In May: STAR TREK XI

[Igor Trajkovski]

Check the the Trailer 2:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/

 

I have the impression, this movie will have more action

then all the Kirk era movies (maybe + series) together !!!

:D :D :D

 

 

Regards

 

Igor

[Ira Ratner]

You have to take all trailers with a grain of salt: They're basically all bulls***.

 

I'm kind of a Trekkie, but a bizarre one--since I thought Deep Space Nine was the best of the TV series.

 

But I love the fact that Shatner has been going around complaining that he wasn't cast in this film. The guy really has no concept that it's almost 2009, and his long history with the franchise has nothing to do with the continuing FUTURE of it.

[Paul Bruening]

Hey, man. Don't cross the Shat. He's the Shat. The Shaznet. The Shazter.

[Benson Marks]

You have to take all trailers with a grain of salt: They're basically all bulls***.

 

I'm kind of a Trekkie, but a bizarre one--since I thought Deep Space Nine was the best of the TV series.

 

But I love the fact that Shatner has been going around complaining that he wasn't cast in this film. The guy really has no concept that it's almost 2009, and his long history with the franchise has nothing to do with the continuing FUTURE of it.

 

I'm kind of a Trekkie, but a bizarre one too. However, I thought The Next Generation was the best.

 

Actually, I'm not very excited for this Star Trek movie. I don't really like stuff from J.J. Abrams and hearing him working on this makes me worried. But then again, that's just my feelings.

 

Ira, you're right on with the trailers. They don't mean a thing. I was excited over Prince Caspian after seeing that trailer, look how much of a dud that movie turned out to be.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Benson Marks

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm playing devil's advocate here but I suspect this is how the film industry will think.

 

So did I, initially. Now I realise how excruciatingly bad the writing was on almost all of it.

 

Still, I wasn't sure it was possible to miscast Simon Pegg so badly, so they've already found at least one way to impress me.

 

P

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

It's Star Trek...is there really any standard of quality to uphold?

[James Steven Beverly]

I LOVE Star Trek, though I don't consider myself a Trekor or a Trekie or a Trekista :rolleyes: I mean I don't attend the conventions and dress up like a Kingon or anything, but I've always liked the show in all it's incarnations. I sometimes stay up WAY too late (4 AM which is when it comes on here) to watch TOS with the digital "improvements" (so I guess it's not ACTUALLY TOS it's TNAIOS-The New And Improved Original Series) and maybe IIIII"MMM weird but I liked Voyager........actually I think a lot of that had to do with Jerry Ryan. TOS is still my favorite then probably Voyager, TNG, Deep Space 9 and Enterprise are probably a tie. I also love all the movies form Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Star Trek Nemesis and I gotta say though after seeing the trailer, I'm REALLY not all that impressed, ESPECIALLY with the cat playing Kirk, Chris Pine. Now of COURSE no one is gonna replace Shatner be they coulda got somebody better than THIS guy. Maybe Joseph Gordon-Levitt, somebody with more presence. Say what you like about Shatner, he was the right guy to play Kirk and this guy isn't even close. I also think Abrams is TOTALLY the wrong director for this project. I think he's gonna f*ck it up BIG TIME!

 

I'm kinda getting the same feeling I got when I found out Starbuck was gonna be played by a woman in the "re-imagined" version of Battlestar Galactica. They also had spectacular VFX and managed to totally F*ck up that series as well. I ALSO was excited to see the "re-imagined" Tim Burton version of of Planet of the Apes before it came out and I LIKE Burton's work unlike Abrams but THAT movie turned out to be a disaster as well. So this movie, I DO NOT have a good feeling about no matter HOW much CGI they throw at you, if you loose the intent and relationships of the characters, you've just destroyed the paradigm someone worked so hard to build and screwed up an icon in the process. Mark my words, Abrams has too much of an ego to just trust in the material, go back to it's roots and make a GOOD picture, he's gonna through too much of his own garbage in there and alienate a WHOLE lotta fans just like Ang Lee did with The Hulk. It's ashame, like i said I LOVE Star Trek and was hoping it would come back.

Edited November 19, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Mark Williams]

The original series of Star Trek was the best. The next generation tried to use the best ideas and update them But although really good it never matched the relationship of Kirk Spock and McCoy. Kirk was an action hero who acted with instinct bravery and agression if needed. His emotional relationship with his co stars drove the story that had meaning in our own lives. Kirk was represention of the best emotional human values we have. He like Sean Connery or the original star wars trio are characters that elevated the original ideas into folklore. All subsequent work tries to copy but never equals or betters. This is where amazing casting with the right ideas comes into its own.

 

If the new young kirk and spock idea really wanted to fly they should have used the original cast members in some way even as a homage. My feeling is this will be an empty vessel. Finding the right actors in todays world is many times impossible as acting opportunites seem often closed to the world and instead taken from the offspring of already established actors Drama school where you have to be rich or again elite to get through or some other agenda driven reasoning.

 

This makes sure that the only interest is the dazzling SFX which wont last forever.

 

Bring back Kirk and do it now. If it was up to me I'd give him an all new five year mission as Captain.

[Ira Ratner]

Shatner would just be a distraction to me.

 

BUT BRING BACK GEORGE TAKEI!

 

Oh my!

[Eldon Stevens]

I have mixed feelings about it. While I recognize that many previous Star Trek movies were weak (except for The Wrath of Khan; we all know that was pretty awesome), there's just something decidedly non-Trek about this movie's vibe.

 

It looks and feels like a Michael Bay movie set in the Star Trek universe. And what's with the dialogue? "Sumpin' big." Really? James T. Kirk says: Sumpin?

 

I wonder if they're going to lose the whole 'sense of wonder and exploration' thing, and exchange it for a grungy series of explosions mixed with Dawson's-Creek-in-space.

 

My expectations are that this will be an unengaging emotionless husk of a film. But unless the reviews are overwhelmingly negative, I'll probably go see it, if only for the VFX.

[Tom Lowe]

Definitely looks interesting, and I am anything but a Trekkie.

 

I love sci fi, but Hollywood really does not make many great space adventure sci fi films for some reason. Some of the FX in the trailer reminded me of Revenge of the Sith.

 

Cameron's AVATAR is likely to be the new gold standard for sci fi, post Star Wars.

[Benson Marks]

Cameron's AVATAR is likely to be the new gold standard for sci fi, post Star Wars.

 

I'm not so sure. I hear this movie is supposed to be in 3-D, which really makes me want to go "ugh" after Spy Kids 3-D and Journey To The Center Of The Earth. So far, most of Cameron's work has been with IMAX since Titanic. My fear is he'll use techniques that should only be seen in an IMAX theater, not at the average theater screen. Finally, this film is going to use that "performance capture" technique used by Beowulf and The Polar Express. Only difference is that it's supposed to be more advanced than the others. Yeah, more advanced-looking computer candy that's been proven better in IMAX, which still may look fake.

 

I've got a bad feeling about this.

[Tom Lowe]

Have some faith in Cameron. Just look at his track record... it speaks for itself.

[Benson Marks]

Have some faith in Cameron. Just look at his track record... it speaks for itself.

 

I know about his track record. I'm just hoping that he doesn't get too fancy and makes it more spectacle than story like a lot of today's great filmmakers seem to have done (George Lucas of the Star Wars prequels, Spielberg of Indy and the crystal skull). I hope Cameron delivers with Avatar, but I just don't see it being fantastic. I guess I'll just have to wait for all the advertising before I say anymore about it.

[K Borowski]

As long as it is shot on film (checking IMDb, I am impressed as hell that they are actually shooting anamorphic, albeit probably through the ubiquitous 2K DI process), and doesn't have any tie-ins to that horrendous prequel series, I'll definitely see it in theatres.

 

It is a shame that, with the Next Generation cast, though, they couldn't pull off one really decent movie, not one.

 

And, frankly, they are making [almost] the same mistake they did with their not-to-be-named last series: stale, recycled story lines far more indicative of a mid-life crisis than a cutting-edge new series.

 

I admire the original Star Trek for being ahead of its time: color, cutting edge SFX, thoughtful story lines.

 

There is nothing new and innovative about this. I know I am being exploited, and regret it, but just like I felt obligated to see X-Files II, I feel obligated to give one more chance to a franchise that got four years for a show that wasn't half as good as another show that only got three. . .

[Benson Marks]

It is a shame that, with the Next Generation cast, though, they couldn't pull off one really decent movie, not one.

 

Actually, I thought Generations and First Contact were pretty good, but, hey, that is only one man's opinion.

[K Borowski]

Actually, I thought Generations and First Contact were pretty good, but, hey, that is only one man's opinion.

 

Generations was decent.

 

First Contact? Kinda ruined the whole series' take on the borg.

 

None of them matched the Original Series movies though, like II, III, VI. . .

Edited November 23, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[Patrick Neary]

what i want to know is where's the Space:1999 reunion movie.

 

**ah, not that relevant**

[Benson Marks]

Generations was decent.

 

First Contact? Kinda ruined the whole series' take on the borg.

 

None of them matched the Original Series movies though, like II, III, VI. . .

 

Yeah, II, III, and VI were probably the best ones in the entire movie series (II's the best, III's in third, VI's the in-between).

 

Come to think of it, arguing over which ones were the best makes me think this new Trek movie's gonna be even worse than I originally thought.

Edited November 23, 2008 by Benson Marks

[Ira Ratner]

I think I like Deep Space 9 the best is because it's funny and goofy at times.

 

And couldn't things be funny and goofy in the 25th Century as well?

[Benson Marks]

I think I like Deep Space 9 the best is because it's funny and goofy at times.

 

And couldn't things be funny and goofy in the 25th Century as well?

 

Maybe not in the 25th century but this short proves you made a close guess.

 

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/42704/964606

[K Borowski]

Come to think of it, arguing over which ones were the best makes me think this new Trek movie's gonna be even worse than I originally thought.

 

I hope that is not the case.

 

I am critical only because of what was done in the last television series.

 

You know what is funny? The Star Trek movies with the smallest budgets (as with the Original Series) have always done the best.

 

Look at ST:II. Everything was shot primarily on one bridge set. Regula I was a redress of a model used in ST:TMP, and the only new model was the Reliant Model. Even the Kobayashi Maru simulation footage of the Klingon Battle ships was recycled from ST:TMP.

 

It seems that whenever special effects take center stage to the story line, that the movie suffers. Science Fiction has always been about discussing the human condition first. So I hate to see SFX take over when ST:TOS inspired so many Sci-Fi writers, and they have an opportunity to entertain and inspire again, and instead it looks like they're just milking the franchise and blowing a bunch of stuff up on screen.

 

I mean, there probably isn't nearly as much social upheaval from which to derive good story material, as there was in the '60s, but surely there are plenty of controversial, relevant issues that would make for a good Star Trek movie. I really really hope that this isn't going to be another thinly scripted shoot-em-up action movie that exploits a classic sci-fi franchise, but these trailers don't really inspire me.

[Paul Bruening]

It seems that whenever special effects take center stage to the story line, that the movie suffers. Science Fiction has always been about discussing the human condition first. So I hate to see SFX take over when ST:TOS inspired so many Sci-Fi writers, and they have an opportunity to entertain and inspire again, and instead it looks like they're just milking the franchise and blowing a bunch of stuff up on screen.

 

I mean, there probably isn't nearly as much social upheaval from which to derive good story material, as there was in the '60s, but surely there are plenty of controversial, relevant issues that would make for a good Star Trek movie.

 

I'll buy that.