First Trek Film Footage Unveiled 320
Ostracus writes "Lost creator JJ Abrams has unveiled footage from his Star Trek prequel at a press event in London.
The clips featured US actor Chris Pine as the young Captain Kirk, Heroes star Zachary Quinto as Mr Spock and Simon Pegg as Enterprise engineer Scotty.
The audience also saw Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as the older Mr Spock in one of four excerpts from the film.
In his introduction, Abrams said he wanted the film to be released in May 2009, to feel 'legitimate and real.'
Speaking at London's Vue West End cinema on Tuesday morning, the film-maker admitted he had 'never really been a huge Star Trek fan.'" Note that the article doesn't actually contain the footage, just brief descriptions of it. The video clip included is just the old trailer that we saw many moons ago. But that won't stop me from lusting.
Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Informative)
The REAL trailer is coming out in another five days. (Per startrekmovie.com [startrekmovie.com] where you can watch the previous trailer in HD.) Perhaps it would have been better to wait before proclaiming it? Or at least give useful information on the release date of the footage?
The real news at the moment is that a photo of the new Enterprise [ew.com] was released yesterday. I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy.
The new bridge was also revealed [slashfilm.com] about a month ago. Many refer to it as the "iBridge" because of its resemblance to Apple hardware. Personally, I'm mostly happy with the bridge design. It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.
I just wish they hadn't made a parody out of the old girl. :-(
Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Or at least give useful information [...]
You must be new here.
Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:4, Funny)
I looked at the picture of the Enterprise, the curves remind me of a 50's car. Less concern for functionality than for looking stylish.
It is not like those curves are for aerodynamics!
Aerodynamic space ships (Score:2)
I looked at the picture of the Enterprise, the curves remind me of a 50's car. Less concern for functionality than for looking stylish.
It is not like those curves are for aerodynamics!
What, you never read "Lensman"?
Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Funny)
The original Enterprise was so un-aerodynamic that you could even hear it whooshing by in space. So let's withhold judgment until we know whether or not the new ship whooshes.
Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Funny)
*whoosh*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:4, Informative)
In the Star Trek universe, the Deflector Dish on the front of the ship projects force fields to sweep larger particles and objects away from the ship. (Think of it like a space-age cow-pusher.) The Bussard collectors then use their own fields to pull in the Stellar Hydrogen for fuel. On top of that, the Enterprise is actually traveling at a small fraction of c. The warp field magnifies the distance traveled by warping space. The end result is that particles colliding with the ship would hit with a force more in line with when the ship is under impulse power.
Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Per the Next Gen Tech Manual, the antimatter is stored in large, magnetic bottle slush-tanks in the secondary hull. The Enterprise D is designed for refueling every 3 years. Some antimatter can be created out of stellar hydrogen with special equipment installed near the slush-tanks.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.
Hurrh? I still see no seatbelts... you'd think at the speeds they were going they'd be using crash seats and stuff...
:D
Expect the obligatory staggering about like drunken louts and bad camera shaking after the oblig hits to the Enterprise in ship-to-ship battles!
Re: (Score:2)
@seatbelts:
They apparently now have handrails [ew.com] to keep from falling.
Re: (Score:2)
What about fuses or circuit breakers or other circuit-protection devices? You know, something that'll keep panels from exploding in a shower of sparks whenever the ship takes a hit? Sure it won't
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Informative)
False.
I have designed multiple weapons systems for the Navy and Army, and they DO have circuit breakers, because we don't want a 440 volt surge going through a 3.3 volt Pentium, now do we? No. That would be bad. It would mean you couldn't fire your missiles or point-defense systems because its CPU is now a small circle of molten plastic.
We want the weapons to be as immune to electrical surges, shock, and vibration as possible. Even after the USS Cole was "mined" by local terrorists, our VLS System still had the ability to counterattack.
Many things you cannot change... changed. (Score:3, Insightful)
The real news at the moment is that a photo of the new Enterprise [ew.com] was released yesterday. I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy.
From TFA:
"If you're going to do Star Trek, there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people."
And so, naturally, they changed it. :D
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)
"I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy."
Younger fans that don't give a crap about the franchise will love the new iLook, in all probability. But those of us that have been fans all our lives aren't going to like this very much. Most of us are, frankly, sick of the retconning in the cannon. We fought for years to get Rick Berman kicked out of the franchise for precisely this kind of garbage. "Canon? Fuck that! If we can eke out another Nielson's point or two, lets do yet another time travel story and totally screw the franchise history up! It'll be Die Hard on a Starship!"
You'd expect some minor touchups to take advantage of current technology, but this is a complete retooling of the classic series, a reboot. Real longtime fans would probably be happier with Jim Cawley's New Voyages/Phase II [startreknewvoyages.com]. How ironic that an Elvis impersonator has more love and respect for the series than the current movie's creative team does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just make an entirely new show then? Call it "Space Journey". There's no need to ruin the current history (or make Scotty gay).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Original Series bridge looked like something strait out of the 70's, not sci-fi at all. It was just a bunch of shiny buttons that you have no clue what the purpose was.
In the Next Generation the computers actually looked like computers that could function with the user knowing what they were doing. There is actually a LCARS Standards Development Board (however the site Wikipedia links to is off line). Heck, there is a trending and monitoring program we use at my work that has a LCARS style interface.
Per
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>The Original Series bridge looked like something strait out of the 70's...
That's amazing considering it was made in 1965. Huh. Maybe Gene had a time travel device that let him peak into the disco era and copy it. /end sarcasm. THIS new movie ship will look like it was made somewhere around... 2010. And it will look very aged come 2020 or 2030.
How bad could it be. . ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought, "Oh please. How can they screw it up. It's the Enterprise."
Aieee! That thing stinks of Hollywood's idea of cool; non-creative execs trying to cash in on the latest trend rather than allowing the real creative team to follow its natural instincts. That design has subtle alien qualities about it which spook me. And in any other film, that'd be fine. Sure. Whatever. But we already KNOW what the Enterprise looks like. That's why people want to watch it.
Abrams is a first-rate ass. "Lost" is
Re:Scotty is gay? - My geek quotient overflows... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Scotty fall in love in "The Lights of Zetar" to Lieutenant Mira Romaine.
Then of course there's "Wolf in the Fold" in which Scotty tries to pick up a dancer and she ends up dying and Scotty has her blood on his hands.
myke
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true! Scotty liked the ladies, he was just more focused on a long-term commitment.
Abrahms Star Trek I think will be as different from the original series, as was Battlestar Galactica Reboot to its original 1978-79 series. They are taking continuity and throwing it out the window, which means everything we've seen between 1966 and 2001 (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY inclusively) will be shitcanned.
'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (Score:4, Insightful)
Good. The series has become a tired ass glorified fan flick from insiders.
Fresh blood and a new outlook sounds good to me.
Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (Score:4, Insightful)
>> 'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.'
I may be mistaken, but I think I've heard a similar line from Rick Berman.
> The series has become a tired ass glorified fan flick from insiders.
On the contrary. Star Trek I to VI were at least glorified fan flicks from insiders, from then on they tried to appeal to a more general public: Now they even lost that bit of appeal.
On that note: Guess, who was responsible for those films.
> Fresh blood and a new outlook sounds good to me.
That is something I can perfectly agree on.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, he fucking proved that in spades. Especially with the help of Brannon Braga, whose Trek output was of a quality that, to this day, my circle of friends gladly use his surname to refer to the act of human solid elimination. (Unless it's a three-parter, in which case it is a 'Lucas').
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonetheless, if you ignore the whole "temporal war" crap, Enterprise was OK. I liked the ship and the crew. Looked very reasonable for the era. Now, they did take liberties with the Klingons and Romulans. Neither were supposed to be warp capable as of yet. (non-cannon sources on Klingons along wi
Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do so many Trek personel (Score:3, Interesting)
make a point of saying "was never really a fan of the original show"? Maybe they really never saw it, but arent' they taking the fans for granted then? They don't know how important it is for us "TO NOT SCREW IT UP"?
I understand a reboot of the series is sometimes necessary to make it fit contemporary audiences. But for every BSG, there are a hundred ruined series that chose to do something so out of character of the canon that it appeals to neither fans nor new audiences.
just the standard disclaimer (Score:2)
Just like any MMORPG franchise that claims they aren't trying to be or beat World of Warcraft.
In other words, get in and apologize before it hits the fan then point back to the statement and date as somehow providing you cover.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm personally expected Star Trek: The Phantom Menace.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm personally expected Star Trek: The Phantom Menace.
If Nemesis is any indication it won't be nearly that "good" :(
I agree but with one exception (Score:2)
I don't think reboots of classic series are needed.
It stifles creativity. People need to come up with new things like Babylon 5 and Firefly.
If the current "reboot" fad was the mentality in the sixties, we wouldn't have Star Trek at all, we would have Buck Rogers reboot (wait, we had that in the seventies... and it was NOT the quality of Star Trek).
Reboots are about selling product, not creating art.
Zachary Quinto (Score:3, Insightful)
If they do this right, there could be three, four, five, or six more movies to be made.
If they do this right.
Re:Zachary Quinto (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they wanted to start another Trek franchise as a prequel to the originals that they could go 5 or 6 movies with without bumping into the stuff that's already been made, they should have based it on Star Trek: Enterprise.
I know that ST: Enterprise is almost Voyager-like in that a lot of people want to just forget it ever happened, but I thought it had a great deal of potential. Having movies based on it would be great. I thought the series really captured the naivete and hopefulness of a crew exploring
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's not. As a vulcan, he ages much slower than humans, so, he would look about the same as when he was at the enterprise, considering that he was at the academy at the same time as Kirk which, for starters, I find weird.
Ridiculous post (Score:2)
I hold this up there with the articles about images that don't even show the images. A WASTE OF TIME!
Re: (Score:2)
JJ Abrams (Score:3, Funny)
Re:JJ Abrams (Score:4, Funny)
Personally, I can't wait to see Spock point his index finger at someone slice their head open.
Inner Fanboy vs. Inner Normal Person (Score:2)
The new Enterprise looks neat, but the fanboy in me wishes the change to the secondary hull hadn't been so pronounced, because the part of my brain that can explain away the differences ("Obviously, they did another refit between when this was shot and when Pike was captain, yeah, that's it!") would have trouble understanding why the entire shape of that secondary hull is so different.
But then again, I don't want to be one of those sad Battlestar Galactica fans who still hate the new series because they DAR
Re: (Score:2)
but the fanboy in me wishes the change to the secondary hull hadn't been so pronounced
The fanboy in me wishes that they had stopped at "All Good Things...", and that Voyager and Enterprise had never happened.
Oh well. It can't possibly suck as much as the new Babylon 5 offering [wikipedia.org] did.... Who would have thought that JMS would stomp all over his universe for a cheap vomit joke.
Continuity problems already (Score:4, Insightful)
McCoy isn't the original ship's surgeon on the Enterprise. I guess nobody who worked on the film ever saw The Cage [wikipedia.org].
And as others have mentioned in comments to previous stories here, Chekov wasn't on the Enterprise until later on well after Kirk took command. He really doesn't fit into this movie.
And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"
Re: (Score:2)
And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF?
Yeah, they've never done something like that [memory-alpha.org] before.
Re:Continuity "problems" (Score:3, Informative)
McCoy isn't the original ship's surgeon on the Enterprise. I guess nobody who worked on the film ever saw The Cage [wikipedia.org].
They're not following canon at all, they're re-booting the series.
The canonization of the 20 year history of the Enterprise before Kirk took command was mainly just a way to recycle the pilot episode that used a different cast and FX model. I wouldn't say it's necessarily the best thing for the story to keep that around in a reboot.
Re:Continuity "problems" (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that the official line [trekmovie.com] is that they are NOT rebooting the series. Which is rather two-faced when you think about it. On one hand you're telling the fans that you're not rebooting the series (at a time when fans are probably most receptive to a reboot) then you go and reboot it anyway.
With PR management like that, is it any wonder that fans are upset?
Re:Continuity problems already (Score:5, Funny)
> And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF?
I know! And I heard that the guy who's playing Spock isn't even a real alien!
What makes you think they give a rip? (Score:2)
What makes you think they care about continuity? As much as JJ Abrams is hyped to be a great sci-fi writer, it's obvious he didn't know and didn't care about the history of the series. And in Star Trek, the history of the series... the canon, if you will, is very, very important to Trek fans.
I think this movie will appeal to teenagers who don't know and don't care about Star Trek. But it's looking like it'll absolutely horrify the rest of us with it's typical Hollywoodish "who gives a fuck about the detail
Re: (Score:2)
And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"
Picard was an English Frenchman. They're just continuing the storyline...
Re:Continuity problems already (Score:5, Informative)
And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"
No kidding. It'd be as silly as an Irish Canadian [wikipedia.org] playing a Scotsman, an Englishman [wikipedia.org] playing a Frenchman, an American [wikipedia.org] playing a Russian. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that they are trying to reboot the series like BSG did right? I mean starbuck wasn't a chick originally in that series either. They are setting out to change the cannon of the franchise a little bit and frankly I think it needs it. There hasn't been a really good ship and crew story since TNG (voyager was good but it was different than the ship and crew in starfleet).
So yeah they can pretty much do what ever they want, McCoy wasn't on the ship when the TOS started kirk wasn't in the pilot eith
Re: (Score:2)
I am less OK with the new-old Enterprise. WHY? Seriously, all you're doing is begging the real fans to hate your movie. But I am excited about Zachary Quinto and Simon
J.J Abrams cares very little for canon (Score:4, Interesting)
After his panel at the New York Times' 6th Annual Arts & Leisure Weekend, EW sat down with Mission: Impossible III helmer and Lost creator J.J. Abrams to get an inside look at his new enterprise: a Star Trek movie. While it isn't clear when we can expect to see the film, which will be the 11th in the series, he confirmed a draft of the script is done, and it will be trimmed sometime soon.
So what, exactly, will be the plot? Early reports (like this one in Variety) said that it will focus on the young, post-Starfleet Academy days of James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, but Abrams wouldn't specify. Still, he assured us it's a story that even non-Trekkers can enjoy. ''On the one hand, for people who love Star Trek, the fix that they will get will be really satisfying,'' he says. ''For people who've never seen it or know it vaguely, I think they will enjoy it equally, because the movie does not require you to know anything about Star Trek. I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind.''
Re: (Score:2)
take a chill pill.
Don't read these unless you want the storyline (Score:3, Informative)
http://denofgeek.com/movies/144620/star_trek_four_full_scenes_and_new_trailer_reviewed.html [denofgeek.com] http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=313 [empireonline.com]
Anybody else wish .... (Score:2)
Maybe with the casts of TNG and DS9 ??
I wouldn't be surprised if there were many other trekkies who love the newer stuff, but don't give a damn about the old material ...
*raises hand*
Its interesting because in the Slashdot poll of Which Trek is Best [slashdot.org], the original series actually lost to DS9. If Slashdot isn't a place to guage this sorta thing ... you couldn't do it anywhere else.
Soaring Heights (Score:3, Funny)
This really brings "News for Nerds" to a whole new level....
construction of the enterprise (Score:5, Interesting)
I liked how the original trailer looked like a Rammstein video, iron workers constructing the ship by hand on a planetbound spacedock.
Strangely enough, our modern warships are essentially built by hand because the volumes aren't large enough to warrant assembly lines with robots. The ships are built in large assemblies that are joined together, huge machines moving the parts but humans inspecting every piece as they go together. But trying to model the construction of a futuristic starship after a modern-day navy vessel is about as silly as modeling space combat tactics after WWII....ok, yeah, they do it but it's still silly! Though I did dearly love the depth-charging scene from the Wing Commander movie, especially the part about the crew having to remain silent so the Kilrathi couldn't hear them, presumably on space sonar. :)
But aside from the issue of how the pieces would be put together on a starship, there's the question of where it would be built. Trek has always had a thing for spacedocks in space. I remember asking my dad questions when we were watching Trek and was amazed when he told me the ship could never land. It blew my mind to think of a ship built in space, always in space, never landing.
Anyway, I wonder just how awful this movie will end up being. Is it considered an even or odd-numbered film?
Re:construction of the enterprise (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Anyway, I wonder just how awful this movie will end up being. Is it considered an even or odd-numbered film?
First Contact was the last even-numbered film.
I hope that Star Trek learned from Star Wars (Score:2)
in that they make the Prequels better than the Original films.
Otherwise it will become another Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and mess up some of the continuity in the original films and TV series, and have a plot that does not make sense, and acting that was not as good as the originals as they are using new actors and actresses that hardly anyone heard of before and have not yet fully learned the art of acting.
At least make the Prequel better than the Star Wreck [starwreck.com] parody. I am sorry to say but Even Stark tre [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"and acting that was not as good as the originals as they are using new actors and actresses that hardly anyone heard of before and have not yet fully learned the art of acting."
I was going to write a snarky comment about how little experience the original series actors had before Star Trek but blimey if all of the main characters (Nimoy, Shatner, Kelley, and Doohan) all had a significant number of roles under their belts by then. But then I checked the new and old actors' profiles on the IMDB. Chris Pine
The Problem For Me is The Story (Score:3, Insightful)
Good entertainment has always been about the story, but I believe Star Trek also has to be futuristic in a high-minded sort of way.
As a lifetime fan (been watching since NBC carried ToS), I am interested in seeing some of the intrigue pan out.
Specifically:
What about the Crystalline Entity? Other members of this species. Where is it now?
Speaking of species, how about Species 8472?
What ever happened to Wesley and the traveller? Where are they now?
Data/Lore? Dare I mention the Borg?
Q? I sure have missed John de Lancie.
What about Warp 10 and Tom Paris' ground-breaking work there?
What about the time-traveling Federation that gave 'The Doctor' his portable holo-emitter? I sure would like to see THAT Federation!!
The point is that there is so much fodder for a good story - something that could easily by filled in for newcomers, that I don't understand why all this is being ignored (example: Nemesis and this new one which I don't think I even want to see).
What I've seen since 'First Contact' has been just plain depressing.
Vortran out
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I know I am risking my geek card here, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not his geek card, but definitely his PATRIOT CARD.
Re:Cast is too young. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know the average age of people in the US military, right?
Our aircraft carriers and subs are all run by kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cast is too young. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, and Kirk was also well into his 30s, as was just about everyone else on the ship except maybe Chekov, in the original series.
I think the GP makes a good point in that you would expect a starship to be commanded by people at least in their 30s. Sure, the grunts on board can be kids, but the people on the bridge ought to look as if they've been in Starfleet for more than 5 minutes.
Re:Cast is too young. (Score:4, Informative)
I seem to recall from somewhere that Kirk was the youngest starship (by which I think they meant large capital ship) captain in Starfleet, at 34. I'm not sure this is canon.
At one point on screen, Kirk asked Chekhov's age and was told '22, sir'.
Re:Cast is too young. (Score:5, Informative)
Which is perfectly reasonable for someone with a rank of Ensign in a military structured like the US navy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Our aircraft carriers and subs are all run by kids.
Umm, I think you mean manned by kids. There aren't a whole lot of O-5s and O-6s in their 20s in the US military......
Re:Cast is too young. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know the average age of people in the US military, right?
Our aircraft carriers and subs are all run by kids.
The ratings and junior officers may all look like kids but the senior officers, certainly the captain and CAG, they're going to be older.
And as far as setting goes, it all depends on the type of setting they're trying to convey. If the Enterprise is a brand new ship going out into the unknown and is a seriously important mission, they're going to ask for a captain whose been around the block. If they're in the middle of a war and are running short on experienced officers and the enterprise is portrayed as the equivalent of a destroyer, it's believable to have a very junior-grade officer as skipper. And if the Enterprise is a cushy flagship in peacetime, it would be just as believable to have a politically-connected captain in charge, a good old boy who might know very little about spacefaring and is relying heavily on his XO to keep the ship from running into the first asteroid they come across.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the Commanding Officers. I too was put off by how young Kirk looks - it turns out Chris Pine is 28, but he looks 22 in the photos. You can check out the COs of US carriers and subs online - they tend to be in their upper 30s or in their 40s (graduated or received commissions in early to mid 1980s).
Re: (Score:2)
methinks trek is set in a future where the USA is not even in existence.
Re:Cast is too young. (Score:4, Insightful)
And the space shuttles?
Not really relevant -- the astronaut system in the US is a very specialized thing these days. There's a minimum of people getting to do it and a huge pool of people wanting to. That'll always skew towards older people.
Starfleet would be much more like the military in that regard. Its reasonable to assume that like any military force, ages will skew downwards.
Too young? (Score:2)
Look back a hundred years and more and tell me how old you had to be to something dangerous, to lead, or raise a family. Look back to the recent Veteran's day and tell me that some of them were to young to be thrust in a world war.
Do we know how old the people in the show are supposed to be? Do we know if in the future that older people will look a lot younger simply because of better medical care or environments?
Do not apply visual cues to determine true age. It doesn't work anymore. Not with advances
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, something set after TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Oh and the ship doesnt have to be called Enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but look how poorly Voyager did... Granted, I loved watching all the episodes after it was canceled, but when it was originally aired, it wasn't ST. The Defiant was a ship I was more interested in.
They've run into a problem of power (Score:5, Insightful)
The constant push of limits on the supposed speed of the craft, capabilities of the ships, and expanded population of the available area took away too many plot devices.
In the original series, they were kind of out there on their own without help available. By the time the big war with the Borg came around in TNG, they got to the point where anything that was a threat could wipe them out entirely, and anything else was easily dealt with.
Both DS9 and Voyager were attempts to revive the sense of frontier self reliance. DS9 was more of a city, and a sort of 'futuristic cop show' was the original goal. Voyager was to be an attempt to get back to the spirit of the original series.
Going forward you have a more urban setting with the known region pretty much all settled and all the borders drawn.
Going backward just gives you more room to work in.
Re:They've run into a problem of power (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd sooner have them take Riker's new ship out and get back to doing Real Exploring.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why do Star Trek producers keep going backward in time?
Great question, pity it was posed by an AC -- I'd love to see a good discussion about this. I've heard theories about how we as a generation are not forward-looking (or starry eyed optimists) like the folks in the 60s or even the 90s. This may be true -- we have religious fundies of various stripes and a bad-ass economy to worry about.
But my private theory is that the Trek universe simply ran out of room for exciting new storylines, making people c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the idea Gene Rodenberry had that ended up being used (after he died) for Andromeda.
The original story idea (before it morphed into what it was), was someone in a far flung future of the Start Trek universe where things have all gone to heck in a hand-basket.
This was combined with another idea he had of someone waking up after 500 years in suspended animation and exploring their new universe, and then the universe was switched to something that wasn't Star Trek since it was an independent enterpris
Re: (Score:2)
It was supposed to be out then, but they thought they'd make more money with a summer release (per EW iirc) and they also wanted time to have Abrams and others out there talking about why it is a mainstream movie and not just more of the same (per EW iirc too - was reading it at the dr's office this morning). In other words they wanted more time to have them out and about talking about its optimistic vision of the future vs things like Batman etc in order to attract a wide audience that includes more than
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this movie was supposed to come out this Christmas season. Now I see on the Star Trek movie website 'Summer 09'. Am I imagining things?
The word is that they decided this picture was worthy of a summer release. The release date did change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the Enterprise insignia eventually became the Starfleet insignia, and this is well documented in many of the reference books that came out... circa TNG, I believe. You'll notice that by the time of TNG, everybody was wearing the same insignia -- there were no separate emblems for different ships in the fleet. As for the films, the Reliant and Enterprise crews had the same insignia in Star Trek II, so we can extrapolate about the approximate time when this transition happened inside the Trek univ