Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Published 5 years ago by , Updated November 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm,

new star trek website Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

First off, we want to let you know that the official Star Trek movie site has been updated to one of those fancy Flash websites. You can view both the trailers, get images, wallpapers and just geek out over the new Trek look of the site. Head over to StarTrekMovie.com to check it all out.

But… that’s not what this post is all about. If nothing else, Star Trek fans are known for their rabid attention to detail when it comes all things tech and history of the Trek universe. I won’t be addressing history, but I’ve pulled out some hi-res screen grabs from the trailer that will be of interest to Trekkies of all ages.

I’ve collected below images of ships, interiors and visual effects (enhanced and sharpened for better detail) that are near and dear to the hearts of any true Trekkie (I’m reveling in this, being a huge Trek geek myself, so don’t go getting all offended). I’m sure there will be debate (argument) over what’s below. icon smile Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Included are:

  • The venerable USS Enterprise NCC-1701 under construction (yes on Earth, not in orbit as we all know is where it was really constructed).
  • What looks to be either the new standard shuttlecraft for the Enterprise, or a larger transport version.
  • A brand new transporter effect for the first time in 20 years (all transporter effects in the movies and TV series starting with Star Trek: The Next Generation have been variations on the same basic look).
  • A brand new “Warp speed” (aka “jumping into subspace”) effect. Personally I never liked the little starburst effect that’s been used since ST:TNG.
  • A look at a couple of shuttlecraft that are similar in look to the familiar design from the original series.
  • A look at the shiny-bright new corriders of the Enterprise (this, I’m not too jazzed about – very “2001: A Space Odyssey“).
  • A shot of the forward bridge, from the point of view of the Captain’s chair (coming out of Warp).
  • A couple of detailed shots of the USS Kelvin, including a rear view that shows the shuttlebay door and clarifies that the seconday hull is above the saucer section and the propulsion unit is below (a hat tip to early starship concept designs from the original series).
  • Finally, a more iconic view of the new Enterprise.

Click on all of the images below to see hi-res versions of the images. Under each I give a description and an analysis by a Star Trek fan whose been a Trekkie since the early 1970s (that would be me) and whose favorite series of all is TOS (The Original Series).

trek trailer ent construction Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Here’s a pretty cool shot of the Enterprise under construction. Doesn’t make sense that they would construct something so massive on the ground, but no dobut there is some sort of plot-related reason for it (beyond the dramatic pause of a young Kirk taking it in).

As a hardcore classic Star Trek fan, does this bother me? No.

trek trailer large shuttle Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

From the registration number on the side of the shuttlecraft it’s clear it belongs to the Enterprise (NCC-1701), but is this the new “standard” shuttlecraft or does the Enterprise have a variety of models (a la ST:TNG)?

Does it bother me? A twinge perhaps, but not enough to freak me out.

trek trailer new transporter Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Here’s the new transporter effect – kind of crazy looking and hard to really get a feel for in a static image, but I’m happy to see a new take on the effect.

Does it bother me? Nope.

trek trailer new warp Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

This was long overdue – I never liked the “rubber band stretch to a pinpoint of light” version of going to Warp speed. This looks more like distortion of space.

Does it bother me? No, quite the opposite, I like it.

trek trailer shuttles Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

It looks like these are old-style shuttlecraft. I get the feeling that these belong to the USS Kelvin, and that ship is more akin to the original NCC-1701 and that the new Enterprise is more like the NCC-1701A.

Does it bother me? A bit – I’d like to see a bit more basic version of the original Enterprise, and despite the odd design the Kelvin reminds me a lot of the “flavor” of the original Enterprise.

trek trailer corrider detail Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Here’s the a look at the new corridors of the Enterprise. They’ve gone with a stark white look that truly reminds me of the ship from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Does it bother me? Well, frankly, yes. Enough for me to feel “Trekkie outrage?” No, not that much. Look at what they did with the Batman reboot and that worked out pretty well. icon smile Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

trek trailer bridge detail Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Although we have the white “iBridge” look, overall the stations are similar (albeit a lot more spacious) to the layout we’ve known on all iterations of the Enterprise.

Does it bother me? Once I get past the “white bridge” look, no. Although I still don’t understand why they couldn’t at least have matched the color scheme of the original bridge or come close to it.

trek trailer kelvin detail Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

The USS Kelvin. I’m not familiar enough with the history of starship registries to know if this was from canon, but I have to say that I like the nod to the original designs here.

Does it bother me? Nope, as a matter of fact I really like it.

trek trailer kelvin rear Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Another look at the USS Kelvin. Check out the shuttlebay entrance in the top portion of the ship and the impulse engines.

Does it bother me? No, again, this is one of my more favorite details and seems very much a tribute to the orginal.

trek trailer ent front Trek Geekery: Images Of New Star Trek Movie Details

Here we have a front-on view of the new Enterprise. Suddenly it looks a hell of a lot more like it belongs in the Star Trek universe than it did in the previous image.

Does it bother me? This remains to be seen. I’m still pulling at the reins when it comes to the new ship, but I’m thinking that it probably looks great on screen. This is where they’ve taken the greatest liberties, but in the end if it all gels it will have been worth it I think.

So what do you think? Anathema to established Trek lore or logical updates to bring the franchise into the 21st century?

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: star trek, star trek 11

87 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. I’d settle for consistent visual aesthetic. There’s a mismatch between the interior and exterior design. The various TV shows and movies have parity — if you were to drag the sets of any given ship out onto the exterior hull the sets would look of a piece. Not so here; the inside is ipodized, but the outside isn’t. (A glossy white Enterprise would not only fit the interiors but be more compatible with the original.)

  2. My entire beef with this has to do with being faithful to the original series. Is there anything wrong with a new Trek? No, it’s time for something new, and certainly more exciting. Okay, Okay, I know the younger generation likes a lot of sexual scenes, so yes, add more nudity and sex to Trek. Then you’ll have a completely new movie.

    But, did they have to rape from the original series to build their new one? Why use the original crew, and the name of their ship? As advanced as this new ships technology is, they could have created a setting well after the Next Generation era.

    What was wrong with creating a new captian of a new starship, with its own unique name? I would have loved it had they done that. But using original series legends to create their own universre, as the expense of 40 years of traditional fans (WHO ARE STILL AROUND AND QUITE ACTIVE) is not good.

    Lastly, I’ve said it many times, and I’ll say it again. This ship design is louzy! I’ve stared at it for about three days, and it still isn’t giving me good vibes. It just doesn’t look right.

    The original series design was perfect! The Motion picture design was even better! At first I didn’t care much for the Next Generation design, but it grew on me. I finally fell in love with the Enterprise E design, with its sleak design. All of those designs I’ve loved a great deal. But this design by JJ Abram’s team? They are only showing how little they know about Trek!

    Those of you who want to support it, then fine. But I promise you that your ride will be very short. This “REBOOT” was a terrible idea, and it’s killing Star Trek. Some of you keep bringing up Batman, as though it were popular. I don’t know what statistics you guys are using, but the last I heard, not very many people actually care about Batman. Besides, Batman stayed fairly true to the story line. JJ Abrams drifted WAAAAY off the story line. 6 errors on a short trailer! I can’t wait to count the errors in the entire movie.

    If the movie comes out in May 2009, the DVD will be available in June / July time frame.

    Have fun guys.

  3. @Joseph

    Batman not being popular? Last time I checked The Dark Knight is the 2nd highest grossing film of all time and when they re-release it this January it will overtake Titanic.

    Nolan kept the theme of Batman true and I will say that I loved both Begins and TDk and think that they are the best Bat-films to date but they were far far from perfect. Rachel Dawes was a character created for the movie, Two-face was scarred by acid at a court case and not by and explosion from the joker, to go back to the first appearance of Batman, the bat mobile was just a black car, not tricked out, etc, depending on which origin you read Gordan was from the Chicago PD and transferred to gotham just prior to Batmans first appearance, Henri Ducard is an actual character that is not just an alias for Ra’s A Ghul. I can continue to pick it apart if you would like but I will stop now.

    Nolan made changes, but it still worked. He changed the design of the batmobile but people grew to like it, he added, subtracted, altered characters but still the core principles, the mean, the vibe of what Batman is was unchanged.

    I’m sorry but if people are going to get up in arms because the bulkheads are a shade off, or the corridors are round and not square, cause the exterior is not an exact copy of the TOS then you know what, don’t see it. But more then enough people will, Trek and non-Trek faithful, and if there is any luck this will increase the fan-base and Trek will live on longer. Come on, you are talking about visuals heres not story or character. Moore changed Starbuck from a male to being that of a woman in BSG, I liked it, and thought it worked but that is more of a change then the styling of the Enterprise.

    The thing is you can’t stop change. Comic book characters are altered every so often from Batman, Superman, Capt. America, to the X-men, but they are still with us. Some since the late 30′sThis goes for TV, Movies, and books as well, everyone has their own take on things. Some since the late 30′s. Trek is the same, its going to change here and there and it’s going to out live you and me.

    And thanks I will have fun in the theater!

  4. @Toastbutter

    Thanks. I was going to chime in with The Dark Knight’s one BILLION dollar box office receipts myself. 8-)

    Vic

  5. Thanks Vic.

    Hey, I just went over to boxofficemojo.com and compared the 2 franchises for total $$$$.

    Batman with 7 films all time total =
    $1,445,619,922

    Trek with 10 films all time total =
    $755,955,7222

    interesting.

  6. @Toastbutter

    I think it will be more “apples to apples” once the new Trek movie numbers are in. I assume your Batman number includes TDK box office.

    Vic

  7. @ Vic

    Yes it includes TDK so take that out and your just around 900,000,000.

    I was just surprised that Trek’s totals were not a little higher for having 10 films.

    But yeah, I agree with you I think when this new Trek comes out it will be as you said apples and apples.

  8. Every time I look at the new Enterprise, I feel slightly less repulsed.

    The only tweak I’d do to it is stretch the secondary hull out a little bit to push its center of mass back; right now, it looks sort of like a Hapsburg lip.

    My greatest concern, though, is the philosophy of Star Trek. I don’t want it to be more Star Wars or BSG, because those perfectly good franchises have their own mindspace and areas of excellence. Trek has always played up the sci-fi aspects of modern commentary, mind experiments, and philosophical musing. Consider what made /Wrath of Khan/ and /The Undiscovered Country/ distinctly Trek and not any other sci-fi franchise, then compare this to, oh, /Nemesis/.

    This is the same franchise which has brought us things like “City on the Edge of Forever,” “The Inner Light,” “Darmok,” and “In The Pale Moonlight.” We can only hope that Abrams and crew don’t change it so much that /Red Dwarf/ becomes more Trek than Trek.

  9. Abrams should have said from the beginning that this was a complete reimagining. That’s what they did with Battlestar Galactica, and so there were few complaints about the complete lack of continuity. While they are at it, it would be nice to see at least one of the three leads be a woman.

    All I know about Batman is from the movies, so if the original comic books are to be ignored, it is only fair that the original Star Trek be ignored.

    This was a missed opportunity to get a look at the original Enterprise with today’s special effects.

    I should say one other thing about technology. Although primitive by TNG standards, TOS technology was still light years ahead of today. The trick is to make everything appear as advanced as possible will still enabling it to plausibly evolve into what we saw in TOS. Abrams seems to get the advanced as possible part, but made no effort on the second part.

    ~ RF

  10. I totally loved TOS because of the characters, not the special effects. The bouts between Spock & McCoy with Kirk smirking in the middle was classic television. So they’re making a new ST with new ships, corridors, uniforms, people, but keeping the same character names. SO WHAT!!!

    Star Trek is a fantasy “human” adventure combining wit & charm with a little bit of special effects thrown in. TNG, DS9, Voy, Ent all forgot the main reason we’re fans…we loved the characters! TNG turned me cold from the first pilot with the “city turned floating jelly fish” alien. I never gave it a chance. I actually stopped watching ST altogether.

    Then came Enterprise…I thought to myself “Great! Not too much tech & a whole lot of character!” Wrong! they tried to start that way & turned into a CGI series. I stilled watched it because some of the episodes had awesome character stories (when they weren’t playing with time travel).

    I know that the new show appears to be changing the face of ST with a new look & feel but let’s give it a chance to see if they take a good look at the past TOS characters & let the new ones develop to TOS standards. After all, without the TOS characters there wouldn’t be a STAR TREK today.

    And yes, I have collected ALL the ships from all the series because I love the Enterprise, no matter what shape it’s in. I may love the original characters alot but the only time I teared up during a ST movie was during the flyby of the new Enterprise in ST-TMP! I hear that part was JJ’s favorite too & he put that into the new movie – can’t wait! No matter what the shape or color of the new Enterprise is – It’s still THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE!!!!!

  11. Regarding the comment(s) about the rotating blades in the front of the new engine nacelles…

    Some (but not all)episodes of the original series actually did seem show rotating blades like those, but all glowy and orange-ish as I recall — more hinted at in the front bubble than clearly delineated. In other episodes, they weren’t evident. So I don’t think that’s a new feature…I think the new movie makers picked up on that item from the original series…

    Overall, I’m a bit Trekked-out from all the movies and series…I like some episodes of TNG, like a lot of Voyager and Enterprise, but I’m not sure I can bring myself to see this one…maybe a rental…

  12. I consider myself a fan but I don’t usually contribute to web pages etc… After reading through he posts, I thought I had to put in a few comments.

    First, I don’t think that this version is anymore oversexed relative to today than the original version was in the 60s. Back then, TOS was considered pretty sexually charged.

    While I think the story lines of TOS were good and it was the most character driven, I also remember that it was an extremely low budget TV show. Even for the time, I think it looked less like a space ship than bad TV set.

    Even when the first movies started coming out, larger budgets meant the Enterprise kept getting updated. Overall I agree that the inside of the ship looks a little too Itrek, I think they definitely made some efforts to throw props towards the original series. I don’t think that the new exterior is so dramatically different and to be honest it looks a bit more believable. For example the engines looking like they expel something makes sense for anyone who knows physics and has an idea of how to move in a vacuum.

    While I enjoyed TOS, I felt like the TV show sets actually detracted from the rest of the franchise. I’m glad to see a new look and I’m sorry to all those who are so upset.

  13. It’s not a question of new design vs old design, it’s a question of bad design vs good design. Interiors lit such that any person actually working in them would feel obliged to wear sunglasses are probably not good design. Round corridors that make it as difficult as possible to stop yourself falling (only air to grab until it’s too late), probably not good design. Not a place I’d particularly want to visit.

  14. Issues I have: People who ignore or defend the redesign of the bridge and the ship just don’t seem to get the point.

    This is a prequel and yet the bridge clearly trumps every other bridge(except, bafflingly, perhaps the one from “Enterprise”) before it. What we should have gotten was a larger and more monochromatic version of the original with more modern controls and seating. Point being, utilize the bigger budget and modern concepts, but do it within the perfectly functional reference of the original and in a way that makes sense. Even making it feel more retro would have been good, since we have clearly seen bridges are modular and can be(and have been) changed. Thus explaining a totally different bridge is easy. Explaining a totally more advanced one isn’t.

    Meanwhile the ship herself is completely illogical. First, I can accept it, but building a modular starship on the ground is silly. Building the modules, maybe, but assembling them there? Nuts. I’ll go along as a story device but a good story-teller should have been able to come up with something better.

    I can easily accept the nacelles. They make sense, even. Older, larger, and we’ve clearly established nacelles get changed like socks. Just another modular component. But the struts make no sense at all, either in continuity or secondary hull placement. I mean those struts are bizarre and completely break with any concept of the timeline or design. Again, DIFFERENT struts make sense, but not ones that look like they belong on an Enterprise F, and sitting 30 meters back from any others.

    I can buy the entire sensor array. Again, this would clearly be a module itself and thus changeable from these early days to the TOS days to the TMP era. Not a problem. But then there’s that engineering hull…we explain that how? It’s short, skinny and out of proportion. And the primary hull strut? Stick some torpedo bays one resembling the original and we could forgive it. Even like it. But how do we, again, explain something that looks 50 years ahead of TMP?

    But then we get the saucer, and here they get it right…except why in hell NOT take the chance to slap the newer impulse engine design on it? We see it on everything from “Enterprise” to Defiant, et al. But here it looks like we got the original when this was one update fans would have happily overlooked.

    In the end the point is they could have done a lot of things, even some of what they did(and more that they missed) without screwing around with the basic proportions and relative timeframe/technology. It’s not a problem with change, it’s a problem of the specific changes that can’t be reconciled with TOS short of literally chucking everything but the saucer between this point in time and “The Cage”. Change is good, but it should have been done within some idea of continuity.

    Of course maybe they plan on destroying everything except the saucer in a future movie and thus explaining the changes that way…now there’s a thought…still wouldn’t explain that bridge, though…

  15. @ScottLC

    One word to counter your “continuity” argument: reboot.

    In a reboot, continuity is the director’s prerogative. You make a well-reasoned argument, but unfortunately, what you’re arguing for is like that episode of DS9 where they insert themselves in the classic “The Trouble with Tribbles” episode. This is not that kind of movie.

    This is a reboot. Meaning, you take some (but not all) of the successful elements of the original and then recast them in a different way. Just like the James Bond franchise was rebooted with Casino Royale, but the difference is that Bond fans necessarily have to accept a reboot every 10-15 years or so to keep the franchise fresh.

    Though it may hurt to hear it, frankly, Star Trek built up a tremendous amount of cruft and creative barnacles through the years, with each movie and new series making the franchise campier, more sentimental, less about adventure and discovery, and more about political correctness.

    As for your construction argument, for every reason you can give for why constructing the Enterprise on the ground doesn’t make sense, you can give an equally good reason why it should be so. Why? Because this is science fiction. Just for fun, here are some:

    * No matter how advanced the technology, it’s always going to be safer for human being to work in a breathable atmosphere at 1G than in the microgravity and vacuum of space

    * How “thin” or “too small” something looks is meaningless because any starship-like vehicle must necessarily be constructed of materials orders of magnitude stronger than even the strongest steel or titanium. Having access to these advanced materials would entirely allow starship architects of the future to have free reign over their designs.

    As for what is “appropriate” starship design, I can tell you that the hoary and ugly ships designs that came out of the TV series made the ship sequences laughable – just compare any battle scene in the TV series to Wrath of Kahn or the new Battlestar Galactica. After Star Trek V, starships in the ST universe suddenly stopped looked real and started resembling plastic models that completely failed to convey size and mass. The Enterprise-D was SUPPOSED to be larger than the original Enterprise, but it never felt that way in any of the TV shows or the movie. But I’ll never forget the scene in Wrath of Kahn where Kirk is on the shuttle approaching the newly refitted Enterprise – it was like the feeling of seeing an aircraft carrier in person after having only seen one on TV.

    By the way, as an aside, no matter how bad I think the new Star Wars movies are, the ship designs in Star Wars never failed to impress. But the Defiant looks about as massive as the Enterprise or any other ship, and the strange part is that Star Trek 1 and 2 managed to convey mass and size with 1/10 the SFX technology, yet the designers somehow lost the ability to convey that starting with TNG.

    So all I’m saying is that since this is a reboot, you can’t base what is an “appropriate” starship design based on a series of movies and TV shows that the movie intentionally wants to leave behind.

    In any case, you have to accept the idea that this movie is JUST “Star Trek” and not “Star Trek XI.” The next one certainly won’t be called Star Trek XII, as it’ll probably be known on its own, just like most people don’t like “The Empire Strikes Back” as “Star Wars Episode V.”

  16. I love everything about it so far. I am taking this for what it is.A revamped take on a classic series. Much like the Batman reboot and many others out there this looks to be a Trek to stand on it’s own and hopefully revamp the franchise in it’s wake. I don’t have an issue with the Enterprise being built on earth.I believe they chose that because the ships gravity would need to be calibrated accuractly and you can’t do that unless the ship is actually on the planet to get accurate calibrations.

  17. As far as the nitpicking over this versus that and so on stuff that I a long time ago was part of I can finaly say that I got over it and am ready to view this movie as a fresh entertaining movie and not just TREK. Starships can be built on the ground as well as in space. Even today large vessels are modularly built. Some are assembled and then disassembled and moved to fitting out locations for final assembly. No reason why the same can’t be done with THE ENTERPRISE. Maybe in this time period that was the way to do things and then later the construction was eventually and primarily done in space. I think it’s really impressive to see the ship this way as a visually reference to convey the size but something that people could relate to and I am speaking of the majority of people meaning the non fans. So it’s not an issue with me. This is Science Fiction. Lets enjoy the movie.

  18. Reboot? I wish it was. A reboot would take the basic premise and start over. The final frontier would be a clean slate, with all the detritus swept away. No eugenics wars, no Klingons (hurrah!), no Romulans, nothing but a ship and crew in unexplored space. Instead they’ve got this broken-backed spawned-parallel-universe premise designed from the beginning to allow them to hit the reset button in the event of box office failure, plus an Earth-Doomed premise done twice before — three times if you count installment #8. (No worries; with $150M worth of explosions it’s a guaranteed hit.)

    “This is Science Fiction.”
    Looks like SyFy to me.

  19. I’m looking forward to sitting in the theater with a lot of non-die hard fans so that I can sit back and listen to the movie and not overhear Trek hard core fans talking through the movie about this not canon or they should have done it this way and that’s not how it originally happen ect ect ect. I’ve had over 40 yrs of this and for once it will be great to have those who are so negative and cynical about Trek and proclaim to not see the movie not actually show up. That way they won’t ruin it for everyone else. And btw who are you fooling. You know you will eventually see this movie because your curiosity about it and the questions you have about it must be answered. Enjoy Trek past if that is where you want to be stuck in the past. I like Trek am looking forward to the future of Trek.This movie will have a fresh take but striking a balance with the core elements and attracting the new generation of would be fans. This is from a hard core fan who for one will be watching this movie with one of the main TREK themes,,keeping an open mind to new ideas and being tolerant to new takes on a very legendary franchise in SCI-FI.

  20. Let’s see:

    # The final frontier?
    No, known space.

    # Five year mission?
    No, an emergency dispatch, pretty much as in the preceding ten films.

    # New worlds?
    Old ones with a bigger budget.

    # New life and new civilizations?
    Old ones with a bigger budget.[1]

    # Where no man has gone before?
    Nope, same old places with a bigger budget.

    So is there a new plot, at least?

    Nope, just another Khan job — a thoughtless man out for revenge on someone who, strictly, committed no offense — with a bigger budget.

    [1. Next movie we'll meet the exciting new villains: "Klingons"! Maybe they'll have _CGI-animated_ headbumps this time!]

  21. Nope, not a reboot. This isn’t Batman or some such thing where no real time period is carved in stone and where technology can be whatever it wants, regardless of continuity or time.

    This is a franchise with 40 years of established continuity. Sometimes not very good continuity but that’s the problem. People who have followed it all have to try and either ignore those continuity problems or somehow make them fit in their own minds. NOW we get this and all continuity goes out the window.

    I’ll be there to see it, but it’s going to distract from the experience when my mind, despite my best efforts, insists “that ain’t right”. How distracting it is will determine whether I see it again, and whether I buy it on DVD. It’ll be the same for an awful lot of other people, too. If the changes throw people out of the “willing suspension of disbelief” too much then while Star Trek may get their money the first time this movie won’t get any more of it.

    That’s not something any big budget flick can handle.

  22. I agree with you on most of your points there however as far as continued continuity like other popular franchises such as Spider-man for example the continuity has been altered to suit the various new formats of Spiderman where the characters of the series origins have been revamped not just in one but several of the books show various versions and expand interests. The point here to get new fans new ways of looking at the character were developed with the new books. NOw there is even a greater fan base with different versions that have greater appeal. If you want to enjoy the new version look at it as it’s own beginning and it’s will be estabishing it’s own origins and continuity as time goes on and the new movie series and possible TV series develops again. The Comic Characters have gone through this transistion and have become mostly successful. Trek will have it’s hard core fan base who will be stickler’s for the continuity within the series up to the End of Enterprise and the last Trek movie (Nemesis).This movie will have it’s own version and witin it’s context will have it’s own continutiy to establish. Much like The Marvel Ultimates have taken origins and versions of their established characters and mythos and expanded them to create new stories and adventures with new characters while making orignial characters fresh again STAR TREK will be going this route as will if it is to survive as a franchise and not just old fan base collectors items. Treasure the past of Trek but also enjoy the new. I am ready for sure and am excited about the different prospects for the movie and spinoffs with a new fan base. My advice to enjoy the movie is not associate the movies prior to. Don’t watch marathons of the series or the movies prior to. It will only rob you of the enjoyment of a fresh new movie. Open mind open hearts. There is no reason why both versions cannot be enjoyed by a Trek fan. Continuity issues is what keeps us going as fans correcting and pointing it out and making references to it. Wouldn’t be Trek without some continuity issues. Either way it’s StarTrek movie #1 ready for takeoff.

  23. Whether not it is a clean “reboot” or not, it’s pretty clear the new Star Trek is meant to largely stand on its own. So perhaps it’s not like Batman Begins, but I do like Curt’s analogy of Marvel Ultimates – a fresh take on old characters.

    Another way of looking at it is that the Smallville TV series has its own mythos that completely conflicts with the Superman movies yet it really doesn’t matter. And the movies are different from the TV series of the 1950s. And all of them are different than the John Byrne’s rewriting of the legend in the 1980s (which I still find to be the best version of the Superman mythology).

    Fans enjoy these reboots or variations or alternate tellings precisely because they are different and inject new life into something that was dead or dying. I still argue the problem with Star Trek was that they tried to keep up the fascade of continuity for too long and it just got too formulaic, mundane, and frankly boring. The new movie, if anything, is anything but boring and at least quite original from a look and feel perspective.

  24. I had a few thought about the ship being built on the ground. At first I thought it was ridiculous but then I thought about it some more and realized that if they can accelerate a ship to warp speeds they can easily produce enough energy to launch the ship into orbit. With an abundant power supply, like an antimatter reactor, it would make more sense to construct the ship on the ground because it could be built in an atmosphere eliminating the need to work in space suits.

  25. The real battle here is between those who understand Star Trek and those who either dont or refused to. As far as marketing goes, Abrams, it seems, is trying to change star trek to take it out of its cliche when the original star trek was not cliche at all. Impatient mass audiences have always found it hard to understand the intellectualism in star trek as well as its science. The intellectualism coming from society’s greatest literary works and stories dealing with Humanity and the science from the most cutting edge ideas of the last century. To get the masses to understand this franchise all it takes is a little tweeking to the way the script approaches these same issues, not an overhaul of the image. The image changes would seem to actually hurt that effort.

  26. No deep messages in this movie, I’m afraid. But I think they’re making an exciting action film to re-ignite the franchise – the can go deeper in the next film.

    Vic

  27. i look forward to seeing this film. J.J. Abrams is good at making interesting tv and i am sure i will enjoy it. but factualy hes thrown the book out the window he apears in this film at the accadamy with chekov on the scene. he is 12 years older than chekov meaning that by the yime chekov was old enough to sign up (guessing 19 for aguments sake) kirk would be 31 the age at which he was promoted to captain and took the enterprise out in time for the original series aged 32 hmmmm! not very acurate thats the type of thing that gets a trekkie mad

    p.s the new warp effect is good more belivable but the transporter looks stupid in the trailer

  28. I saw the movie twice already. The more I see it the more I pick up things I didn’t see or realize before.I read a fantastic review online. I am relieved and so happy to see that Trek is back alive and well with a great future ahead. What amazes me is the number of non-fans that saw the movie and enjoyed it. Finally a movie that had mass appeal and not just for the fans. Wish I could have seen it on IMAX. I hope they film the next movie in IMAX format like the Dark Knight. I saw the movie on a digital screen as opposed to a regular screen and I got to tell you it made that much more of an impact. Glad I saw the digital screen first. This Enterprise looked great on the Big Screen. The only Starship I liked straight from the get go was the original but like all the others once I got used to looking at the differences I began to warm up and like later versions as they are just as I do now with this new one. My Hat is off to the writers and producers and directors and to Paramount for giving Star Trek another chance. I am an old FAN that has found a new spark and I got to say it’s great to feel the fan in me come to life again. I haven’t had much interest in Trek for many years and I didn’t see all episodes of Voyager, DS9 OR Enterprise so it would be great to see them. I don’t care if their great or not. It’s just nice to have Trek around active and current with today’s generation. I have my old treasures and I am looking to being a part of this new Treasure and all of it’s subsequent incarnations to follow. Trek Lives and will prosper again. Like Kirk said to Scotty in StarTrek3-Search for Spock..”Come now…Mr.Scott..Young minds fresh ideas..be tolerant. I welcome the new writers and producers.
    Thanks for making my movie season a great one this year!

  29. ok now ive seen the film and as suspected realy enjoyed it but the errors flare up (spoiler alert) even my mate a dedicated NON trekie was cofused when trying to escape the black hole the ejected the “warp core” to make an explosion to push them away (fair enough) but the “core” turned out to be a series of pods for some reason and then after ejection proceed to warp off home, as my mate said “isnt the core the engine? wouldnt that stop them from flying off?” plus why would spock put kirk off the ship in the middle of nowhere with dangerous and rather unnecessary alien when the ship is equiped with a rather handy brig? oh and what is red matter? nothing he just made up a magical type of matter with no basis in fact not even thoeretical for the hell of it wich spock wants to use to save the entire galaxy from a star going supernova (somthing wich happens alot across the galaxy and cant harm more than the closest of neigbours) and flys it in a tiny and stupid ship that looks like a sideways spinning top (what kind of engine is that then? – not warp) and ends up ripping the universe a new space hole!?!?!?!?!
    -gasp for breath-
    wow
    -gasp-
    no doubt many people will love this film believe it or not i did enjoy it, the comedy was very good (apart from the curious maze of huge water pipes and turbines with emergency hatches 30 ft in the air) the cast all performed very well although chekov sounds like he is taking the p*** with that accent and the biggest problem there is no point there is no message to this film only a flimsy note to spock to realise that logic is not everything a faily last minuet thought that is faily dumb cosiddering there is nothing logical about banging the communications officer!!!!
    bye bye

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!