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
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.
I could swear he says siberious
One of the things to keep in mind is, that even a space warping field would have to push against something to get lift, in this case the ground. Which is perhaps as good a reason as any not to use a warp field just anywhere. Like over inhabited areas or buildings. Everything literally slips down into the gravity well that the planet creates, if you create a counter-well either everything in or under that well slips upward or gets crushed as the mass of the ship pushes against the planet. Either way you look at it I wouldn’t want to be under it!
In TOS and the other series there are plenty of instances where some device was counteracting gravity.
Anti-gravity has been a slippery subject in the “Star Trek” universe, as well as dis-integrator guns, and even though science has advanced quite a bit since the 60’s, I don’t expect them to be any clearer than they have been in the past.
@the old man
“One of the things to keep in mind is, that even a space warping field would have to push against something to get lift, in this case the ground. ”
I am rather enjoying this thread.
But I’d like to point out that rockets don’t move by pushing against the ground. Rather, it’s just a matter of conservation of momentum. All the burning propellent escapes out the nozzles at high velocity, and momentum is composed for mass times velocity. More velocity equals higher momentum. Since momentum has to be conserved, the momentum of the exhaust is transferred into the body of the rocket, causing it to move in the opposite direction. The ground has nothing to do with it – otherwise, how would missiles fired from jets ever work?
In fact, most scientists before rocketry believed space travel to be impossible, since in the vacuum of space, rockets would have “nothing to push against.” That was quickly proven wrong, as it was based on incorrect assumptions.
In any case, the way warp fields are supposed to work in Star Trek is that space itself is folded in front of the ship, i.e. expanded. Space behind the ship remains normal. Because the space ahead of the ship is expanded and is thus less “dense,” the ship is driven forward naturally, like compressed air in a bottle rushing out into a low density atmosphere outside the bottle. Again, pushing against the ground has nothing to do with it.
Besides, if warp field involved pushing against bodies, star ships would never be able to get close to anything, never mind docking at space stations, cause they would obliterate them every time they disembarked.
So, I see the Enterprise being constructed on the ground as 1) a tribute to the romanticism of ship building and 2) laying to rest the old canard of starships not being able to fly through the atmosphere of planets.
At first I thought the “mild sex scene” was with Kirk and Uhura, but its a different room than the one with just Uhura. I don’t care if Uhura takes her top off
I’m just glad she has some screen time of her own. She was always my favorite character. As for the film being too racy; I doubt that’ll be a problem since Star Trek was always about the “human condition”, even if the sensibilities of the time allowed little more than a pressing of lips together. Remember Kirk used sex and had sex used against him (unsuccessfully) on more than one occasion.
Kirk was always a shoot from the hip, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead kind of captain. I hope that won’t change too much. Breaking the rules was never a problem for him if the situation seemed to be something the rule makers could not have foreseen. Spock was prone to yelling on the bridge and did smile in one of the earliest TOS episodes (’Where No Man Has Gone Before’ I think.). He smiles again at the singing plants on Talos IV in “the Cage” if I remember correctly. So his control being a little loose is not unprecedented.
To lift the Enterprise into space I just assumed that since they could generate gravity for the decks of the ship they should be able to reverse the effect (like the police bike that chases young Kirk.).
Okay, even if you can lift the whole damned Enterprise into space with your special built ship lifting anti-gravity unit, it still doesn’t make sense. Unless of course, energy is completely free.
If it isn’t then I argue that it would make more sense to build the Enterprise in space since most of the materials she is built from would be mined in space. You’d be paying to drop them down to the earth and then lift them up again. Why?
And why do we want huge starships to be able to land on planets anyway? Ever heard of cargo ships, ocean liners? No expects them to cruise up the local stream to drop off their goods. No, there’s a whole infrastructure of dredged harbors, docks, tugs, freight handling equipment.
Wasnt there An Orion Slave girl in the original pilot ?
Granted ,She wasnt completly nude but still Sexuality has been a part of Star Trek from the get go.
@ Vic & vitaboy;
I do not recall which story it was (some twenty years ago) or the actual details of the effect and I’m sure its not cannon. But in one of the Star Trek novels Kirk almost ends up in prison for lighting up the warp drive of a starship in close proximity to a planet. It devastated the surface and killed more than a million people. Again, I don’t remember the actual effect, just that I thought it was extremely bad what a warp drive could do to a planet.
@ tudza;
Cruse ships and cargo aren’t built 200 yards off shore are they? Even if the raw materials are shipped in from a different location. Construction costs and safety is better maintained in a location chosen to minimize risk, like terra firma. Besides, as this thread has proven, one thing everyone wants to know is how the #@** they get that ship into orbit!!
@ daviedave;
Remember where Uhura sat (right behind Kirk), how she sat (to one side with those beautiful legs in full view), and that the camera often included her in the shot of Kirk?
@David,
I don’t doubt that, even if I can’t remember that particular episode myself. But this is supposed to be a reboot of the franchise. Which means that the movie might establish new movie physics that are more “realistic” (as sci-fi physics could ever be) versus arbitrarily established at some point in the past.
What I’m saying is that I’m hoping for more self-consistency in Star Trek physics. You can’t argue that warp drives are dangerous near planets when the Enterprise zips in and out near much smaller objects without ill effect. Don’t forget the famous “Picard Manuever” involved warping point-blank in front of another ship, yet the other ships were never devastated by warp effects. It’s just not self-consistent, even if was accepted in the old Trek universe.
Clearly, any ship that has the power to easily accelerate out of the gravity well of stars much more massive than our sun EASILY has the power to hover in the relatively insignificant gravity of Earth. There’s just no comparison between Earth gravity and the kinds of gravitational forces the Enterprise or any starship experiences in outer space.
Maybe the explanation of no planetary entry was good enough in the TOS when budgetary and technical reasons prevented them from ever showing Enterprise fly through the atmosphere, but in the context of a universe where warp drives, artificial gravity, inertial dampers (to prevent people from being squashed into jelly when a star ship accelerates instantly to warp), and antimatter power sources, a starship not being able to fly through the atmosphere is just plain silly. Damaging warp effects is clearly a concocted reason since warp drives damage neither nearby shuttlecraft, starships, star bases, asteroids, Jupiter size planets, Dyson spheres, or stars.
Only Earth-size planets? All I’m saying is, come on, it just doesn’t make any sense.
@ vitaboy
I concede your point! It is very inconstant! Plus the trailer we’ve all been watching shows the Enterprise going to warp about a mile or so from some large space station, that happens to be in orbit. So they have to change (or drop) the whole too dangerous to warp near a planet, star, ship, etc. thing.
In the TOS episode “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” the Enterprise hobbles back into orbit under impulse power only. Perhaps that’s the plan
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!