I went to see Quantum of Solace over the weekend anxious to see the second Daniel Craig iteration as James Bond, and had the chance to see the big screen full trailer for J.J. Abrams' re-imagining of Star Trek. Of the latter, I'd be very skeptical. After reading many of Abrams comments --like "I've never been a fan of Star Trek" -- my Trekkie (not Trekker) heart fears that the Lost/Alias creator had bungled the ST that I know so well. So, now that I've seen the trailer, I'm even more concerned. Oy vey, what has Abrams done to the Trek universe? The trailer looked more generic sci-fi that ST to me. And where was the iconic music? Why was Kirk using his middle name; I don't think he ever did that on the TV series!
J.J. addressed the media and shared some clips and information -- but no photos -- of the feature which won't be hitting theaters till May 8, 2009. I'm a little more relieved by the description of the scenes. Here's the gist of what they're about:
-- In Iowa, where Kirk was born, 23-year-old James Tiberius is shown drinking a beer in a bar, trying to pick up a Starfleet cadet name Uhura, fighting with four MPs, and meeting Captain Christopher Pike. Pike challenges Kirk to be a better Starfleet officer than his father, daring him to join the service. All this is consistent with ST lore, although why all these folks are in Iowa is weird...unless there's a Starfleet Academy in the corn fields. (If you build a starship, they will come?)
-- Dr. McCoy sneaks Jim onto the Enterprise by giving him an injection that makes Kirk exhibit the symptoms of a rare disease. Suffering the effects, Kirk tries to make the crew aware of a Romulan threat. Young Mr. Spock has a scene with his mother Amanda, now played by Winona Ryder. Eric Bana is Nero, a nefarious Romulan. I like the idea of the Romulans being part of the story; they were always more interesting adversaries than the Klingons because they were more like the Vulcans.
-- Kirk, Sulu and another Starfleet rookie are dropped via parachute to Vulcan where they have to disable a giant drill that could destroy the planet. Meanwhile, on the Enterprise, Spock has to figure out how to save his home world from becoming a black hole.
-- In the strangest, and perhaps the most controversial scene -- or so it seems -- the future Spock (Leonard Nimoy) encounters Kirk and Scotty on a remote, frozen planet where he teaches Scotty how to teleport beings at warp speed. That sounds like the creation of the transporter to me, but I guess we'll have to wait and see it in Abrams' version.
So, I'm going to try to remain hopeful about Star Trek. Maybe the next trailer will have the Alexander Courage theme. Maybe there'll be one shot of the Enterprise that looks recognizable.
I can't help but flashback to last night's Big Bang Theory; Sheldon and Koothrappali got into an ongoing debate about the best/worst Star Trek feature films. Heaven help us if J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is like either ST1 or ST5!
The TV Squad Podcast: New Shows, Conan Tour, 'Breaking Bad' and More!
'Breaking Bad' Tidbits from Cranston, Paul and Odenkirk
Andy Cohen on Jersey Housewives, 'Top Chef,' and Being the Face of Bravo
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-19-2008 @ 8:58AM
HD said...
WHAT?! No, seriously...WTF? That's the plot? Putting aside my feelings about the production design and casting, that might be the worst storyline in trek movie history.
I was looking forward to the reboot - I love lost and fringe but I think JJ is in way over his head. I guess Roddenberry's Trek is gone and dead forever. Maybe it's better Shatner wasn't involved (I'm still ticked how they killed Kirk...falls off a bridge).
If Paramount tanks this one - Trek might be dead...I hope they know what they're doing.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 9:44AM
Cincinnati Mike said...
I'm a fan, but Trek has been deader than dead since Nemesis. And the culprit was Rick Berman. I'm not a JJ fan, but he is doing yeoman's work trying to revive this thing.
11-19-2008 @ 11:54AM
Curt said...
Can it be worse than going back in time (by flying around the sun no less) to get a couple of whales to save the earth?
Flying to the center of the universe to find God?
If you want a believable plot, perhaps sci-fi is not for you.
11-19-2008 @ 9:15PM
pumpkinhead said...
I agree. I think he's trying to resurrest a dying show (and I'm a fan of most ST incarnations). It's funny... he's trying to save Star Trek by bringing it into the 21st century.
11-19-2008 @ 8:58AM
Brad said...
If JJ made the same movies that had already been made, what would be the point?? I love Star Trek and always have, however, there is nothing wrong with someone having a different take on great characters. I have seen the trailer and I am more excited than ever that someone is injecting new life into characters I love to watch.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 9:03AM
MadMup said...
This new-trailer-as-Smallville-opening-credits remix pretty much sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Zhoesi7cg
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 9:51AM
0megapart!cle said...
Yea.
The trailer is just sad. Who, exactly, are they appealing to? Star Trek fans are just disgusted by this trailer, and the plot that has been revealed so far by Abrams. There has been no good news about this movie since the initial teaser trailer. This is the end of movie Star Trek. Hopefully they will try for one more TV series in a couple years. One that doesn't suck. But I'm not sure if that is possible.
11-19-2008 @ 12:41PM
Jake said...
Omega particle: speak for yourself about being disgusted by this trailer. I for one am willing to give this movie a shot. After the debacle that was Nemesis and the inconsistency of Enterprise, there was too much group think going on with the Berman and Braga peons. Same rehashed plots and predictable outcomes. If J.J. Abrams is good at one thing, it's making a terrific two hour tv pilot or a movie. If he were asked to launch a series I'd be worried, but for a movie he is terrific.
11-19-2008 @ 4:04PM
KTS said...
0megaParticle:
They're appealing to me. I am someone who has seen one episode of the original series (at 2am on a local station when I was sitting in my dorm sobering up), and has a general idea of what the original characters looked like, and that's just about all I know about Star Trek. Also, wasn't there that British guy who played Kirk in that series they made in the 90s when I was in elementary school?
See? This is all I know. I know crap. Pretty much nothing about Star Trek. I am in no way a Trekkie. Nada. But JJ Abrams knows how to make 2 hours of entertaining SciFi/Fantasy/Action footage. That's all I care. This is the description that the majority of Americans and others like me in their teens and 20s fall under.
We will not care about arcane date, or whether this measures up to past series or movies. All we/I care is that it's a really entertaining and worthwhile 2 hours in the theatre
11-19-2008 @ 4:55PM
eugene said...
whatever omega, this is the first time I've been excited to see a trek movie... anything trek actually, since First Contact.
The worst thing about Trek are the die hard fanboys... it's time to free this franchise from the shackles of the obsessed few and make it accessible and fun again.
11-19-2008 @ 10:22PM
Franklin said...
I see Omega's still running with the "big mouth-small mind" theme.
No surprises there at all.
11-19-2008 @ 9:36AM
Ed Venture said...
"That sounds like the creation of the transporter to me..."
(nerd mode on)
They already had the transporter in "Enterprise". This sounds like the creation of the "near warp transfer" technique they used in TNG. That episode Troi says "For a second, I felt like I was part of the wall." Worf responds, "For a second, you were."
(nerd mode off)
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 10:13AM
Fullman said...
Ah, I just saw that you actually addressed this already, so then yes, that's what we'd be seeing in this scene. Just teaching a technique, but not creating the transporter.
11-19-2008 @ 9:48AM
Asta said...
The trailer looked more generic sci-fi that ST to me.
That was my immediate reaction as well. I also questioned (on a blog) the ridiculousness of the scene in which a very young Kirk drives a car off a cliff. It was pointed out to me that a real Trekker reads the novelizations and would, therefore, know Kirk was a hellraiser as a kid. However, I'm guessing a large number of Trek fans, like me, have not read the novelizations and newbies seeing the film without having seen the series will likely end up rolling their eyes at what they are watching.
In the strangest, and perhaps the most controversial scene -- or so it seems -- the future Spock (Leonard Nimoy) encounters Kirk and Scotty on a remote, frozen planet where he teaches Scotty how to teleport beings at warp speed. That sounds like the creation of the transporter to me, but I guess we'll have to wait and see it in Abrams' version.
While the film is a prequel to the original series, it would take place after 'Enterprise' so Spock teaching Scotty about teleportation would be highly illogical.
Nothing I read here is making me feel better about this film and I'm still bitter at what JJ allowed to happen to 'Alias'.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 10:10AM
Fullman said...
I'd normally not reply to anyone in this thread because I'm just seeing the high levels of ridiculous canon-based comments, but I will address the transportation during warp scene...
In 'Enterprise,' we saw how transportation was widely risky with side effects or even deaths. However, and I could be wrong about this, transportation during warp was never shown (or maybe only once as a fluke) because nobody wanted to take that risk or knew how to pull it off.
So yes, transportation was already around when this film takes place, but Spock is trying to give hints on how to pull off transportation-during-warp without the often lethal result.
11-19-2008 @ 10:06AM
Fullman said...
You know, I'm just laughing each time I see someone nitpick that something in the trailer didn't match what happened in the TV show or previous movies or games or novels.
Think about it: Trek had been tanking, probably largely in part because of Berman's long-held control over the franchise and the very small niche audience that supported the series.
I guess it's truly time for the old Trek audience to grow up and move on, and time for a new Trek audience to come in. That's what Paramount's goal is, that's why this movie isn't supposed to fit inside canon as we know it, and that's why you have a much younger cast playing characters whom have their positions and backgrounds tweaked around for a movie.
In the end, some people will make themselves miserable because it's not the perfect movie they wanted, and other people will actually be impressed. This happened to Bond and Batman recently, and I think most people can actually say they're good or even great films that gave the franchise a breath of fresh air.
You know, there's something nice about being in a theater and hearing a bunch of "wow/whoa" instead of "ugh, they made another one?" like I heard during the trailers for Insurrection and Nemesis.
Reply
11-19-2008 @ 10:53AM
Asta said...
Since I can't seem to reply to your previous comment to me, I'll comment here.
"but Spock is trying to give hints on how to pull off transportation-during-warp without the often lethal result."
OK, that would make sense. I'm not sure if 'Enterprise' ever attempted that, I pretty much stopped watching after Season 2, but, assuming they didn't, it would be an interesting bit of information to drop into this film.
For the record, I fully support Paramount's efforts to relaunch the franchise. I do think there is still life left in it. But I am concerned about going the prequel route. Rarely has a good prequel story been developed for the screen. I have no brilliant ideas as to how 'Trek' could have moved forward otherwise, but, personally, I would have preferred seeing a new cast of characters.
11-19-2008 @ 10:58AM
Fullman said...
I had very high doubts about anything that revisited TOS in a movie form, especially after watching 'Enterprise' and seeing how it still didn't quite fit in modern culture.
But after seeing the trailer, my doubts were gone. Sure, there was the initial confusion of "why are we seeing a car speed down a dirt road???" but after it set the stage, it seemed to just fit. Then after the end of the trailer, I went "wow, that's actually nothing like I was expecting... that's pretty damned awesome!"
I'm not in the party of "look to the future, don't revisit the past" anymore, because this could possibly work, and work well.
11-19-2008 @ 11:50AM
Franklin said...
I guess I'm part of that "old Trek audience" as I was sitting in my living room in 1966 when Star Trek premiered watching it in glorious black and white. Having said that, I agree that many of these obsessive comments are very chuckle-worthy and I'm happy with what I've seen in the trailer.
I'm more excited by this film than any other Trek movie before it and much of that excitement stems from this reboot/reimagining/meddling that has been done to it. Star Trek needs a change in a big way and I think Abrams and company have done it justice. The old dinosaur was just too cumbersome to not be altered.
11-19-2008 @ 10:12AM
Vijay said...
Hate to be the voice of reason here (it doesn't suit me), but...
1) Nick Meyers, who did made ST II (including writing its final draft uncredited), ST IV, and ST VI (my personal favorite) acknowledged that he himself wasn't a Star Trek fan. And he's regarded as the best of the Trek movie directors. He understood the basics of the characters, wrote a compelling story from there, and didn't need a huge budget either. Note certain touches an adherent wouldn't do - Roddenberry opposed the idea of a racist Kirk in ST VI, but they kept it in. So this knock on Abrams is not convincing. It may actually help the movie.
2) Seriously? You're criticizing a kid using his full name to what appears to be a law-enforcement officer? THAT's worth criticizing?
3) @ Ed Venture: I wouldn't be surprised is the powers that be said (quite reasonably), "Forget about Enterprise. That was a mistake. The story for this movie matters more than keeping track of THAT story."
Finally, when it comes to "canon", is it necessary to adhere to it narrowly? The word itself comes from religion, and refers to an inflexibility. Trek is about telling stories about people who represent the best of what humanity could be in the future, and the constant danger of that "best humanity" being corrupted or destroyed.
A fresh look, with a contemporary take, could be good. And, as long as we are using religious language, simply think of this as "a different gospel", if you need to.
Reply