• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

New 'Star Trek' photos

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mgoblue201 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe it can. But by making it a time travel plot that tosses the original Nimoy Spock in, they've tied themselves to the original: they're just choosing to not do it accurately to the original. A Trek reboot would be something completely separate, while this project threatens to screw with what is the foundation of the existing Trek franchise. Since I like quite a bit of the existing Trek franchise, that bothers me.

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.
Click to expand...
Well, at least I see you anticipated my response.
 
kaching said:
And that was always what had to happen to Trek for it to remain relevant storytelling, decades after its origins.
Click to expand...

Which is why they had shows about different ships, with different casts. There is no reason it has to be about Kirk. That's the point. Star Trek isn't only Kirk and Spock.

JoshuaJSlone said:
Maybe it can. But by making it a time travel plot that tosses the original Nimoy Spock in, they've tied themselves to the original: they're just choosing to not do it accurately to the original. A Trek reboot would be something completely separate, while this project threatens to screw with what is the foundation of the existing Trek franchise. Since I like quite a bit of the existing Trek franchise, that bothers me.


Well, at least I see you anticipated my response.
Click to expand...

I agree with Joshua here, and I would prefer a full on reboot rather than some half-assed shoehorning of an original cast member into a world which will so obviously not function like or, more importantly, feel like the one he is from. If they wanted to start over, they should have, and time travel bullshit should have been tossed aside. That is one of the obnoxious parts of Trek that turns casual people off anyway. If they wanted a clean start, that's what they should have gone for and been done with it. As it is, they are just making the continuity even MORE convoluted. So it is broken fundamentally still for the "casual" and fucked with for the diehard. Who is this movie for at that point? No one?

In any regard, I am not saying I think the movie looks horrible or anything, but I do see a lot of bad signs. And frankly, I think the whole thing is just unnecessary. They could have had a movie with all of the same stylings, with their own cast, and it could have just as easily excited the casual audience without offending the Trekkers.
 
Eteric Rice said:
QuintoSpock2.jpg


New?
Click to expand...
What's the source on that, before TrekMovie.com? A mockup maybe? It looks like the original uniforms, rather than the more detailed versions with the repeated delta pattern and noticeable shoulder lines like the other images from this movie.
 
Pimpwerx said:
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.
Click to expand...
For being such an expert, how did you not know Nimoy is very much alive and in the movie?:lol
 
Looking forward to it but...

How are they going to get the ship off the planet? Are they going to do a massive beam out? Shouldn't they have built it in space?
 
Mammothtank said:
How are they going to get the ship off the planet? Are they going to do a massive beam out? Shouldn't they have built it in space?
Click to expand...

can operate in an a M class atmosphere (least all the ones on TV have at some point, even Kirk's Enterprise), it probably just takes off.
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
Maybe it can. But by making it a time travel plot that tosses the original Nimoy Spock in, they've tied themselves to the original: they're just choosing to not do it accurately to the original. A Trek reboot would be something completely separate, while this project threatens to screw with what is the foundation of the existing Trek franchise. Since I like quite a bit of the existing Trek franchise, that bothers me.
Click to expand...
Including Nimoy serves a more important purpose. It provides an anchor to the original cast and serves to underscore the progress of Spock as a character. There is no point in acting like this has nothing to do with the original. In the eyes of the fans, this will have to live up to the original in some capacity. Running from that I don't think serves any purpose. And I do wish that fans would stop looking at it through the size of the gap in the differences. This is going to be different. The cast and crew have their own distinct styles. The entire point of relaunching a franchise is to mess with all of these key mechanisms so that something a little fresher comes out. This requires a specific outlook. Otherwise you're just going to become like Roddenberry himself: always living for the original, never quite happy with how things turned out.
 
Seth C said:
Which is why they had shows about different ships, with different casts. There is no reason it has to be about Kirk. That's the point. Star Trek isn't only Kirk and Spock.
Click to expand...
Right, there's been plenty of Trek material not about Kirk or Spock at all. But that doesn't disconnect it from continuity, as the various Trek shows have obviously been referential to TOS and its timeline, have always made the spinoffs beholden to TOS. A mythos like that will become ponderous over time and will either get shelved or reinvented. It's not really a matter of if, just when.
 
Stoney Mason 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.
Click to expand...


The real question of this topic is would you care if it was a Star Trek movie or just some other license with star ships and combat. If you really don't care that its a Trek movie - then really what is it you're looking forward to. That's soemthing the thread/topic hasn't come to terms with. Many people are saying "I just care that its a good movie, I don't care that it follows Trek, that it has anything to do with the history, or that it is even familiar with Trek". In a situation like that, you don't care what the movie is... it just looks like a good movie.

This isn't to make a judgement on the movie because it hasn't been seen yet, but if you really don't care that its a Trek movie, but it looks good - that's as dangerous to the 'brand' as it going away from neglect. Just create a new brand.
 
Phoenix said:
The real question of this topic is would you care if it was a Star Trek movie or just some other license with star ships and combat. If you really don't care that its a Trek movie - then really what is it you're looking forward to. That's soemthing the thread/topic hasn't come to terms with. Many people are saying "I just care that its a good movie, I don't care that it follows Trek, that it has anything to do with the history, or that it is even familiar with Trek". In a situation like that, you don't care what the movie is... it just looks like a good movie.

This isn't to make a judgement on the movie because it hasn't been seen yet, but if you really don't care that its a Trek movie, but it looks good - that's as dangerous to the 'brand' as it going away from neglect. Just create a new brand.
Click to expand...
If I may answer the question, I think that there are two levels to look at it from. One is canon, and I'll admit that I like being drawn into this vast universe. However, I think there is a point in which they're doing a disservice by making it too vast. If they're going to break from canon, then they should be up front about it. Worse in my mind is Enterprise, which relied on a bunch of idiotic technicalities in order to introduce old elements and I feel undermined much of what Trek was all about by reducing a key point in Trek's history to...what we eventually got. So there is something to be said about being smart and ultimately good. I think that at some point Trek cannot keep introducing new crews in order to keep things fresh. Like I said before, this is all coming from someone's imagination. If someone wants to retell the same events in a different way, then I see it as a different interpretation. The small stuff doesn't necessarily matter if it means enjoying a great vision of Trek.

Of course, I don't think we'll know how closely they'll stick to canon, and if they do diverge, it will make sense within the story.

The second point and ultimately the hardest to reckon with is the spirit of Trek. I wonder what people would have said back during Star Trek II. Would people have been up in arms because Roddenberry felt that Bennett and Meyer weren't abiding by his vision of Trek? Would they have risked the death of the franchise? No one thinks twice about any of that twenty five years since. It's a similar situation, though obviously this departs in very different ways. Part of using an old franchise isn't just for canon. It's for the characters. Abrams is using a period of history that we have never seen before in Trek. He can build these characters into what they were, and this is something that cannot be done with an original franchise. So too can he bring his distinctive style to it just as Meyer did. The great thing to me is that this feels like the original Trek on steroids from what I've seen. I daresay that besides the infusion of action, which I have explained works very well because of the period in Kirk's life, this feels very much like TOS in the 21st century more than perhaps even the movies do. But you know we can argue about how far is too far and whether it should be accepted because it's necessary. Nobody has the right answer, unfortunately.
 
Anasui Kishibe said:
this isn't saying much
Click to expand...
Well it means a lot when I am quoting someone who thinks Nimoy is dead and would not approve of this film when in reality he is very much alive and one of the actors in it.
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
What's the source on that, before TrekMovie.com? A mockup maybe? It looks like the original uniforms, rather than the more detailed versions with the repeated delta pattern and noticeable shoulder lines like the other images from this movie.
Click to expand...
Fan photoshop. The uniform looks nothing like what we've already seen from official sources.
 
Mgoblue201 said:
If I may answer the question, I think that there are two levels to look at it from. One is canon, and I'll admit that I like being drawn into this vast universe. However, I think there is a point in which they're doing a disservice by making it too vast. If they're going to break from canon, then they should be up front about it. Worse in my mind is Enterprise, which relied on a bunch of idiotic technicalities in order to introduce old elements and I feel undermined much of what Trek was all about by reducing a key point in Trek's history to...what we eventually got. So there is something to be said about being smart and ultimately good. I think that at some point Trek cannot keep introducing new crews in order to keep things fresh. Like I said before, this is all coming from someone's imagination. If someone wants to retell the same events in a different way, then I see it as a different interpretation. The small stuff doesn't necessarily matter if it means enjoying a great vision of Trek.

Of course, I don't think we'll know how closely they'll stick to canon, and if they do diverge, it will make sense within the story.

The second point and ultimately the hardest to reckon with is the spirit of Trek. I wonder what people would have said back during Star Trek II. Would people have been up in arms because Roddenberry felt that Bennett and Meyer weren't abiding by his vision of Trek? Would they have risked the death of the franchise? No one thinks twice about any of that twenty five years since. It's a similar situation, though obviously this departs in very different ways. Part of using an old franchise isn't just for canon. It's for the characters. Abrams is using a period of history that we have never seen before in Trek. He can build these characters into what they were, and this is something that cannot be done with an original franchise. So too can he bring his distinctive style to it just as Meyer did. The great thing to me is that this feels like the original Trek on steroids from what I've seen. I daresay that besides the infusion of action, which I have explained works very well because of the period in Kirk's life, this feels very much like TOS in the 21st century more than perhaps even the movies do. But you know we can argue about how far is too far and whether it should be accepted because it's necessary. Nobody has the right answer, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

All good points. But as you said, the universe is vast... REALLY vast. If people are liking this trailer, not because it is a retelling of the history of Trek, but because it has a new focus for Trek - that didn't require the forced foolishness of traveling back in time (again) in order to 'rewrite' history. If you're doing this because you don't think that an audience will buy into it unless you use the familiar characters... that's just stupid.
 
Uhhh, this plot does involve time travel, and heavily. :lol

I'd almost prefer that time travel muckity muck explained away some of the differences if they're going to do things this way.
 
JayDubya said:
Uhhh, this plot does involve time travel, and heavily. :lol

I'd almost prefer that time travel muckity muck explained away some of the differences if they're going to do things this way.
Click to expand...
The writers of the movie in a interview used Yesterday's Enterprise (a TNG episode) as an example that is similar to their movie so that is pretty much exactly what they are doing.
 
that picture is awesome. Nimoy looks surprisingly good for his age


Cheebs said:
Well it means a lot when I am quoting someone who thinks Nimoy is dead and would not approve of this film when in reality he is very much alive and one of the actors in it.
Click to expand...


sure, I was referring to Nimoy's opinion
 
Looked very actiony... not the Trek I knew growing up... well that's probably due to the budget, Im sure TOS would have been more actiony if they could... still I'm interested in checking this out.
 
I watched the counter go to zero, then when I refreshed it said 1 day, 1 hour, 1 minute - then the minutes counter started incrementing upwards. Weird.
 
BrokenFiction said:
I watched the counter go to zero, then when I refreshed it said 1 day, 1 hour, 1 minute - then the minutes counter started incrementing upwards. Weird.
Click to expand...
Yeah, wtf happened?
 
Gary Whitta said:
Okay I'll say this having seen the trailer in 1080p:

Pegg = awesome
New transporter effect = awesome
Everything else = awesome
Click to expand...
Everything = awesome, period.

Now we've got until May to hope the writing/plot are good.
 
Phoenix said:
The real question of this topic is would you care if it was a Star Trek movie or just some other license with star ships and combat. If you really don't care that its a Trek movie - then really what is it you're looking forward to. That's soemthing the thread/topic hasn't come to terms with. Many people are saying "I just care that its a good movie, I don't care that it follows Trek, that it has anything to do with the history, or that it is even familiar with Trek". In a situation like that, you don't care what the movie is... it just looks like a good movie.

This isn't to make a judgement on the movie because it hasn't been seen yet, but if you really don't care that its a Trek movie, but it looks good - that's as dangerous to the 'brand' as it going away from neglect. Just create a new brand.
Click to expand...

Trek. At least original trek for me isn't any of the trappings that have come to be layered on after the fact. Heck it was only an 80 episode run for the original show anyway.

It's the relationship between the triumvirate of three very well defined characters. Bones, Kirk, and Spock. That's original trek. Not that they wore certain kinds of clothes, or used certain kinds of ships. If that get that right that's a long way towards getting Trek right. If I had one complaint so far it seems to me they haven't got enough Bones in there and are focusing on some of the other characters too much although it's impossible to tell from trailers and prelease information so far.
 
Phoenix said:
...that didn't require the forced foolishness of traveling back in time (again) in order to 'rewrite' history.
Click to expand...
You guys have got to make up your damn minds. "Oh, don't deviate from the Trek I know!" Dude, the Trek you know already uses time travel just about as liberally as it does forehead prosthetics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Andy Weir’s Star Trek pitch was rejected in favor of Starfleet Academy
41
510
AJUMP23 replied
Starfleet Academy is the best first season of a Star Trek show ever
2
75
1K
Trilobit replied
NASA Artemis photos
2
94
827
Idleyes replied
New ‘Star Trek’ Movie In Works At Paramount - Not Connected to Any Previous or Current TV or Movies
News  2
75
2K
EternalSunshine1976 replied
End of the Kurtzman-era Trek.
2
58
669
Hudo replied
Top Bottom