory (that's with an "a" not an "i") I can handle them dude, I borrowed my moms dictionary. As for your opinion -

"Spock was NOT Pike's first officer, Kirk did NOT serve on the Enterprise first, Pike was NOT in command of the Enterprise on her maiden voyage, the Enterprise was NOT built in Iowa (San Fransisco ship yards in SPACE), Scotty did NOT invent the transporter, Scotty is 10 years older than Kirk, Kirk is 10 years older than Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura, and the Romulans were NOT SEEN until the first season of TOS, there was NO contact with the Romulans for a hundred years since before that show."

Are you kidding me? It's time to pump the breaks and gear down geek. Who cares where the Enterprise was built...or how old Chekov is.

read COry Edwards post...that dude got it.

Oh and your right...I am a liberal. I can't wait to see Uhura's tits.

Kirk out.

Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:09 AM EST

Looks like crap. Nothing like TOS!

Life is to short...Enjoy it! Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:04 PM EST

Sorry, but I love movies with CGI up the wazoo and flying ships, space battles, shooting and crap just blowing up in ways I have not seen before. A good story behind it (does not need to be great or hold truth) and human kicking butt and getting their buts kicked. I want a little escape from the normal life. When I want emotional stimulation I converse with my wife and kids. I get all the emotional stimulation from them and family. I go to movies to watch crap blow up and say, "Cool!!" Then return to normality. Correct! I don't watch Romance, Drama and Comedy films. I can't wait for the Enterprise to fly again, Capt. gets pissed off by some alien race and it shoves several Photon Torpedoes up their butts! Next!

Michelle Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 04:51 PM EST

Well said "No More Please". I'm sick of watching movies or TV series which are based exclusively on CGIs and vision effects and stories that lack originality, emotion and character development. And the most disturbing is watching 15 or 16 years old kids leaving the theatres excited because the explosions and the shootings were cool, the actors are hot etc when the story in these movies is garbage. Well probably teens today are more satisfied the less brain cells they use. I’m in my mid 20s but I’m glad that I grew up in the 80s and 90s when they were more TV series and movies that had some deeper meanings. Star Trek is one of those kinds of sci-fi franchises that deals with the human nature and the exploration of new worlds and not the fight between species. We’ll have to wait and see if the new movie has something from Roddenberry’s vision of Star Trek but judging from the trailer and JJ Abrams previous work I don’t have high hopes.

COry Edwards Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:52 PM EST

When Batman got re-booted, fans said it would ruin everything. Both new films are the most successful Batman films ever.

When Bond got re-booted, fans said it would ruin everything. Both new films are the most successful Bond films ever.

When Battlestar Galactica got re-booted, fans said... ah, you get the idea.

The pattern continues. This is a RE-BOOT. That's different than a sequel. That means a do-over. A new start. A "what if?" Comics have done it for years. A re-boot can be very freeing. And successful.

J.J. is no slouch. The series was all but dead. Now it has a chance to be the most successful Trek film ever.

And one more thing: Don't judge a whole movie from the trailer. Yes, it will have character development over explosions, geniuses. Trailers always put in a lot of explosions. That doesn't mean the movie will explode ships for two hours. What are you people, six years old? You've seen a trailer before, right?

RAH elly?? Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM EST

"I just hope that the best parts of the film was not what we just saw in the trailer. "

That would be a savvy marketing scheme.

What you see is what you get.

Just a Sci-Fi guy Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM EST

I am a Sci Fi fan. I think it is nice to go back to some point in the beginning of our TOS crew. I am not a Trekkie but I liked most of TOS, TNG and Enterprise. This trailer made my jaw drop. As far as Uhura taking her top off, what you don't think they would have show stuff like that in TOS if they were able to without censoring. Come on, how many women (human and alien) did Kirk bag? Lot's of insinuated sex there. I can do without romance and sex scenes but a little peek here and there won't hurt. Bet the women won't mind a little bare backside of Quinto/Spock. Lol!
I just hope that the best parts of the film was not what we just saw in the trailer. Has potential. We'll see.

No More Please. Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:39 AM EST

This might as well be any other Hollywood adventure movie with pissed of naked people shooting and screwing. Yea hah... This is the 2008 America Pop culture at it's finest mindlestly feeding the mindlest cows. I see no evidence of the over riding themes of Mankind exploring for new life, looking for improvement of the species striving to be better. I see angry people killing and screwing. Great, if you want it thats fine. You have the right of free will and choice but take the Star Trek name off and call it something else.

The TNG people came up with 7 seasons within the theme of the original spirit of the franchise. This movie appears to be at the cutting edge of the do over mantality so prevelant in media today. Copy the Star Trek paint job, copy Lucus in going bacl before the original, copy the violence of it's contemporaries. There is no originality. It depends on special effects, violence and sex. You have done no justice to Gene Roddenberry or those who follow him

Bobtruth Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 08:57 AM EST

JUSTAGUY - try growing up and not using derogi . . . sorry, don't want to use a word you won't know, mean names like retard. You must be a liberal, here I give an opinion, and you want to call me names and dismiss my take on it.

anna Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM EST

I’m a casual viewer of the Star Trek series not a Trekkie but I was excited for the new movie and I have to admit that the trailer didn’t impress me (not a fan of JJ Abrams) but regardless this I just wanted to say that this is just a movie, not the end of the world and not the end of the ST. Star Trek’s legend has survived for 40 years and one movie – even if it’s the worst in the series – won’t kill it. It will always be remembered as one of the best and most successful sci-fi franchises and we’ll always have the reruns and the DVDs to remind us how beautiful is the universe of the ST.
TV series today are like fast food, don’t last long but Star Trek has stood the test of time and ST fans should be happy for that.
Anyway that was my two cents, I hope the movie will not disappoint the fans.

Justaguy Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:16 PM EST

Bobtruth and all you nit pickers are retarded...this movie is going to rock!!! We get to see the crew when they were young, hard as nails and kicking ass!!

"I'm James Tiberius Kirk! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Matt Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:13 AM EST

I know nothing about star trek, never watched it as a kid, always thought it looked pretty lame....But this trailer was awesome and I will definitely be seeing it on opening day...along with millions of other people who have never seen star trek or know what it is..It will entertain, that's for sure.

Bobtruth Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:39 AM EST

AARON - this ISNT Star Trek, it's high speed, shoot 'em up via JJ Abrams

THE BLACK ONE - the trailer is so fast so you can't see how crappy the movie will be

Bobtruth Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:35 AM EST

AARON - this ISNT Star Trek, it's a high speed, shoot 'em up via JJ Abrams

THE BLACK ONE - the trailer is so fast so you can't see how crappy the movie's going to be.

scotty Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:26 AM EST

Having seen the disapointing Cloverfield I feel like I was duped by a clever advertising campaign. However this time its different Star Trek is very close to me I loved the chemistry between the original crew even though the acting was terrible and I used to watch TNG,DSN and Voyager every week with my brother when we were young, but lets face it Star Trek needs something like this, the franchise has sat in the shadow of Star Wars ever since I can remember. Most people who watch star trek wont even amit it because its `sad`. Fair play to J.J for having a go. Whats the worst that can happen?? I loved the trailer, and I will be first in the queue to see this when it hitS the UK

TheBlackOne Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 05:55 AM EST

This trailer lost me with the first scene. At that speed you can't hang on to a dirt ledge with your elbows.

That kind of thing is OK in some obviously-crappy-but-still-fun flick like Die Hard or something, but it's not Star Trek. At all.

Aaron Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:54 PM EST

someware along the way you people have lost that aww inspiring feeling you got when you seen that little toy ship zip past the screen every week.your the same people that cry about consistancy every time a new trek comes out,and then flip flop when you find out its good. look tos was made in the 60's, using the best special effects they could afford, but was never expected to become an international icon. i could guarntee that if Gene had the funding and the resources at the time tos would have amazing special effects to go along with the amazing storylines. you cant sit there and critize this flick about its "trekkieness", by watching a 90 second teaser trailer with no diologe! ask yourself this; when you thought the world gave up on gene's dream, didnt it give you a great feeling seeing the words STAR TREK 10feet tall? look if you want trek to die then by all means dont go to the film.. but i'd rather my kids get the chance to experience that aww inspiring feeling with me, dont you?

Aaron Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:36 PM EST

I absolutly love star trek! (even its basterd son "Enterprise"). i've seen neerly every episode of every series and every movie. what all of you nay sayers have forgotton is that star trek is not about weather the defelector dishes are the same in the preview as in tos, or if the uniforms look a little different! its about the the adventure of space (the final fronteer) its about the interaction between charicters, and the lessons you learn.

MR Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:57 PM EST

Who cares if Uhuru took off her top? Abrams has ruined it. From the preview alone, all the magic of Star Trek - the "feel" of it (and stay away from Uhuru), is just gone. It's Abercrombie & Fitch meets Matrix. That's it. Lots of pretty young people but without the camp. Camp is what made Star Trek into the mindless, fun excursion that it was back in the day.

Why do I keep expecting a bunch of huge insects to pop out of the ground and impale the red shirts?

lilly Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:07 PM EST

Bobtruth, I hear you man, about the historical facts had been change. At least it looks like from the trailer. Now, I'm certain everyone (trekkers or not) are going to see this movie even if some wait for rentals.

Daniel Cooper Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:31 PM EST

This is so bad, in almost a backwoods inbred way, that I can't believe the trap that the director (J.J. Abrams) set for himself.

This is like one of those bad 80s high concept movies.

Think about it...

This is YOUNG GUNS set in space and that is all to this. haha. This is one of those cheesy 'what-if' gimmick movies. Remember the cheesy idea of 'what-if' a Young Jesse James and a Young Billy the Kid and a Young Wyatt Earp all hung out? Star Trek has always been that middle-aged crisis nostalgia thing with those older actors pwning off their age as a second wind for a generation doing the same. So the novelty of 'what if' Young Kirk and Spock had adventures is certainly interesting. But it is not enough for an entire movie to rest its laurels on. Let's face, it was the actors as they embodied the characters that brought Gene Roddenberry's Universe to life and that humanity is what allowed Roddenberry to comment on a host of issues. This movie misses that point entirely.

Bobtruth Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:02 PM EST

JODO - he said he wasn't making it for fans of Star Trek, he's making it for fans of movies. BAD idea.

Bobtruth Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:01 PM EST

BTW - loved the Spiderman movies and prequel Star Wars. Here's the thing, prequels were written by the guy who made it up, unlike this Trek mess.

Bobtruth Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM EST

OMG - JODO, you're kidding, right? Webbing? I would be happy if the movie kept to canon, but this is such a joke I won't go see it. There are so many fans blogging that they see this as a mockery of a show they love, that they won't go see it. It's going to be a big expensive flop, and there won't be another one. It's crap - Spock was NOT Pike's first officer, Kirk did NOT serve on the Enterprise first, Pike was NOT in command of the Enterprise on her maiden voyage, the Enterprise was NOT built in Iowa (San Fransisco ship yards in SPACE), Scotty did NOT invent the transporter, Scotty is 10 years older than Kirk, Kirk is 10 years older than Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura, and the Romulans were NOT SEEN until the first season of TOS, there was NO contact with the Romulans for a hundred years since before that show. The franchise may have died with Enterprise, but this parody, Galaxy Quest II, will bury it 6' down.

Commander_Jodo Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM EST

Abrahms said he was aware of the fans, and that he was making this for the fans, and for new fans. the movie is a reinterpritation (SP) of tos not and an exact copy. Like BSG or Marvel's Ultimates. So yes things are going to be a little changed. And Shut up about the freaking delta symbols on the uniforms, it's freaking state of the art webbing like Spider-man's costume. God you're all a bunch of fan-babies. Be happy there's a new movie. It couldn't be any worse than the star wars prequels, probably be better.

Bobtruth Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM EST

CRAIG-don't worry, they're not on the Enterprise, they're on the USS Applestore.

John Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM EST

This looks like a home run to me. Many of the naysayers are people who probably couldn't admit that certain episodes of The Next Generation and DS9 were superior in every way to *anything* in the original series. God forbid they might be coming up with an interesting reimagining/reboot that might be better than any version of "Star Trek" that has existed...
Star Trek is dead. Long live Star Trek!

Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM EST

JOHO-if you look close, the original costumes (uniforms) are NOT back. In a close up you will see cute little delta shield all over the shirts. Not to mention the division insignias are not little metal badge, just like TNG. Gotta love how JJ has just mashed everything together that he has ever seen on Star Trek.

Nick Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

Come on people wise up! You cannot conclude one way or another how good the film will be based on trailer! Which incidentally I think looks pretty fab. Loving the new transporter beam effect and the big 'E' jumping to warp. Looks a bit star warsy. I am looking forward to this.

Craig Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:41 AM EST

I've been a fan of Trek since the original Series, I liked TNG, was so-so on DS9, hated Voyager and was so-so on Enterprise. In fact I didn't see the complete series of Enterprise until it aired on HDNET.

I liked the trailer, but I do have some concerns.

First and foremost is the GLARING error of having Kirk serve with Pike. In the episode Menagerie KIrk said out right that he met Pike breifly when Pike became fleet captain. Spock served with him not Kirk.
I was also under the impression that it was built at the San Francisco ship yards.
Oh well.

Bobtruth Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:16 AM EST

AARON - "little insignificant bit of canon"? Are you kidding? MAJOR bits of canon aer being left out and altered. After all, it's a movie for fans of movies, not fans of Star Trek.

Commander_Jodo Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:23 AM EST

I'm just wondering why nobody has mentioned the fact that this idea was orginally going to be used for Star Trek VI?

lilly Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:04 AM EST

To The Joker, because stupid is what sells tickets to paid the outrages actor's salaries and the gazillions of money spent making things explode.

joho Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:34 AM EST

Those original costumes are back! YES!!!!!

Andrew Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:18 AM EST

Is that really the Enterprise being built on the ground, or a training mock-up being built on the ground. Functional Starships are supposed to be built on-orbit due to their massive size. Anti-Gravity and Anti-Matter production must be extremely energy efficient.

Andrew Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:08 AM EST

It better be worth the 6 month wait.

It looks like a PG-13.

It will be great if they have a clear definition of who the characters are and who they are supposed to become.

The big story problem with Star Trek: Nemesis was that their production team forgot that the characters drive the story in all Star Trek, instead the Nemesis team made a hard to watch story and forgot the past of the characters.

JustAnotherLoser Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:17 AM EST

Quote:The Joker Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:42 PM EST. I HATE JJ ABRAMS!!! The original series was awesome. why do they have to ruin everything by making star trek look stupid?
And MY response to this is: Ruin everything by making it look stupid?! What??? I guess 'Gamsters of Triskilian'(know I spelled that wrong, but you know what I'm talking about)and Ron Howard's ugly little brother at the end of 'Corbanite Manouever' and the last episode of the original series, where Kirk traded places with that female Dr, or 'Vaal calls to me...' or, geez, I could go on and on here! Yes, like to admit it or not, the origianl series contained MORE than a few stinkers. Episodes that seemes to ALWAYS be on when I wanted a non Trekker friend to watch and get into it. You know I'm telling the truth!! So, yeah,...seen the new trailer and I think it will at least out do all those original series episodes I mentioned.

DP Snotty Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:16 AM EST

Well said, F.

A few comments from the previous feature article "'Star Trek': New Movie, New Vision" in EW spell doom for me:

...Abrams can sum up his regard for Trek in two words: Galaxy Quest. ''It's so ridiculous, so accurate, so sophisticated, it spoils the Star Trek universe,'' he says.

Abrams made his perspective clear: ''We weren't making a movie for fans of Star Trek,'' he said. ''We were making a movie for fans of movies.''

and

The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

Aaron Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:54 PM EST

starting with the car chase scene, in my opinion embodied alot of what i beleave kirk to be; adventerious, fearless, and daring. in the old original movies they allways wanted kirk to be doing something exciting. (example: climbing the cliff face at the beginning of the final fronteer. or fighting on the top of a mountain like in generations. im sure you can think of a hundred others). now i have read some of the interviews, and the spoilers, and all in all it seems like a really awsome take on classic trek. if you read the runthrough of the beginning of the flic, you can see that the classic humor is there. also obviously some anomosity between kirk and spock. im interested in seeing how these charicters develope into the tos cast that we know and love. i have been a trekkie as long as i can remember, and for once im putting the little insignifigent bits of cannon aside, so this film may breath new life into the franchise and maybe make people intrested in the idea of a bright future.

F. Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:41 PM EST

Well probably this is going to be another disappointment. JJ Abrams is one of the most overrated directors today. MI3, Cloverfield, Fringe are all lame. Even Alias and Lost are nothing special. And he doesn't know what continuity means. But what bothers me more is that he doesn’t have a true vision about Star Trek. He only took the characters from the original series, he used a lot CGIs and teenagers actors to appeal a younger audience – because lets face it it’s were the big bucks come from – but that’s not the right way to remake a series like ST. Star Trek was always more than special effects and battles but probably the audience today doesn’t want a movie that will make them use their brain and imagination.
Sorry but for me this is junk food no STAR TREK

Everett Alexander Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:54 PM EST

I see them making the same mistake that they made with the Enterprise series: a lack of understanding of the characters. Namely, what possible motivation could Spock have for attacking Kirk? Who knows, maybe there are plot points that would explain his "illogicial" behavior.

Rebellious Pixels Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:20 PM EST

Disappointing to say the least. But than again it was expected. This movie is a return to the old style star trek literally with the two young straight white dudes on the bridge which seems to mirror the testosterone driven explosion oriented cheesy hollywood plot. The core mission of Star Trek is so much more than that, its about exploration and humanity overcoming oppression, aggression and greed. I also hope for a voyager movie at some point as that show, for me, embodied alot of the core of star trek.

Missy B. Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:36 PM EST

Oh c'mon! Is there really talk of "who's good enough an actor to be Kirk"?! I love me some Shat but let's remember - his portrayal of Kirk will forever be remembered as an impersonation of Ace Ventura's. I think the biggest mistake they could make on the casting of Kirk is an actor that doesn't resemble that chiseled face of so long ago!

Hairy Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:31 PM EST

New trailer in HD here!
http://www.hd-trailers.org/2008/11/new-jj-abrams-star-trek-trailer-first-look/

Hairy Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:31 PM EST

New trailer in HD here!
http://www.hd-trailers.org/2008/11/new-jj-abrams-star-trek-trailer-first-look/

Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:27 PM EST

god so many negative comments i myself love star trek and i really like the look of this trailer.It looks much bigger than any other star trek film (which i always thought they deserved to have more scope like the star wars movies).jj will hopefully make trek popular again with this refreshed big budget version,so why dont u all give it a chance.as for canon?jeez its entertainment for god sake who cares if in the "star trek bible" it said april ran the ship then pike for 5 years and that kirk wouldnt of seen it gettin built?i mean come on does that really matter???????nope.and im sure it wont be for the over 40's generation,cos im 22 and im def going to that cinema!!!!

DCM Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:06 PM EST

I simply loved the trailer! What I have to keep in mind though is I gotta give this movie and story a chance. I've been a Trekkie since the age of 5 and now I'm 38 so I know my Trek history and I'm not gonna pick this movie apart if they do something wrong. I know other Trek fans are judging it already but let's give it a chance and besides, if it can bring Leonard Nimoy back it's gotta be good!!!

Striker Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 05:18 PM EST

I thought the trailer was decent. I just don't want it to take too much from the original series. Pine still does not convince me as a well actor to play Kirk but will see. This will be very intresting see how it all plays out!

Seth Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 03:57 PM EST

I'll give it a shot. I like flashy effects, but I like my flashy effects used judiciously and I would prefer it if character and plot drive the story as opposed to just being flimsy bridges between shiny, shiny bang-bang.
The problem with a film like this is that the canon and characters are so well-established that it will be difficult for new actors to step into those roles and be pleasing. It would almost be better to make a film in the Star Trek universe focusing on an all-new ship and crew, because expectations would be lowered and people could come into it with more open minds.
And I will say it does bug me to see them building the Enterprise (or any other large ship such as that) in gravity. No matter what kind of technological innovations they have in the future, it would be far, far more practical to build a spacefaring vessel designed solely for vacuum in space. It ain't a landing craft. Perhaps that's just nerdiness, but there's no reason to dumb things down so much.

Daniel Cooper Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:51 PM EST

Hey, Bernardin... you asked us a question. You too snobby in your EW ivory tower to jump in on this thread?lol. What do YOU think? I think you asked the wrong question here. Since Star Trek has effectively been dead and canceled off the air for awhile, that doesn't say much about "fans" since the fans have almost been non-existant on this sorta thing for awhile. The question you should've asked is: Is Star Trek relevant anymore? What does the trailer say about Star Trek's place in popular culture? My 2 cents...

Joe Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:49 PM EST

I'm completely fine with some of the changes that people might find to be heresy. These are probably the same people who hated "The Next Generation" and then retracted their words when they saw that it was actually really good (or to use a more recent analogy...the same naysayers who thought Chris Nolan was crazy for casting Heath Ledger as the Joker). Star Trek had grown stale and overexposed so changing and updating it needed to be done. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Daniel Cooper Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:44 PM EST

I am having too much fun with this... but it's hard not to make fun of this silliness.

What's with casting of unknowns for this? With the exception of Simon Pegg, brilliant choice, the rest of the cast seems like a quirky gimmick than sensable casting. It's like director J.J. Abrams doesn't want to reboot Star Trek as much as he'd like to revolutionize it. And that has more to do with ego than it has to do about art. What bothers me about this new Trek is how overly serious it is. It takes a deft hand to make pop art also high art (Tarantino's Grindhouse comes to mind). And Abrams is smart enough to not go down that road. But choosing the self-serious route simply highlights how unnecessary it is for a Trek re-boot (sry, I mean 'revolution'). The problem is that if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. lol Get excited about an unknown doing a good Spock impersonation is about as exciting about Lucas' vision of Anakin Skywalker. Translation:this is gonna be a letdown any way you cut it

The Joker Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:42 PM EST

I HATE JJ ABRAMS!!! The original series was awesome. why do they have to ruin everything by making star trek look stupid?

MagicFeather Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:08 PM EST

I personally loved it. I am a big Original Franchise fan. People that would hate this are people that would hate the new Battlestar Galactica. They are a very loud minority.

Shamrock1014 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:05 PM EST

In the immortal words of Ogre, "NEEEERDS!!!"

TMW Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:04 PM EST

OMG... just let it die already. Can anyone in Hollyweird come up with an original concept, a brand-new take on sci-fi?

Yes, I'm a middle aged male. Yes, I'm a big fan of TOS and TNG. I love LOST, kind of liked ALIAS, hated MI3, CLOVERFIELD was meh. I don't hate Abrams, and as curious to see what he came up with.

Now I know - looks to me like he took an extremely well-known franchise and has dumbed it down for a new generation. Add shiny new toys & some explosions - voila! Moneymaking spring blockbuster for Paramount, and some extremely disappointed longtime ST fans.

Whatever...

David in Salt Lake City Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:00 PM EST

I'm not a Trekker - I'm a Stargater - though I have seen all the movies and TV shows (yes, even Enterprise - bleh! proof postive that retro-Trek doesn't work) so let me say this: going backward is not going forward. This movie is about what has come before. Not only is that NOT creative - and in fact it beholens itself to continuity more than any new-future Trek story ever could - but it holds no interest for me.

This is not the same as the Bond reboot because quite frankly Bond has been "rebooted" 5x starting with On Her Majesty's Secret Service that showed how a different tone and different actor can still carry the Bond moniker.

At least Bond goes to new places with the character in new ways; this Trek is retred with new paint. And should we even discuss the fact that this movie goes against everything Gene created Star Trek to be? As lame as Enterprise was, the temporal war concept was great and gives no end of new material to work with (for a TV show at least) while still preserving the moto "to go where no one has gone before".

I also am not a J.J. fan and am not sold on his ability to tell a story well.

hairy Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:36 PM EST

New trailer in HD here!
http://www.hd-trailers.org/2008/11/new-jj-abrams-star-trek-trailer-first-look/

Dr. No Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:21 PM EST

Well, as a die hard Trek fan, I am taking this for what it is.

Another franchise REBOOT. It worked for James Bond, why not Star Trek.

I don't expect it to follow with the "future" endeavors of the characters we all know and love. I expect it to start over basically, just sticking with the basic mythology of Trek. Romulans are bad. Enterprise looks the same. And I'm sure the Klingons will show up later.

Don't look to deep into this folks. Nemesis was awful, and this franchise had no where left to go. So now........the reboot and now it's going where no man has gone before ;-) Action genre

JD Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:18 PM EST

Here is what I think, I think you write in a very junenile fashion. As do most writers on ew.com. Why did you feel the need to bust on Nemesis? It was a good movie.

Texas Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:15 PM EST

I always thought Star Trek was more than just fantastic explosions and battles. From the trailer, the movie looks like that's all it is going to be. Disappointing.

bubba Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:15 PM EST

When is this hitting the web in HD?

Bobtruth Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM EST

LESLIE-There are just SO many things that I have seen in the trailer, the pics, and read that have me disappointed. I have no problem with JJ, other than he said he wasn't a fan or making a film for the fans. I can't see my self enjoying a film where I would keep saying "that's not right." I know the episodes inside out, not because I have no life, I have a really good memory. Why would Kirk be able to drive a Corvette as a kid, then not be able to drive a car as an adult (Piece of the Action)? The Enterprise went through a 5 year mission under April, and two under Pike. So how as a teenager could he see the Enterprise being built? Too many inconsistancies.

Leslie Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM EST

Personally, I think it shows just how much Trek matters to people when you have all these people who say they don't like it, taking the time to read the posts, watch the trailer, and comment. Obviously, if Trek were dead as some of you say, then why are so many of you checking out the trailer?

How can you call the writing sophomoric when all you've seen is a trailer? I know there are some J.J. haters out there, but why don't you give him a chance to prove or disprove your opinion of him regarding this movie. I would say the Nemesis trialer looked good but was a bad movie. If you don't like the trailer maybe the movie will be awesome.

I'm going to reserve my judgement until I've seen the movie. I thought the trailer looked interesting and that the casting is excellent. One complaint from me though - echoing someone else's. Why does the female lead have to take her shirt off? Why not Kirk taking his pants off? Fair is fair...

Bobtruth Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:39 PM EST

Damn right about anti-intellectual era, look who was just elected President. Abrams should have made this for the fans, who does he expect will watch it? I keep saying, Nick Meyers did the two most successful (2&6) they should have given it to him. Which of the 10 was better than Wrath of Khan?

Daniel Cooper Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:19 PM EST

Responding to zealous fanboy below:

Star Trek WAS that rare thing: Junk food for intellectuals. But in the anti-Intellectual era, Trek simply doesn't have a place anymore. And this ain't Shakespear and never was. So people responded to the characters as embodied by the original cast. Trying to make this into the next Star Wars (which Abram all but admits in interviews) isn't new. The last 5 or 6 Trek movies are also poor attempts to retro-fit Trek with big explosions and special effects... and they failed. So this isn't as original as Abram's thinks it is. Just like Cloverfield wasn't the big surprise hit he tried pump us up for. He didn't give us an "American Godzilla" that he was fond of telling us. And that's what THIS TREK is about... a semi-decent storyteller with ego than he can chew. Maybe a Tarantino or a Simon Pegg could make this work. But in Abram's hands, this is just a gimmick or stunt, not unlike "Lost": sizzle from a steak that was never a good cut of meat to begin w/

Joe Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM EST

For 90 seconds it looked good to see Star Trek up on the big screen again. But judging from the people in the theater which was filled with customers in their 20's and 30's this was no big deal for them. In fact the reation to the trailer was strangely quiet. Right after the trailer ended my 18 year son said to me "I guess you will be looking forward to seeing that with your friends". Now my friends and I are all in our late forties. I then said to my son what about you. Will you see this with your friends and he said "no becasue this movie is more for your generation then mine". While this will probably be a very good film, based on what my son said and the audience reaction (or lack of one), I don't see this movie being a big hit with the under 40 crowd.

jamminpawpaw Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM EST

Great Trailer! I look forward to the movie. J.J., DON'T FREAK OUT OVER ANY UNWARRANTED COMMENTS. You have a winner here, guaranteed!

JP

Daniel Cooper Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:06 PM EST

Seriously... the only thing good about this and the ONLY thing is that they were smart enough to get Simon Pegg from "Shaun of the Dead" to play Soctty and they should've followed that lead. Nimoy is involved on some level which shows how desperately this needs to connect with the original Trek and won't. Star Trek has ran it's course, just like Star Wars, and they'd be wise to let this go. This movie tanks, period. Imagine if you knew nothing about Star Trek. Would you care about this trailer? That's what make "Galaxy Quest" and Star Trek 4 work... all that's left is some pop culture humor about all of this. Hence why Pegg's casting is such a big footnote on an otherwise bland reboot. Sorry, but the new Trek, with its glass counter displays and zippy CGI, looks like something out of the apple store... The movie looks like some iPhone commericial. Hey, there you go, hire Justin Long to play a character from the show. Sorry, but this will be lame. Another failure from J.J. Abrams.

Peggysue Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM EST

I've been a fan since 1969 and I think it looks great. Spock has always been my all time favourite and Zachary Quinto is perfect for the role. So like Leonard, it takes me back to my childhood. I can't wait to see it.

Shaun Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM EST

ok, this may be a rhetorical question, but why does the one female lead need to have a topless scene?

Maven Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM EST

It's too bad that we can't comment on the movie without the specter of Fanboyism looming over us. The fact is that the opening sequence is retarded. It'd be retarded in ANY movie. It's like it was written by a twelve-year-old. "Oh, and this will be SWEET, there's like a... a... CORVETTE or something, and it's heading towards a CLIFF! Why? Hell, I don't know. But then instead of stopping or turning, guy driving will do this SWEET 'Tokyo Drift' thing, and then JUMP OUT OF THE CAR! And dude, get this, he's like, ten or something! And the he's all 'I'm James Tiberious Kirk', and... yeah, I know, it'll be NERDGASM!"