Author Topic: Star Trek (2009)  (Read 4137 times)

Offline stumpy

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3100
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2008, 06:24:54 AM »
Saw the trailer Friday at Quantum of Solace (which had like six or seven trailers, including a new one (to me) for The Spirit). Star Trek looks pretty cool in terms of actors, flair, and special effects. I am hoping the story measures up.

Offline BWPS

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 541
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2008, 09:53:36 AM »
Quote from: YouTube comment
Star Trek gets 21th centery nice :D
I'm excited.

Offline Uncle Yuan

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2008, 04:21:43 PM »
Looks *bleeping* awesome!

Looks like a *bleeping* hyper-frenetic mess!

Offline Midnite

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 580
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2008, 04:45:31 PM »
Official trailer is out.

Linky

Offline Talavar

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1421
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2008, 05:22:14 PM »
Yeah, I'm intrigued, but that trailer definitely had ADD.  Bones needs to prescribe some ritalin.

Offline GogglesPizanno

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1105
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2008, 05:58:15 PM »
Try as I might, this film is doing nothing at all for me (maybe if they had shown more Simon Pegg or John Cho).
But then unlike most people, JJ Abrams has yet to do anything that holds my attention for more than 5 minutes...

Offline bearded

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1717
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2008, 07:30:38 PM »
whatever happened to the startrek fan film that had many of the original cast in it?

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4318
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2008, 11:47:45 PM »
It was successfully released months ago.

http://www.startrekofgodsandmen.com/

Offline the_ultimate_evil

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 5463
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2008, 06:46:29 PM »
can someone explain to me where this film fits in. i've followed nothing about it apart from a few rumours and now the trailer


i'll admit i don't know what to think, i was never a fan of the original series and grew up watching TNG so i prefer it. but i really get the feeling much like the crap that was enterprise this is just adding conflicts to the continuity. maybe i'm wrong again like i said i don't know the plot or the standing in the series

Offline GogglesPizanno

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1105
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2008, 07:59:04 PM »
From what I heard (and Im not a big follower of the series) its sort of a reboot but not. Its basically being Smallville for Star Trek... only its sorta tied to the regular continuity cause Leonard Nimoy has a small role as old spock and some kind of Time travel thing.. I dont know.

Its gonna be a train wreck of sorts i think.

Offline Uncle Yuan

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2008, 08:02:45 PM »
My understanding is that this movie explores the history of the crew of TAS and their first experiences with one another prior to serving on the Enterprise under Kirk (i.e TAS).  So not a reboot at all, but rather a "prequel."  I believe it focuses on the story of the "core three" (Kirk, Spock, McCoy) and a fair amount of time is spent and their childhood and academy days.

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4318
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2008, 12:11:49 AM »
It looks far more like a reboot than a prequel to me.  Just the trailer alone seems to contradict the original series in so many ways it isn't even funny.

Offline Talavar

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1421
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2008, 12:42:43 AM »
I'm fairly certain it's a reboot, but a reboot with an in-story explanation - ie. time travel. 

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4318
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2008, 12:55:29 AM »
Quote
I'm fairly certain it's a reboot, but a reboot with an in-story explanation - ie. time travel. 

So an alternate timeline created by old Spock?  Actually does have some potential.  We'll see then.  I still think showing Enterprise being built on the ground is ridiculous, as any large ship is much easier to build in orbit (and it's obviously not designed to ever be on the ground anyway.)

Offline House Quake

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1847
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2008, 02:39:35 AM »
It looks far more like a reboot than a prequel to me.  Just the trailer alone seems to contradict the original series in so many ways it isn't even funny.
It most certainly looks like a reboot.

And if so... IMO that would be a definite plus and give me a reason to be excited to see it.  One of the reasons I never got into Enterprise was because it was a prequel.  It inevitably couldn't keep away from contradicting events from Star Trek TOS and later shows... but mostly TOS.

The preview looks good.   I hope the movie mixes in a lot of energy as well as character development.

the only prblem I have... is that I have to wait six months to see it :(

Offline Uncle Yuan

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2008, 07:26:32 AM »
As I was saying, my understanding is that it is a reboot . . .

Offline thalaw2

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1932
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2008, 07:48:38 AM »
I hope it's a reboot.  Star Trek suffered too much pain during the Enterprise run.  Are the "intergalactic cheerleader" outfits in this movie?    If it turns out that it's not a reboot then they need to explain that and Pike's reasons for not being used to women on the Bridge.

Offline Dr.Volt

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 671
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2008, 09:46:25 AM »
Quote
I'm fairly certain it's a reboot, but a reboot with an in-story explanation - ie. time travel. 

So an alternate timeline created by old Spock?  Actually does have some potential.  We'll see then.  I still think showing Enterprise being built on the ground is ridiculous, as any large ship is much easier to build in orbit (and it's obviously not designed to ever be on the ground anyway.)

Exactly!  Given the plethora of time travel stories within even Trek canon...I have no problem with an alt time line...therefore alt story.  You mess with the time stream and you are bound to get changes!!  Iow, it's not like this hasn't been done before!  And to try to adhere strictly to conventions of TOS is a little silly given changes in special fx, budget allowances (iow, the original series was done on a shoe string budget), cultural more's etc.

WOW!!!  I finally just watched it and...imho...it looks phenomenal!!!!  I just wish that we didn't have to wait till May to see it!  Then again, it's worth it to get a great movie.   love how Abrams et.al. are remaining true to Trek TOS and yet incorporates new stuff.  s.  The Enterprise looks awesome!!  Retro yet incorporating new stuff!  Love how the "USS Kelvin" (great name btw) has just one nacelle that is straight vertical from the main body of the ship.  It reminds me alot of the destroyer class Federation ships that were in the old Star Fleet Battles game that I used to play in high school.  Lol!  And the uniforms!  Outstanding!  Well, thanks for the headsup!

 

Btw, what does TAS stand for?  TAS=The Animated Series???

Offline Podmark

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 5100
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2008, 12:43:23 PM »
I looked around and it seems there's definitely some use of time travel. Shatner wanted in on the movie, but because his character was dead they kept him out apparently.

I'm thinking that it's an incontiniuty reboot.

Offline House Quake

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1847
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2008, 03:28:42 PM »


Btw, what does TAS stand for?  TAS=The Animated Series???


I think he meant TOS... The Original Series.  Though there was a TAS as well... which in some regards had a more interesting crew.

Offline bearded

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1717
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2008, 04:01:41 PM »
from the wiki:
Quote
Orci said creating a reboot would be disrespectful to those who maintained a strong continuity in the franchise in the past.[59] One example of a concept which seemingly contradicts Star Trek canon but came from the precedent set in the novels was having the Enterprise built on Earth, rather than space. Orci said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4318
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #51 on: November 20, 2008, 12:03:38 AM »
The problem with that, of course, is that NG established that the Federation uses orbital shipyards.  The shape of the Enterprise, and other Federation ships, would make it difficult, if not impossible, to assemble on the ground.  Orci obviously does not understand much about engineering.

Offline Uncle Yuan

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #52 on: November 20, 2008, 10:39:17 PM »
Or physics - the gravitational stresses on the ship while resting on a planet would actually be completely different than those of deck oriented artificial gravity.

I mean, if there were such a thing as artificial gravity . . .

Offline Gremlin

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3255
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2008, 03:22:28 PM »
Well, artificial gravity used creatively could hypothetically eliminate the stress and strain a planet would put on the ship. If you applied some anti-gravity force along the whole ship, it wouldn't be so heavy as to fall apart.

Agree with Cat, though. It's not aerodynamic enough to take off. The saucer part is, we've seen that, but those engines. Plus, it's OBSCENELY dangerous to be handling tons and tons of antimatter on a planetary surface. Constructing warp engines on Earth is a Very Bad Idea.

Offline Midnite

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 580
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2008, 04:54:19 PM »

Offline bearded

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1717
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2008, 05:45:24 PM »
the impression i'm getting from the story, or probably just wishful thinking on my part, is that star trek's technology, due to time travel incidents, has generated the more futuristic reality we live in.  we have cel phones that are more advanced than the original series because they actually influenced us and created us as the alternate timeline.

Offline GogglesPizanno

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1105
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2008, 06:03:30 PM »
All my previous opinions about the film became null and void once I learned Winona Ryder was playing Spock's mom and Tyler Perry has a cameo. This is going to be a train wreck of epic proportions.

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4318
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2008, 12:04:16 AM »
As for building it on the ground or in space, it's just plain easier to build something like that out of gravity.  Far from objects made this way being flimsy and delicate, it's actually far easier to make heavy, solid objects in space.

Again, that guy isn't too bright when it comes to basic engineering and physics.

Offline BWPS

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 541
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2008, 02:06:51 AM »
It'll still make way more sense than Return of the Jedi.
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's two debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4318
Re: Star Trek (2009)
« Reply #59 on: November 22, 2008, 02:10:15 AM »
Quote
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.

Except most people I know don't take that particular expression that literally.  My guess would be that Han doesn't either.