-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New 'Star Trek' photos
- Thread starter DMczaf
- Start date
- Status
Spotless Mind
Member
Oh yes! Transformers is obviously a fantastic movie because it MADE A SHITLOAD OF MONEY!! I'm so sorry that i forgot MAKING A SHITLOAD OF MONEY!!! is a bar for quality these days.critch said:
All those shows you just named are varying amounts of shit and MI3 is one of the worst directed and written action films i have seen this decade. It might have worked if it was a parody movie, but it wasn't... it was completely serious and had me laughing my ass off at every awful line of dialogue and melodramatic attempt at character development. It was a tensionless, unexciting load of garbage with a bunch of stock cardboard cutout characters.
jordan0386
Member
Spotless Mind said:
Isnt it?
Spotless Mind said:
It's amazing how purposely negative you try to be.
No, Lost and Fringe are not "varying amounts of shit". Lost is looked at by many as one of the best shows on TV. Your opinion is in the HUGE minority.
And your comment about MI3 is just fucking laughable. The movie was awesome. To say it was "tensionless" is ridiculous.
You must be the least fun person to be around in real life. I can't imagine you being anything but a killjoy.
I'm very excited for Transformers 2 to come out, make a shitload of money, then having it annoy the hell out of you.
Wow this is so very very incredible looking and I'm definitely looking forward to it now more than before.
I really like how the scenery costume colorful theme they got going on which is just great and I like how those space suits they're wearing while dropping into the planet on look. Uhura looks well fierce. Hopefully we get fight scene music but doubt it.
I really like how the scenery costume colorful theme they got going on which is just great and I like how those space suits they're wearing while dropping into the planet on look. Uhura looks well fierce. Hopefully we get fight scene music but doubt it.
The trailer looked good but I realyl hope this movie doesn't have a "ZOMG IMA FIR MA LAZER LOLZ TITS KEWL TEENZ" feel to it.
It does look awesome, just not Star Trek.
When can we see the trailer properly in HD? Is there a date?
I find your lack of Farscape disturbing.
It does look awesome, just not Star Trek.
When can we see the trailer properly in HD? Is there a date?
Dax01 said:I disagree, I wasn't getting that feeling at all, and I just watched Nemesis recently.
And for some reason I have a compelling feeling to post the picture below. It's a couple of months old, and I have added things since then (like FireFly, the first two seasons of ToS remastered), but it shows how much I care.
All the seasons, every episode, every movie, it's all there.
I find your lack of Farscape disturbing.
JonathanEx
Member
So, I read through this thread.
Some of you guys are just fucking impossible to please.
Some of you guys are just fucking impossible to please.
Synth_floyd
Banned
Wow, the old school uniforms look really out of place. Make it look like a crappy fan flik. Otherwise, seems interesting.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
The Young Kirk thing was a bit lame. Mainly because of the child actor's delivery. I'm sure it will play out better in the context of the movie. He just seems really overly confident...which works for Kirk's character, but you'd think he'd have to grown into that.
I can understand why this might be hard to swallow for long time fans of Star Trek. But speaking as someone who doesn't really consider himself a Star Trek fan...I can't wait to see this movie. It just looks like a fun summer flick.
JJ gets a lot of hate, but I think he did a great job directing Mission Impossible 3. Yeah, it felt like an episode of Alias with 20x the budget, but that isn't such a bad thing.
I can understand why this might be hard to swallow for long time fans of Star Trek. But speaking as someone who doesn't really consider himself a Star Trek fan...I can't wait to see this movie. It just looks like a fun summer flick.
JJ gets a lot of hate, but I think he did a great job directing Mission Impossible 3. Yeah, it felt like an episode of Alias with 20x the budget, but that isn't such a bad thing.
Just saw the bootleg.
First off. I liked the trailer. I really liked the trailer. Though the 'young Kirk' stuff really grated the shot of Kirk riding past the shipyard where they were building the Enterprise was the definite highlight.
Though without a doubt it was highly derivative of TopGun it felt fresh to me and I think that the Trek canon can easily 'take the hit' and still be OK. After all, how many hits have franchises like Superman taken to it's canon with shows like Smallville. Come on people.
It was exactly what I was expecting. And frankly, that's where my concerns are highlighted. I'm looking forward to this and I'll certainly go and see it.
But just as I thought, though many may argue about his talent, there is no doubting that Abrams is a smart director. He knows how to tickle an audience just right. Especially when it comes to trailers. And this trailer hit all the right buttons. He did it with Cloverfield. And he's done it again here.
But in saying that there is no doubt in my mind that Abrams knows that showing 'old Spock' in this first trailer is going to turn off casual audiences. So instead we get all the whizz and bang of an action trailer with no suggestion or connection with the original Trek to entice the non-nerds.
But sooner or later he's going to have to open the kimono (presumably with the second trailer) and show use more of the film and when he does that I think that's where the wheels might fall off. Despite all the flashy action beats of the trailer. This is still Trek. And mainstream culture doesn't do Trek.
I want this film to work. I want this film to be a hit. I want the studios to see that there is a big market out there for large scale sci-fi epics. But at this point, I can't this film connecting with a mainstream summer event movie audience.
But, as William Goldman said about the film industry, "nobody knows anything"....
*shrugs shoulders*
This. Clearly Abrams understands that he has an uphill struggle on his hands to bring in the casual summer audience and he's getting the film out there to make sure the message sinks in.
But at the ends of the day. Depsite all the whizz-bang effects and excitement of the trailer. The very moment that the Star Trek logo pops up at the end in that old style text format all the hard work is undone.
I do love me some Farscape it has to be said.
First off. I liked the trailer. I really liked the trailer. Though the 'young Kirk' stuff really grated the shot of Kirk riding past the shipyard where they were building the Enterprise was the definite highlight.
Though without a doubt it was highly derivative of TopGun it felt fresh to me and I think that the Trek canon can easily 'take the hit' and still be OK. After all, how many hits have franchises like Superman taken to it's canon with shows like Smallville. Come on people.
It was exactly what I was expecting. And frankly, that's where my concerns are highlighted. I'm looking forward to this and I'll certainly go and see it.
But just as I thought, though many may argue about his talent, there is no doubting that Abrams is a smart director. He knows how to tickle an audience just right. Especially when it comes to trailers. And this trailer hit all the right buttons. He did it with Cloverfield. And he's done it again here.
But in saying that there is no doubt in my mind that Abrams knows that showing 'old Spock' in this first trailer is going to turn off casual audiences. So instead we get all the whizz and bang of an action trailer with no suggestion or connection with the original Trek to entice the non-nerds.
But sooner or later he's going to have to open the kimono (presumably with the second trailer) and show use more of the film and when he does that I think that's where the wheels might fall off. Despite all the flashy action beats of the trailer. This is still Trek. And mainstream culture doesn't do Trek.
I want this film to work. I want this film to be a hit. I want the studios to see that there is a big market out there for large scale sci-fi epics. But at this point, I can't this film connecting with a mainstream summer event movie audience.
But, as William Goldman said about the film industry, "nobody knows anything"....
*shrugs shoulders*
dead souls said:
This. Clearly Abrams understands that he has an uphill struggle on his hands to bring in the casual summer audience and he's getting the film out there to make sure the message sinks in.
But at the ends of the day. Depsite all the whizz-bang effects and excitement of the trailer. The very moment that the Star Trek logo pops up at the end in that old style text format all the hard work is undone.
Darklord said:
I do love me some Farscape it has to be said.Though some (alot?) don't agree with him Devin Faraci over at CHUD he is always worth a read. Though sometimes (often?) wide of the mark he is always good for a wry observation or point of view.
He posted some thoughts on the trailer and made an excellent point. I agree with him, there was something a little 'off' about the trailer that I couldn't put my finger on it. Though Top Gun was about the Navy and not the Air Force as he says his point does remain the same.
I know it's early and we still haven't seen that much, even in this trailer but it's an interesting take all the same.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/17055/1/THE-WEEKEND-DISCUSSION-THE-STAR-TREK-TRAILER/Page1.html
He posted some thoughts on the trailer and made an excellent point. I agree with him, there was something a little 'off' about the trailer that I couldn't put my finger on it. Though Top Gun was about the Navy and not the Air Force as he says his point does remain the same.
I know it's early and we still haven't seen that much, even in this trailer but it's an interesting take all the same.
CHUD.com said:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/17055/1/THE-WEEKEND-DISCUSSION-THE-STAR-TREK-TRAILER/Page1.html
The thing that's concerning me, just from the trailer, and the photos, is the 'teen adventure' vibe of the thing. It seems like the crew of the Enterprise have been thrown together fresh out of the academy and it just doesn't ring true. Maybe the movie will be different, but I am not hopeful for this one.
Edit: I'd agree with that Busty.
Edit: I'd agree with that Busty.
Busty said:
You're missing out the fact that the casual audience loves a reboot to any franchise as long as it's handled with care. You may think the trailers are concentrating on the action only but who's to say that the story itself is not compelling enough to keep the casuals hooked.
The only reason the studio would have chosen Abrams would be to capture that audience. Thats means they know exactly where he wants to take this franchise and they will back it up with the appropriate marketing.
Your fundamental understanding of the casual audience is that they don't give a fun pop corn summer action movie a chance, which I'm going to have to disagree on. The casual audience eats that shit up.
joey_z said:
Ah I see. Well since it's a fact then you shouldn't have any problems posting some examples of audiences 'loving' a franchise 'reboot' to back up your argument.
Say three or four examples from the last three or four years with the final Worldwide box office numbers for each would be great.
Cheers.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
That Khan claims to remember Chekov isn't necessarily a canon break. Just because we didn't see him on the ship didn't mean he wasn't there in an off-screen position. It can't contradict what hasn't been set.Sapiens said:
Changing visual style isn't breaking anything, because as time goes on, visual styles change. If preference of movie makers can change over a few decades, it makes sense that it could for Starfleet designers as well. Now, doing that retroactively makes things a bit harder to fit together.
Of course being a novel it has no official status, but the explanation given in the Eugenics Wars books had Chekov as part of a resistance to Khan's men in engineering, and later had him among the group depositing them on Ceti Alpha V.DrForester said:
A reboot would bug the part of me that would like to see more in the existing continuity, but it bugs me more that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by changing things without it being completely new.Lhadatt said:
But if someone isn't a fan of this style, why would they want to rush on a TV series while he's still in control of the franchise?Cheebs said:
It's interesting to hear Faraci call out that point. That aspect is one of the reasons I enjoy the original series so much. I've never heard Star Trek discussed in that way, and it was very much a pleasant surprise when I started watching the original series. I still can't believe how much I enjoy the original series. I had such low expectations going in.Busty said:
If I were to go through a list of all the elements I most enjoy from the original series, I would say that trailer misses the mark on almost all of them. That said, the trailer looks good in its own right (cliff scene excluded- blah). Keep in mind, most people don't want to see a Star Trek movie. The purpose of this trailer more than anything else is to convince the average movie-goer that Star Trek has something for them to enjoy. It is a seemingly intentionally anti-trek advertisement. I will hold out hope that the film itself will be different in tone from the trailer. And if it isn't, it still looks like a fun movie in its own right.
The Elite
BOSS
Tom_Cody said:
You've pretty much nailed what is going on here. I'm also glad to see some appreciation for TOS. So many "Star Trek" fans here seem to dismiss it and focus on the series starting with TNG and onward. The Original Series was ahead of its time (Hell, a lot of 60s shows were).
The way the trailer is cut is definitely to focus on the action so I wouldn't bother trying to derive the plot of film from it. The whole point of this reboot is to reinvigorate the series and that means updating the look and feel for the 21st century. They will hopefully not miss the core point of the series though.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The stills have had me excited, but this trailer actually takes some of that away. It looks really dumb to me.
Granted, this is just a trailer-- I doubt it's very representative and I'll probably like the movie. But the trailer actually dampened my excitement.
I don't have a huge attachment to the franchise, although I like it well enough.
Granted, this is just a trailer-- I doubt it's very representative and I'll probably like the movie. But the trailer actually dampened my excitement.
I don't have a huge attachment to the franchise, although I like it well enough.
The Librarian
Banned
joey_z said:
:lol lawl. If it means sacrificing quality to bring it out of that "shit stereotype" (which it isn't), then it shouldn't be done.
That would be awesome.Death_Born said:The only thing that would repel more girls than a complete Star Trek DVD collection is...
Making your apartment into a Star Trek ship.
I find your lack of appreciation of 2001 even more disturbing.Darklord said:
radioheadrule83
Banned
Busty said:
I think the slow, calculated, chain-of-command naval stuff will remain. The enterprise hasn't changed in anything apart from aesthetics, think about it. Scotty will have some sort of engineering role to play, chekov, sulu and uhura will still have roles to play on the bridge, and kirk will be disseminating orders. There may even only be one battle... it wouldn't surprise me if a great bulk of this movie is a kirk / spock origins story.
Thats reflected in this trailer with the young Kirk stuff on Earth, young spock, and Enterprise in the shipyard. But if you're trying to re-energise a franchise and make people sit up and notice you don't put that 'naval' essence in the trailers. That stuff has its place in the movies as tense games of tactical space-chess, but its not going to fit in in a 2 minute trailer. Instead you would obviously use the most dramatic moments, the most kinetic-camera movements and the most bombastic explosive moments. Hence the shuttles flying about a beleagured Enterprise, fights on the bridge, laser fire and explosions.
Would have been great as an Enterprise movie, or a brand-new title. But it's not Star Trek. Seems way too explodey in just that one trailer. Plus, they're too fucking young. And Scotty's not fat enough. And Bones isn't old and boney enough. The little Kirk shit could have been left out too. Nimoy is rolling in his grave. PEACE.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Pimpwerx said:
Scotty wasn't fat till the movies.
I consider myself to be a Trek fan, and I'm really psyched for this movie. For trekkies who are claiming that it doesn't feel like Trek at all, well thats the point. The Star Trek of the last 10 years doesn't work in the 21st century. The series NEEDS to evolve. It seems like they're really positioning this as a fun summer popcorn flick, which works for me. I say build the audience with this one, then hit one out of the park with the sequel a la TDK.
I'll be there day 1.
I'll be there day 1.
The Librarian
Banned
No, it doesn't NEED to evolve.h1nch said:
Dax01 said:
I agree. This need only exists because the franchise has become unprofitable and unmarketable to a mainstream audience. Few seem to want to think anymore, and would rather watch cool explosions and have black and white depictions of what is right and wrong. I would like to believe it is possible to make a morally and philosophically nuanced film that is still entertaining, enthralling, and fully engaging.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I'm surprised that people actually react negatively to the sex scenes. It's not like Kirk didn't have sex in the original series (he didn't kiss all of those women and jut leave it at that). It's obvious that they just didn't show it.
The movies had hardly any space combat scenes, but I will tell you why this movie should be different. The later movies reflected Kirk as an admiral, having already conquered space. They are more personal journeys addressing his age and place in Starfleet. But it could be argued that this movie should reflect a younger Kirk and his personality. He is young, abrasive, full of energy, and kind of naive. To have a Kirk this raw and then to relegate him to ponderous action is kind of a disservice.
And the coming together stuff wouldn't be so bad if it's done in the service of character building. If Spock in the process of coming to terms with Kirk also comes to terms with himself and it's done through the script in a manner that is revelatory and unique, then it's a good story. I mean most gangster movies involve the self destruction of the characters because they just don't know when to stop, but The Godfather, Once Upon a Time in America, and Goodfellas are all great films because they show this in completely unique ways. Not that Star Trek will be any of these, but the end product must be judged by the individual actions of the characters, not the mold that the story fits into.
It's hard to keep completely true to the original on the big screen. Look, Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek was The Motion Picture. In the original series, he barely had the budget to show Romulans because he couldn't afford the ears. How much less is he going to show a ship during combat? Of course it's going to be tense and ponderous because that's the only direction he could go. His instinct when he received a big budget was to eschew action altogether. When he was literally kicked off of Star Trek II, he derided the end product for being too militaristic.Busty said:
The movies had hardly any space combat scenes, but I will tell you why this movie should be different. The later movies reflected Kirk as an admiral, having already conquered space. They are more personal journeys addressing his age and place in Starfleet. But it could be argued that this movie should reflect a younger Kirk and his personality. He is young, abrasive, full of energy, and kind of naive. To have a Kirk this raw and then to relegate him to ponderous action is kind of a disservice.
And the coming together stuff wouldn't be so bad if it's done in the service of character building. If Spock in the process of coming to terms with Kirk also comes to terms with himself and it's done through the script in a manner that is revelatory and unique, then it's a good story. I mean most gangster movies involve the self destruction of the characters because they just don't know when to stop, but The Godfather, Once Upon a Time in America, and Goodfellas are all great films because they show this in completely unique ways. Not that Star Trek will be any of these, but the end product must be judged by the individual actions of the characters, not the mold that the story fits into.
h1nch said:
Dax01 said:
And if it does, then they need to show some creative effort and create a new, good Star Trek. They don't need to hijack and shit on the original, if the goal is to have the series evolve. That isn't the way to do it. Also, if the problem was the last ten years then that had nothing to do with TOS, and TOS apparently wasn't the problem, so if they are going to remake it, at least be true to the source in feeling and emotion. That's all I ask. These are by far the most memorable characters in Star Trek, and special care needs to be taken not to fuck with them too much, that's all.
And I wish people would stop comparing this to BB/TDK. It is completely different. Batman as a character exists outside of time. He doesn't age (unless a specific potential future story is being told) and his origin story has been retold a thousand times already by a thousand people. All Batman is, is a series of rehashings with slightly different takes (I love him though, so shut up) so one more is no big deal.
A show about the evolution of human civilization shouldn't itself evolve? You really just want to be the contrarian, don't you?Dax01 said:
Edit: And, in any case, Trek has been totally uneven over the years. So if this turns out to be as bad as you fear, then it's not evolution, it's par for the course!
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Right. It's not like the people behind Batman Begins were claiming it was a return to the Adam West Batman or something.Seth C said:
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
We've been over this. This is Star Trek's only chance. There is no other way. A new Trek will not be accepted, and the only way to bring people back into the fold and drum up interest is to recast these iconic characters. Not to say that Star Trek couldn't survive with an original cast, but "survive" is relative. If you want Star Trek to become completely irrelevant as a niche franchise with no budget and no risks, sure that's survival. But that would be an even bigger injustice to this once proud franchise. In order to appeal to an increasingly small fanbase, it would become even more stale because fans are expecting a specific style. Fans will continue to eat that up because they want more and more, and they'll never grow bored of it. They can replace the cast, but it's still the same tired thing.Seth C said:
This becomes increasingly true: in order to move on, you have to risk pissing off your fanbase. They might not like all of the changes, but there is nothing that can be done about that because this is the thing that should be done. The director and writers bring their style. The actors bring their spin. The technology affords something different. And these characters are in different periods of their lives and thus cannot be written the same way. There is no right way here. People are either going to accept it or they won't. But I think that these components should be assuaged in the following order: 1) it should be a good movie, 2) it should be faithful to the original, and 3) a new spin should be brought to it. Just by bringing in personnel means that it's going to be different. I mean people are still complaining now that Star Trek IV wasn't real Trek. Maybe it wasn't like the original vision or like any vision of Star Trek. But you have to allow room for different interpretations.
As for Batman, I wouldn't make that comparison myself, but I think that the only real difference is perception. It's basically "that's the way it's done and we won't deviate". The only real difference between Batman and Star Trek is that people are used to Batman "reboots" while Star Trek is contiguous. It doesn't mean Star Trek cannot change. It just means that people aren't comfortable with change. And that shouldn't be discounted. But if this movie is excellent, then hopefully people will loosen up and get used to change in Star Trek. And frankly, I think fans do need to be pissed off a little. They do need a bit of the fear of the unknown. Because if this film succeeds, then it will change the very way we see the franchise, and that will give it a very good chance to continue on and stay relevant. The franchise has gotten too complacent, and it's time to do something extraordinarily risky.
Mgoblue201 said:
Actually, it is much more than that. Think about it. What existed in the Batman universe before Batman? Arguably, nothing. What exists in the Batman universe after Batman? Either nothing, or more Batman. The Batman story is displaced from any continuity. It is Batman, and it doesn't really interact with any history before or after. It isn't just about people being accustomed to Batman rebooting, it is the fact that because Batman doesn't ever really age, and because the world around him doesn't progress beyond him, reboots are constantly necessary. It is just the way of the traditional comic book.
And to the gentleman who chose James Bond, I'm sorry but that's just another Batman corollary. Bond has been replaced time after time. There is a small range of ages he is allowed to be, and that is it. We don't have stories about a new special agent in 2008 because Bond is old or dead now. We just have more Bond. It's just like Batman.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
you left off this part of devin's comments about star trek:
while some of his other statements may hold some water, what the hell to that one.
while some of his other statements may hold some water, what the hell to that one.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
That's the problem with Star Trek. Every time they think it's getting stale, they try to stay relevant by introducing a new crew. But a true change isn't just a swap. It's a change of style or structure or any number of things integral to the original. Perhaps Batman lends itself to a reboot because it cannot move beyond this one character. But the advantage of a reboot is that the Batman character is resplendent in such a way that it is a familiar take on an old franchise. By telling his origin one way, you cannot tell it another way. A reboot is all about exploring all of those other avenues. However, you didn't explain why Star Trek cannot go down the same route. You essentially implied that Star Trek doesn't need to, but that's a very different argument from why it cannot. And I'm saying the difference is the perception that people have.Seth C said:
This isn't a true reboot anyway, but I have to say that I wouldn't mind if for decades to come the Kirk origin story is retold in different ways. Fans would complain that future continuity would be disrupted, but this is a fictional universe. It's possible to compartmentalize and think of them as different versions of the same story. That's why I hate it when people try to explain away inconsistencies. In a large universe, inconsistencies are going to exist. I think of the things happening on screen as just one way to tell certain events. That the inconsistencies might be created post-mortem by a different version doesn't really matter because to me there is no such thing as a true version, even if there is only one version. I mean this stuff isn't being created because it's great and perfect and ineffable. It's being created because someone happened to think it up. It originally exists in someone's mind, and they imagined how certain events go. They should be respected, but it's not like this is the only way it can happen.
Stoney Mason
Banned
kaching said:
I've never been one of the anal star trek must 100% remain true it is origins kind of dudes and I'm one of the biggest fans of the original star trek on the board I believe. My only criteria is will this movie be good. I'm hoping it will be.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Cheebs said:
Yes but that could very well be due to nothing more than this being the first Shatner Free Star Trek movie he's worked on.
Eteric Rice
Member
New?
- Status