I make it a policy to not show bootleg trailers so although we missed the boat on showing you the new Star Trek trailer over the weekend, here’s your first chance to see it online in high-res, non-shaky cam.
There’s a lot to take in with this trailer so it’s definitely a “multi-viewer” to process everything that’s going on. But enough talk, check it out below:
| |
To see the HD version head over to either StarTrekMovie.com or Apple.com.
[UPDATE: I've grabbed over 30 screen caps from the trailer for you]
A few days ago I wrote about “Star Trek Trailer Mania” and how overall it seems that J.J. Abrams’ vision for Star Trek seems to be basically knocking people on their butts. The intent was to redefine what Trek is and it certainly looks like Paramount is getting what they paid for.
I’ll admit that along with some folks, the “Uhura bra scene” and the mild sex scene in the trailer threw me off a bit – but think about the original series: We look at the show now and it seems positively tame, but place classic Star Trek within the context of the mid-late 1960s and what you’d see on TV at that time. Kirk was a Lothario back then, famous for seducing every alien chick that came down the pike.
Keep in mind that the rules were so strict back then that the only indication that could be given that Kirk had had sex with the Scalosian hottie in the episode “Wink of an Eye” was to show him putting on his boot while sitting on the already made bed after the fact. Look back at the costumes William Ware Theiss designed and how sexy they were compared to everything else on television back then.
The point is that the show did have its share of “sexiness” back then, but looking at it through the lens of 40 years later makes it look milder than it was. So having a present-day version of that in the film is not a huge leap. While some episodes were more goofy than others, overall it wasn’t aimed at kids and was chock full of adult and serious themes.
The other complaint I’ve seen is how insanely brash Chris Pine is playing Kirk – Kirk has never been a “by the rules” guy and has also always been about action above pondering a situation in deep thought. I have a feeling that by the end of the movie we’ll see him mature considerably, and I think that may be one of the major themes of the film. The same goes for Zachary Quinto’s portrayal of an emotional and (apparently) out of control Spock. One of the themes of the show was his struggle with containing his human side – since this is early on in his life, it doesn’t surprise me that he does not have his emotions quite under control.
Finally there’s the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth. Frankly to me it doesn’t make much sense that they would construct such a massive ship on the ground instead of in orbit. I’ll be curious to see what method they use to get the ship off the ground since AFAIK (and I’m a HUGE Trek-tech geek) the ship didn’t have any propulsion system meant for landfall.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these issues and any other things that stand out to you based on the trailer.
Star Trek opens on May 8, 2009.
Loading ...
98 Comments
sweetness
AWESOME! Yes, spaceship construction on Earth is ridiculous UNLESS they have defeated gravity for lifting it to orbit… That would change technology advancement in the whole series though. Can’t figure that one out either…
I have been rather loud about my problems with this film. I have not been looking forward to it, even though I am a pretty big fan of the original series. I just haven’t liked how things have been portrayed so far. But seeing this trailer on the big screen, and then again several times this morning, my perceptions of the film have completely changed. I am now really looking forward to this flick. The trailer was amazing!
I’ve actually been ok with most of the “changes” I’ve seen. I agree the ‘Enterprise on Earth’ is a big OOPS as Roddenbary himself commented that the Transporter idea came about because he couldn’t figure out how to land the ship. That’s not a huge sin in my book though and I’m still really looking forward to the movie.
no, gene said that they didnt have the budget to land her on a planet in every episode, thats why they invented trensporter
the new star trek trailer is just what the movie series. needs not so sure about a tv series based on it but the movie had become to much about politics and not enough about actual exploration
I must admit i’ve never been a “trekkie” I’ve seen most of the original series and thought it was ok. Nothing to start a mass pop culture over but to each their own. I wasn’t very excited about the new movie until I saw the trailer. Now I must admit that I’m fairly excited as it looks like a very god reinvention and interpretation f the source material while giving it enough action and eye candy for the 21st century.
Trailer is great. Lots of action and the movie looked pretty good. I actually can’t wait to see it, but I hate to be the bad guy here, but I’m going to say it.
FIRST, THIS IS NOT TREK! Kirk isn’t Kirk, as far as I can tell. Sure he had problems with disobedience, and he even cheats on the Kobyoshi-maru test (spelling) later on, but this movie makes him out to be a fully disobedient renegade or something.
SECOND, Kirk was not the first to command the USS Enterprise. Captain April was, and was succeeded by Captain Christopher Pike, both having served at least 5 years a peace. Kirk wouldn’t be in command for another 5 (or 10 years) after Christopher Pike.
THIRD, Spock’s first command with Kirk was in the TV series, “Where no man has gone before…” Spock does not show problems with emotions in that episode, as he does with the JJ Abrams film. Furthermore, Spock served on the USS Enterprise before Kirk became captain, which makes it remotely IMPOSSIBLE that the Enterprise was built before Kirks teen years.
FOURTH, some of you have already identified this problem. The USS Enterprise was not built on earth, but in space dock.
LASTLY, that is one ugly ship. I’m sure I’ll get used to it, but it is not the Enterprise, but a new design THAT WILL NOT attract non-trekies to become fans. The action may definitely attract people, as well as the partial nudity scene with Uhura (A MAJOR FOUL IN MY BOOK).
I knew they would do this! The only way to make Trek work was to add a little more skin and nipple, and there you have it! Trek becomes Nude Trek. They should have done this with Counselor Troy in TNG. Geez!
Other than that, great movie….can’t wait to see it…….but it WILL NEVER BE TREK!
Joe
Wow. I’m floored over here watching this again and again and again. I’ve been a Trek fan for a very long time, and I think I’m finally seeing IT. In action the Enterprise looks MUCH better than sitting still.
I really do applaud the idea of Spock learning to control his emotions, and it sure looks like Kirk and Spock are not fast friends at the start, as befits a working relationship that develops over time.
Kirk as a reckless action junkie? Yeah, that’s him. He’s the wild kid that gets a choice of the army or jail.
Enterprise built on Earth? Well, they’ve beaten gravity, that’s well established as Zero-G in Trek was “new” for the Enterprise TV series. The SIF should keep the ship together for a gentle ascent, and if they really need to they can modify the shields to provide an aerodynamic shape (think of a Niven flycycle).
Overall, I heartily approve.
re: Constructing the NCC-1701 on the ground.
Does NO ONE know how modern construction is done? You build it in one place, then disassemble it into “chunks”, then re-assemble it in place. (That’s how a CVS can go up in a weekend, and a skyscraper in less than a year)
Taking all the individual parts into space (not to mention the workers) is a huge waste of time and resources. We don’t take all the individual unassembled parts to the final site NOW, why would we get less efficient in the future?
“Space is diseased with danger wrapped in darkness and silence.” -Bones
Priceless! I’m so gonna enjoy Karl Urban’s performance in this film!
@ Vic
The shot you have of the Enterprise makes the ship look more grand and even better in my eyes. I was on the fence, but seeing it in action, albeit a tad bit from what the trailer gave us, makes me like the new look even more.
How ’bout you?
Okay, checked out the trailer and I’m completely AMPED about this movie! I’m a long time fan of the trek experience and never really had serious doubts that JJ wouldn’t disapoint. I realize that this is only a peek at the finished project, but the essence seems to be “Hey…let’s take a franchise with a considerable fan base and give em what the show’s stated intent was from the very beginning…to boldly go where no one has gone before.”
ST canon notwithstanding, let’s try to agree that the intent of any director is to make the best use of suspension of disbelief and draw the audience into the story (world) they have captured. Perhaps he’s come up with a new and refreshing idea about how to get Enterprise in orbit…let’s wait and see before assigning the oops factor to the construction shot, y’ know? Plenty of early sci-fi space adventure films rocked long before it became required that the writers needed to consider the expectations of those in the audience that actually knew about physics and celestial mechanics, etc. This trailer seems to extend its hand as an invitiation to adventure while getting a chance to become aquainted with the charicters that laid the foundation for what has become a part of a sci-fi cornerstone. I honestly think that the FUN factor will outwiegh any questionable decisions made by JJ and the writers…
Beam me the **** up, scotty!!!
Hey, long time lurker, first time poster here. All I can say is, it looks like a great sci-fi movie, but it does not look like STAR TREK. Still, I’ll be calling in sick to see it opening day.
Finally, the ’sterilized’ feel of the Trek universe appears to be dirtied up some. This look fantasical!
I’ve said before in other posts that this trailer only made me want to see this movie more. I’ve been a Trek fan my whole life (haven’t seen a lot of TOS, but enough of it). I love the movies (except V, Insurrection, and Nemesis). And I think this will be a great film.
Also, I believe that the plaque on the bridge of the original Enterprise does say that it was constructed in San Francisco. I might be wrong, but if that’s true, then JJ is being faithful to that canon.
@Ash Ali
I stated in my “new Enterprise” post that although I didn’t like the look of it in that picture, I was still willing to keep an open mind about seeing it in action on the big screen.
Vic
AWE-FREAKIN’-SOME!
I loved it, dude, this is gonna be great!!!!!!!!!!
It looks fantastic! And the Enterprise looks sweet. Much better than what I was expecting.
I kinda agree with Vic about the NCC-1701 being constructed on the ground, how in the hell are they gonna get that into space? Should be interesting.
My fave screen cap was #26.
Thanks, Vic. :p
First time poster here. First, I have to say I’m totally psyched about this movie – can’t wait to see it! I felt the only TNG movie that came close to being a good movie was First Contact, but generally, the quality of Star Trek declined movie-by-movie after Star Trek IV.
Star Trek needs a reboot – the politically correct psychobabble and meaningless technojargon that infused the TNG movies, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise was what killed the genre.
That being said, I have some thoughts on two comments above
“AWESOME! Yes, spaceship construction on Earth is ridiculous UNLESS they have defeated gravity for lifting it to orbit…”
I would say the technology is called warp drive, which works by warping space around the craft. That’s what causes a starship to move through space, escaping the gravity wells of massive stars, much less the puny gravity well of planet Earth. There is no reason why a warp field wouldn’t work in an atmosphere instead of a vacuum – the Enterprise would have no problem escaping the Sun’s “atmosphere” so why would lifting off the surface of the Earth be a problem?
The fact that starships couldn’t enter the atmosphere was a logic fault of the Star Trek canon, in my opinion, and I’m glad that J.J. Abrams seems to be challenging this pre-conceived, but non-sensical notion.
(By the way, structural integrity of a starship in an atmosphere is no excuse, as a starship would encounter forces thousands if not tens of thousands of time more powerful flying through space the way it does.)
“The action may definitely attract people, as well as the partial nudity scene with Uhura (A MAJOR FOUL IN MY BOOK).”
A woman in a bra is considered “nudity” and a “major foul?” Have you been to a beach lately? Or how about, ummm outside, walking around on a hot summer day?
Do you not recall the rather racy outfits worn by female characters in TOS? Somehow, Star Trek went from a sexy show that pushed boundaries (Kirk and Uhura having the first interracial kiss on TV, for example, and Kirk being completely bare chested in a number of episodes ) to being a show for for prudes. What is wrong with showing some skin? As far as I know, sexuality is still a part of human nature in the future, and it should be okay to acknowledge that women wear bras even in the 23rd century.
I mean, all this “outrage” at Uhura-in-a-bra scene and you would think J.J. Abrams is reinventing Star Amish or something.
I, for one, think the trailer is spot on, and glad Paramount finally had the balls to kick out Berman and crew!
Maybe they are teasing the fact that it was at least partially constructed on Earth,
Because they want people to be SURPRISED
on how it gets into space !
It is MOST DEFINITELY TREK.
and glad that TOS is BACK!
I like it. To a non-Trek-fan, the trailer has all the makings of a great movie (whether it’s a good Trek movie though, I’ll leave to the fans of the show). On the other hand, I’m going to assume this is just the teaser, or at least that there will be another trailer on the way since this trailer tells us nothing of the story except that it’s an origin story.
As for the Enterprise being constructed on the ground, yes, technically that shouldn’t work, there’s a reason why current space shuttles need tons of fuel and a number of rockets attached to their arses just to get them out of the Earths Gravitational pull and a space ship built in a space station would very much be much more economical.
But then we haven’t seen the movie yet, perhaps Abrams has conceived of some kind of space elevator or other logical solution.
Or perhaps he’s just going for the iconic image for the sake of it. I won’t presume anything yet though.
As with a couple other posters, it really bothers me that they apparently are re-establishing the origin of the Enterprise.
It was established back when TOS was first on the air that the Enterprise was NOT built on any planet — it was assembled in space. I can’t recall if this was ever mentioned in an episode, but it WAS stated (I believe it was in “The Making of Star Trek,” a book in the late 60s) in the aforementioned paperback book.
It also sounds, according to some other posters here, that the timeline is being changed around regarding when Kirk took command of the Enterprise.
It is true that Robert April was the first captain, followed by Christopher Pike. And it WAS established in TOS that Spock had already served aboard the Enterprise for 18 years (or was it 13?) before Kirk took over.
This tells me that Spock’s Starfleet career was consiberaly older than Kirk’s.
They had better not tamper with these canon items or they will anger a lot of long-time fans.
As with many others, I hate the design of the pylons, which are shoved almost to the very rear of the engineering section — which, itself, looks like they forgot to build the bottom part of its rear end.
The saucer & front look fine to me.
The bridge is a disappointment. I was hoping to see something more remindful of the original TOS bridge, but I guess they must have thought it looked too unrealistic for the big screen?
The more I watch the trailer, the more excited I am about this movie!! The only thing that gives me pause is young Kirk driving a vintage Vette off the side of a cliff. That is just WRONG!!!!
Its about time we had the back story on Darth Vader and now Kirk this going to be cool as hell and the ship being built on the ground is no big deal Voyager landed on a couple planets and if that cops bike can hover off the ground getting the Enterprise off the the planet shouldn’t be a problem and this movie looks like it going to have something the others didn’t alot of ACTION I can not wait for this one
Space elevator FTW!
“Space elevator FTW!”
(in response to Joshi’s comment)
@vitaboy
It was established at some point during TOS that you can’t activate a Warp Field within the gravity well of a planet (not that I think that would stop them from doing that here).
Vic
@Ed
Exactly. I’m yet to see any sci-fi space film do an actual space elevator. It’s been the dream of scientists for a while and yet no one’s ever done it with CGI.
This is the reason I’m actually not expecting them to do it in this film, for whatever reason (perhaps seen by mass audiences as being too “out there”, and plus getting a fully assembled Enterprise up into space using a space elevator may be somewhat difficult) people aren’t doing it and I doubt Abrams will buck the trend.
The way I see it, the only satisfactory way of getting the thing into space would be to treat it like a space shuttle and use additional rockets to get it out of atmo.
But hopefully they won’t piss people off too much and simply have it “lift off” on it’s own with lots of iconic shots and an expensive soundtrack.
It all boils down to these simple points.
If you are waiting for another exciting movie, you might get your rocks off with the upcoming Star Trek by JJ Abrams. If you’re looking for the real trek, based on Gene Rodenberry, I’m afraid that his version of Star Trek will not be offered on the big screen.
To the sex crazed person who wants to see Uhura partially nude, that didn’t surprise me one bit. Am I saying sex is bad? NO, but sex is not Star Trek. Yes there was Romance in the original series, and kissing, but never a hot scene in the trailer. Remember, they tried that with Star Trek Nemesis, and it was pointless.
Yes, the movie looks awesome. Yes, the movie is filled with the tradition Hollywood spill. But most of you have yet to admit that THIS IS NOT STAR TREK! This is a new Trek, which is fine by me. But again, why use Kirk, Spock, Uhura, McCoy, the Enterprise, if you’re not going to stick with Star Trek Canon.
Did JJ Abrams have to use their names to establish a movie that is not even close to Star Trek Canon. The trailer alone violates Star Trek cannon in more than 5 places, just on that short clip. What does this mean? It means the rest of Star Trek is meaningless. JJ is rewriting history by burying 40 years of success, in order to temporarily satisfy a generation of nipples, thongs, and drug addicts.
In conclusion, I admit this movie looks pretty damn good. But, it is not Star Trek, cannot be Star Trek, and violates traditional Star Trek Canon. He should have used an entirely different cast, and there would have been no complaints by me or anyone else like me.
Joe
@Joe,
This is what we in the comic book world refer to as a “reboot” or “retcon”, i. e., new takes on familiar characters. They take the stuff that worked and stuck and put it into one new story and give it a new twist, leaving out the wacky stuff that was tried and didn’t exactly work. Every 25-30 years something like this needs to be done. Sometimes it’s done good, sometimes it’s done not so good. I think in this case it’s being done good.
This new Star Trek is kinda like what the “Ultimate Avengers” comic is to “The Avengers” comic in some ways.
About Lt. Uhura’s Bra scene. Why would I want to pay to watch a Trek Movie, which is supposed to be space exploration, and adventure, to watch a two or three minute sexual scene with Uhura? I see enough of that in my daily life, so those who must have it in a movie are desperate. *laughs* Now I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this, but it’s not necessary.
Star Trek the Motion picture didn’t need scenes like that to be successful. Star Wars didn’t need scenes like that to be successful, although there was the one scene with Princes Leah wearing skimpy clothes in Return of the Jedi. But, the other movies were smash hits as well, without the Bra scenes.
What does that say about today’s generation?
My point is simple. IT’S NOT TRECK! I don’t care about today’s standards. I’d rather keep trek the way it was, than to pervert it into a hip-hop generation.
Again I’ll say, the movie looks great, and I’m going to see it. But, IT’S NOT TREK!
Joseph
Looks pretty badass, and I’m glad everyone is finally coming around on this.
There were a few out-of-place shots for me though (Uhura scenes, a car chase?, wierd biker cop – you’d think in the future they could just tractor beam the vehicle or teleport some field/road block – 23rd Century, no?)
Neurotic Nomad, You best be right bud. Orci had said they contruct on the ground but assemble it all in space, but that shot of an almost-complete ship was worrisome.
Okay, I see you’re not going to post my posts….that’s fine.
I’ll say again, this is NOT STAR TREK. It’s a great movie that I can’t wait to see, but I’ll wait for the DVD version, as I do with all movies. My best guess is it will be available on DVD about two months after it’s done with the theaters.
Great movie….but it’s not STAR TREK.
This is nothing more than stealing from tradition, to establish another canon. But will JJ stick with it? Or is this a one time profit scam? I’d pretty much say this is a one time deal.
I work with about 280 people, and do you know that out of 88 that I’ve asked, only one person heard of a a new Star Trek? Nobody knows about it, and nobody honestly cares. The theater scene is a dying tradition; DVD’s are much better.
IN conclusion, IT’S NOT STAR TREK!
Joe
Re: NCC-1701 earthbound construction – AS IF it mattered. There is no such thing as warp drive, or even (gasp) inhuman green blooded Vulcans! There is no Force, and Superman doesn’t actually fly, not even with blue contacts. I out myself as a true SCIFI geek by paraphrasing Ron Moore (OK, Ronald D. Moore, hell of a ride but end it well, please – scotch in hand!), who gave the Star Trek techno-babble solution: Thank goodness we invented the blah-blah device to take care of the what-cha-ma-call-it.
Just enjoy the ride.
Thanks for the shot of Zoe Saldana taking her top off. Good one, that. Besides that, I think the best thing about this trailer is about 1 second long…is that a new teleportation effect? Is Spock beaming down somewhere?If so, that looks GREAT!
To those fussing the ‘apparent’ character changes in Kirk – the movie will answer that as his life changes very early on from what occurred in the series.
This looks EPIC!
@Daryl
Yeah, they’ve changed the beaming effect for this movie, and I’m glad they’re finally updating it from the TNG version.
Vic
@Sci Fi Geek
Dude, you’re dealing with Star Trek fans here, bro. We care more about details than fans of any other Sci Fi franchise on the planet (and Paramount has fed into that with the publication of numerous “tech manuals” and such over the years).
Especially considering your screen name, I’d think you would understand that.
Let folks blow off steam, no harm done.
Vic
@Joseph.
“Why would I want to pay to watch a Trek Movie, which is supposed to be space exploration, and adventure, to watch a two or three minute sexual scene with Uhura?”
TWO or THREE MINUTE SEXUAL SCENE?!?? Where the F did you get that? From my viewing, it looked as if she was changing clothes. As if she just got an order to put on special gear and report to the teleporter room or something.
You DO realize that people remove clothes to put on something different, not just for sex… right? (If not, how filthy are your clothes!?!)
@sci-fi geek
Don’t be silly, of course there’s a Force.
@Vic
“We care more about details than fans of any other Sci Fi franchise on the planet”
I’m learning this very quickly. In fact, I’ve learned more about Star Trek in the amount of time this news post has been up than I have in the 22 years I’ve graced this Earth.
Joe,
Even as we’re seeing with original auteurs like George Lucas giving us supposedly “cannon” work like “Clone Wars”, adherence to cannon is not necessarily a virtue always worth placing a premium on.
Daniel Craig’s Bond is still Bond despite the fact that his portrayal departs in several ways from the work done by almost all the previous incarnations. This isn’t Cassablanca where a great actor gave an irreplaceable performance unlikely ever to be topped in any recreation of said character. This is Star Trek. As such, it is open to more malleable interpretations than Cassablanca and it’s not worth getting our underwear in a bunch over what is or isn’t cannon or what deserves the title “Trek” and what doesn’t.
Ford’s Indy is iconic. Depp’s Jack Sparrow is iconic. Heath Ledger’s Joker may well end up becoming the defining performance of that character.
The original Trek cast did a good job portraying their roles, but their performances in those roles were not iconic. They’re fair game, in my opinion for a little bit of experimentation.
(BTW, I’m a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings (the novel) and was greatly impressed by how well the movies got the spirit of the tome without belaboring adherence to cannon – in other words, it’s not worth focusing on the details as long as they get the spirit right – and we won’t be able to tell that until we see the whole movie here).
I just hope ‘Nemesis’ broke the streak of of odd-even-odd-even / sucked-great-sucked-great.
I have complete confidence in JJ Abrams as I have no doubt he will deliver something quite good. My biggest question is the casting of Chris Pine, as he’s a far cry from William Shatner in terms of presence! Looking foward to seeing this!
Chuck
@Sci Fi Geek
LOL, we’ve BARELY scratched the surface here.
Vic
I really like the trailer and cant wait for the movie! But did anyone notice the boy kirk said his name is james siberius kirk? Am I mistaken? Someone help me out here
At least I can look forward to Fanboys. When is that to be released again?
Yea Vic, I’m a Sci Fi Geek! I know Ford and Scott differed as to whether Deckard was a Replicant. Check the book, probably in your local library, but not under Blade Runner. But Vic already knows Androids dream of electric sheep.
@Mert
He said “James Tiberius Kirk.”
@Sci Fi Geek, of course I knew about the short story.
And I prefer the “Decker is replicant” version.
Vic
@vic
“It was established at some point during TOS that you can’t activate a Warp Field within the gravity well of a planet (not that I think that would stop them from doing that here).”
Which is why I like what I’m seeing with the trailer. It never made logical sense that a warp field would work around low mass objects like asteroids and supermassive objects like stars and that alien Dyson sphere, but somehow planets were the exception. To me, it sounded like they were trying to explain away a lack of budget for SFX and it became conventional wisdom, except it actually didn’t make sense within the context of Star Trek physics.
So I like that they are (seemingly) challenging some of the conventions.
@Joseph
Dude, you need to go back and watch every episode of TOS, which were filled with double entendres and steamy sexuality! TOS had far more sexiness than TNG, DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise – which I find contrived in a way that a prudes start a conversation by saying, “I’m no prude, but…”
I don’t know how Trek canon became such a thing that asexuality became an aspiration, although maybe that’s a Vulcan thing….
I agree with Joseph…I don’t think of this as a “traditional” Star Trek movie. This is just another case of “postmodernism” at its best (or worst). You take something tried and true, then “re-imagine” it…which pretty much gives you something brand new. A similar phenomenon occurred with “Dr. Who.” The name has been the same throughout the course of the show (and numerous mini series), but the show itself has been drastically different with each new chapter.
They may use some of the same concepts as TOS (the basic silhouette of the ENTERPRISE, uniforms, etc…), but the sterility of the “iBridge,” the further “humanising” of Spock, as well as the “sexifying” of Lt. Uhura are brand new.
I will say this, though…that “tinkly” echo of the signature music at the very end of the trailer sent shivers down my spine (which, unfortunately caused me some pain, seeing as I tweaked my back this weekend…ouch).
While I am reserving judgement until I actually see the movie (similar to Vic), I will say that I AM looking forward to seeing it, disco nacelles or not.
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!